Extending 0-Search and 0-Merge Hypothesis to the Linearization of Syntactic Objects and its Biolinguistic Implication

The 0-Search and 0-Merge hypothesis proposed by Kato et al. (2016) and Fukui et al. (2017) attempts to reduce the operations outside the narrow syntax by further reducing Merge into a set of primitive operations. This is only possible if operations such as Agreement, Binding, Chain Formation, and Labeling are expressed as set-theoretic relations. With this premise, we argue that M 0 °S 0 hypothesis can be extended to the linearization of syntactic objects (SOs). In particular, we propose that (i) linear order of two SOs when expressed as a set-theoretic relation, {{α}, {α, β}}, can be captured by M 0 °S 0 , (ii) Minimality condition on M 0 °S 0 (WS) and Structural Prominence can stand in place of Asymmetric C-command Condition adopted by Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom, (iii) M0°S0 only linearizes SOs inside a Current in line with the Multiple Spell-Out model of Uriagereka (2001, 2012), and (iv) this extension of the M 0 °S 0 (WS) hypothesis to include linearization has an implication on Chomsky’s theory of evolution of language i.e., linear order may have been a result of exaptation of Internal Merge to another domain—speech.


INTRODUCTION
Since the conception of the Minimalist program, Merge has been thought of as the only elementary operation in the narrow syntax, and it cannot be further broken down into more primitive operations (Berwick, 2011).This assumption, however, was challenged by Kato et al. (2016) and Fukui et al. (2017) on the basis that Merge alone cannot fully account for other relation-forming operations outside the narrow syntax including Agreement, Binding, Chain formation, and Labeling which were earlier unified under the operation Search (Kato et al., 2017) Kato et al. (2016) and Fukui et al. (2017) argued that Merge and Search seem to involve the same two basic operations.They pointed out that aside from combining two syntactic objects (SOs), Merge also has to look for and select these SOs from the Lexicon.On the other hand, Search involves combining two SOs to establish the relation between them.They propose

Abstract
The 0-Search and 0-Merge hypothesis proposed by Kato et al. (2016) and Fukui et al. (2017) attempts to reduce the operations outside the narrow syntax by further reducing Merge into a set of primitive operations.This is only possible if operations such as Agreement, Binding, Chain Formation, and Labeling are expressed as set-theoretic relations.With this premise, we argue that M0°S0 hypothesis can be extended to the linearization of syntactic objects (SOs).In particular, we propose that (i) linear order of two SOs when expressed as a settheoretic relation, {{α}, {α, β}}, can be captured by M0°S0, (ii) Minimality condition on M0°S0 (WS) and Structural Prominence can stand in place of Asymmetric C-command Condition adopted by Kayne's (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom, (iii) M0°S0 only linearizes SOs inside a Current in line with the Multiple Spell-Out model of Uriagereka (2001, 2012), and(iv) this extension of the M0°S0 (WS) hypothesis to include linearization has an implication on Chomsky's theory of evolution of language i.e., linear order may have been a result of exaptation of Internal Merge to another domain-speech.
the idea that Merge and Search are both accomplished by two operations that search SOs and combine them to form a set.They called these two operations, 0-Search and 0-Merge.0-Search is responsible for picking out SOs from the lexicon and the previously derived SOs unified under Workspace, and 0-Merge is the operation responsible for combining them to form an unordered set.0-Search and 0-Merge or M0○S0 basically unify Merge and other relationforming operations under Search.Excluded from this unification, however, was Linearization, another relation-forming operation interpreted outside the narrow syntax as per Chomsky's (1995) interpretation of the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA).If operations such as Agreement, Binding, Chain formation, and Labeling under Search can be unified with External and Internal Merge by reducing Merge to two more primitive operations, why is linearization not included in this unification?In this paper, I offer a proposal that extends M0○S0 to linearization.Specifically, I argue that the mathematical definition of an ordered set {{α}, {α, β}}, which states that α precedes β, is formed by 0-Search and 0-Merge or M0°S0.I will show that 0-Search is responsible for picking out an element α from the unordered set of {α, β}, where α ϵ Σ and Σ= {α, β}.0-Merge then forms a set from {α} and Σ= {α, β} to produce {{α}, {α, β}}.This set is then transferred to the sensorimotor interface and interpreted as there is a precedence relation between α and β.In addition, I adopt Relative Minimality Condition and Structural Prominence as constraints that determine the target SOs of S0 replacing the Asymmetric C-command Condition used in the LCA.I also attempt to integrate this hypothesis in Uriagereka's (2001Uriagereka's ( , 2012) ) Multiple Spell-Out models by limiting the application of M0○S0 to current (previously termed as Command Unit), a unit assembled by the continuous application of Merge (Weinberg, 2001).This results in the version of 0-Search and 0-Merge for linearization defined as, M0○S0 (WS)= {{α}, {α, β}} where WS is equivalent to a current.Lastly, I discuss the biolinguistic implication of the present proposal.

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Merge
In 1995, Chomsky proposed to reduce the complexity of X-bar theory to a basic operation Merge.This operation takes two objects and combines them into a single syntactic object (SO).This operation leaves these two objects unordered.It takes the basic form of (1): (1) Merge (Berwick & Chomsky, 2016 p. 10) Merge (X, Y) = {X, Y} The merge operation reduces phrase structure into a single operation and takes syntactic derivation as a bottom-up process.This particular combinatorial operation also derives many properties of X-bar theory e.g., Agree, Labeling, and other relation-forming grammatical operations.Additionally, Merge can also account for movement or displacement which, according to Chomsky (2004), is an instance of Internal Merge (IM).Internal Merge is different from the Merge defined in (1), which is known as External Merge (EM) because it takes two SOs in which the first SO is a member of the second SO.Internal Merge can be defined as: (2) Merge {α, Σ} where α ϵ Σ The derivation proceeds as follows: combine meet and Anna via EM in (3b)-both lexical items (LIs) are taken directly from the numeration in (3a) -to form an unordered set in (3c).This set is then combined with John in (3d) to form {John, Σ} where Σ is a previously constructed SO.
The derivation continues as I is combined with {John {meet {meet, Anna}} to form (3f).
Because I has an External Projection Principle feature or EPP feature and nominal case, the derivation requires the closest NP to move to the Spec, IP.This is accomplished via IM.I selects John from Σ where Σ= I {I {John {meet {meet, Anna}}, and copies it at the Spec, IP, and merge it with Σ.The lower copy of John is deleted at the Sensorimotor Interface.This process is shown in (4).

b. {John {I {I{John {meet{meet, Anna}
The main difference between EM and IM is that EM takes one or both LIs from the Numeration.
External Merge may also take a previously constructed SO as one of its inputs.IM, on the other hand, takes an element out of a previously syntactic object Σ, and merges it with Σ itself.This conception of IM, which requires a Copy-Delete mechanism is known as Copy theory of movement.Chomsky (1995Chomsky ( , 2004) ) was able to eliminate both phrase structure rules and transformation from Generative Grammar and replaced them with a single operation Merge.Many argue that syntax only needs Merge since adding further operations runs counter to the spirit of Minimalism.However, Merge was not enough to explain grammatical relations that are interpreted at the Conceptual-Intentional (CI) and Sensorimotor interfaces (SM).These other relations are analyzed by different operations in syntax e.g.Feature Checking for Agreement.

Search
Having separate operations for grammatical relations at the Conceptual-Intentional (CI) or SEM and Sensorimotor interfaces (SM) or PHON can be deemed as problematic to Minimalism if its main goal is to reduce the complexity of the grammatical system.A solution to this problem suggested by Kato et al. (2014) as cited in Kato et al. (2016) and Fukui et al. (2017) was to reduce them into one operation.They noted that these operations share one common property that can be the basis for unification.This property is the "identity searching" operation.Feature Checking, for instance, can be considered as searching for matching features between a Probe and its Goal in the Probe-Goal model of feature checking of Chomsky (2000Chomsky ( , 2001)).Binding and Chain-formation may be regarded in this term as well.Binding can be described as the relation established between the antecedent and reflexive having the same reference.The antecedent may initiate a Search-for-similar-reference operation within its domain.Similarly, Chain formation may also be described as Search-for-Copy operation.This cluster of relation-forming operations can be unified under one operation known as Search which is defined by Fukui et al. (2017): (5) Search (Fukui et al., 2017, p. 76) Let α be an element which initiates Search and β be the c-commanding domain of α.
Then Search is an operation which searches through β for a feature or complex of features identical to the one contained in α and establishes a relation between those features.
Fukui et al. believed that this definition of Search is a generalized application of the Probe-Goal system that Chomsky (2000Chomsky ( , 2001) ) had elaborated.Search perfectly captures Agreement, Binding, Chain-formation and even Labeling.

0-Search and 0-Merge Hypothesis
After the other relation-forming operations at the periphery of narrow syntax had been unified under Search, the syntax has now two primitive operations, namely, Search and Merge.
However, Kato et al. and Fukui et al. proposed a further reduction of these two principles.They (6) Definition of 0-Search and 0-Merge (adopted from Fukui et al., 2017, p. 129) a. 0-Search (S0): 0-Search is an operation such that it picks out n elements contained in a given domain as an input to 0-Merge.
b. 0-Merge (M0): 0-Merge is an operation such that given n objects, it forms a set of these objects.
In this definition, 0-Search is an operation that selects lexical items or non-lexical items from the workspace which is defined as the union of the Lexicon and the previously constructed Syntactic Objects (SO) in the derivations, WS= (Σ1,…,Σn) ∪ Lexicon= { Σ1,…,Σn, LI1,…LIm}.
0-Search takes the entire workspace as its input, S0(WS).0-Merge, on the other hand, forms an unordered set out of the syntactic objects selected by 0-Search, (α1,…αn)= { α1,…αn}.0-Merge takes S0 (WS) as its input making this operation a composition of two primitive operations, M0(S0 (WS)) or M0°S0 (WS).In addition to reducing Merge, M0°S0 (WS) attempts to capture Agree, Binding, Labeling, and Chain formation.This is only possible if those operations are expressed as set-theoretic relations to be interpreted by either Conceptual-Intensional or Sensorimotor interface as "there is a relation between X and Y".
To illustrate first how Merge can be recast as M0°S0 (WS) operation, take for example the workspace that contains the lexical items the, paper thus WS= the, paper.0-Search applies on this WS producing S0(WS)= (the, paper).After this, 0-Merge applies to produce the unordered set M0(the, paper) = {the, paper}.External Merge may also combine a lexical item from the lexicon, and a previously constructed syntactic object Σ, M0°S0 (WS)= {LI, Σ}.This can be captured due to the definition of workspace as a union of the lexicon and the domain of the previously constructed syntactic objects Σs.Take for example the verb phrase {read {the, paper}}.This SO is formed when 0-Search selects read from the numeration, and the previously constructed SO, {the, paper}.0-Merge then applies to form {read {the, paper}}.M0°S0 can also apply to two Σs, M0°S0 (WS)= {Σ, Σ}.This operation is shown when {read {the, paper}} is merged with a complex DP which has been constructed by EM as well e.g., {the, lady}.The resulting derivation will then be M0°S0 (WS)= {{the, lady}, {read {the, paper}}}.In terms of movement or Internal Merge, 0-Search picks out an element that is a member of a previously constructed SO Σ and the SO Σ itself.These two SOs are then 0-Merged.This process is encapsulated in M0°S0 (WS)= {α, Σ} (where a copy of α is contained in Σ).Search is a generalized probe-goal mechanism that underlies operations outside the narrow syntax.So, in order for the M0°S0 to account for these operations, Search needs to be reduced into 0-Search and 0-Merge.
(8) IP To illustrate this, take for example the instance Agreement.In Agreement, specifically subjectverb agreement, the phi-features of I must initiate Search to find a matching feature below it.
The tree in (8) shows this.In M0°S0 (WS) terms, features of operations to a set of primitive operations,0-Search and 0-Merge, had practically unified operations at the narrow and broad syntax.Their hypothesis can be further extended to another operation that has been considered outside the narrow syntax (Chomsky, 1995;Chomsky & Berwick, 2016).

2.4.Linear Order
One of the first and most prominent attempts to capture the linear order of syntactic objects within the generative framework is the theory of Antisymmetry and the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) of Kayne (1994).The antisymmetry and the LCA relate hierarchical structure to linear order by stipulating that asymmetric c-command directly mirrors precedence.The LCA is given in ( 13).
(13) d(A) is a linear ordering of T where: d is the non-terminal to terminal relation.
A is a set of ordered pairs of non-terminals such as that the first asymmetrically ccommands the second.
where asymmetric c-command is defined as: A asymmetric c-commands B if and only if A c-commands B and B does not c-command A.
T is the given phrase marker.
The LCA states that asymmetric relations among non-terminals directly translates to the precedence of terminals via dominance relation.To be more concrete, take a look at how terminals x, y, and z can be ordered based on the phrase marker illustrated below.given phrase marker, no terminals can precede each other.The LCA must also achieve totality by which all terminals must linearized relative to one another.
The LCA was able to capture the basic structure of X-bar schema and explained many of its properties including the structures it does not allow.One of these structures is the double head construction shown in ( 15).
(15) Z X Y x y In diagram ( 15), neither non-terminals asymmetrically c-command the other so no possible linear order can be established between the terminals.In X-bar theoretic terms, no head can be combined with another head.Another structure that LCA prohibits is the combination of two complex phrases such as the one illustrated in ( 16). ( Diagram (16) shows that X asymmetrically c-commands W producing the ordered pair <X, W>.This ordered pair gives the order of terminals <x, y> via d.This structure, however, does not respect the property asymmetry, R(y, x)→~ R(x, y), since Y also asymmetrically ccommands Q that produces <Y, Q> ordered pair which linearizes their respective terminals into <y, x>.Diagram ( 16) contains both ordered pairs <x, y> and <y, x> which violates asymmetry.Kayne claims that these types of structures are not allowed by X-bar schema due to their failure to be linearized giving conceptual grounds to his theory.Kayne claimed that LCA applies at all levels of syntax barring points of symmetry throughout the derivation including at the level of D-structure.Chomsky (1994), on the other hand, relegated LCA as an operation in the Phonetic-Articulatory interface or PF since terminals only need to be linearized when they are spoken or externalized.Chametzy (1999) echoed this argument when he said that, "linearization is the consequence of the physics of speech".These claims render linear order or externalization as an operation outside the narrow syntax.Uriagereka (2001Uriagereka ( , 2012)), meanwhile, pointed an ad hoc theoretical device that both Kayne (1994) and Chomsky (1995) employed in order to circumvent the LCA's inability to linearize Spec.and Head-Complement structure.He integrated the LCA in his Multiple Spell-Out model as the Linearization Mechanism that applies to command units (later termed as current).
In summary, Kato et al. (2016) and Fukui et al. (2017) have shown that M0°S0 hypothesis can account for the operations outside the narrow syntax if these operations are assumed to be set-theoretic relations.Their hypothesis, however, did not include the externalization of syntactic objects which is considered peripheral to the narrow syntax in the minimalist program.

METHODOLOGY
This paper employs analytic and armchair method.The analytic method is defined by Chametzky (1999) as, "concerned with investigating the (phenomenon) domain in question.It In (17a), 0-Search picks out two SOs, the α expressed as a unit set {α}, and Σ which is the previously constructed syntactic object {α, β}.(17b) combines these two SOs, {{α}, Σ} the output of which is the set-theoretic expression of linear order of two elements, {{α}, {α, β}}.This ordered set is transferred and interpreted in SM as, there is a precedence relation between α and β.Linearization shares a common property with Internal Merge, Labeling, and Chain formation in that it takes two SOs in which the first SO α is copied from the second SO Σ.The derivation in (20) shows the linearization of the verb Bumili relative to the constituent ang tao ng basi.The linearization of the latter is put aside for brevity but it can be assumed that the linearization for this constituent is also accomplished via (17) as well.The derivation in (20) shows that S0 picks out the verb Bumili from Σ= {Bumili {ang tao ng basi}} and Σ itself resulting in (20b).These two syntactic objects, {Bumili} and {Bumili {ang tao ng basi}}, are then 0-Merged in (20c).This ordered set is interpreted at the Sensorimotor interface as there is a precedence relation between Bumili and ang tao ng basi.

Asymmetric C-command and Minimality Condition
The proposal above has left some questions that need be addressed.One of these is how S0 pick out its target contained in Σ.For this question, I will adopt the Minimality Condition as defined by Kato et al. (2016) and Fukui et al. (2017).Kato et al. and Fukui et al. claimed  where Structural Prominence is defined as (taken from Kato et al.,2016, p. 38): Suppose that Depth (α)= m (m≥0) is the order of depth-the inverse of the relation of prominence-associated with the SO α, with the lower prominence indicated by a a higher value of depth.Then, we can say: a. Depth (α)=0 if there is no SO β such as α  β (i.e., α is the root SO dominated by no other SO).
b.If Depth (α)= m, then Depth (β)= m+1 for any β such as that β  α (i.e., β is the daughter of α. The Minimality Condition on M0°S0 states that in order for R relation to be established between α and β, {α, β} must meet formal restrictions on R and that there is no γ such as that γ is more prominent than β.For linearization, a formal restriction can be expressed in ( 22). ( 22) Precedence <α, β> may count as an instance of Precedence only if α does not dominate β.
In (20), the selection of Bumili by S0 meets the Minimality condition as shown in ( 23).(24) IP=0 DP=1 IP=1 An ad hoc solution to this problem in LCA terms was adopted by Kayne (1994) and Chomsky (1995).They resorted to a more complicated definition of c-command based on the segment/category distinction.Uragiereka (2001Uragiereka ( , 2012)), however, pointed out the seemingly ad hoc nature of segment/category distinction.He has argued that beyond purpose of allowing for the linearization of complex branching phrases e.g., specifier and head-complement, this distinction has no independent basis.Uragiereka (2001,2012) put forward an alternative solution embodied in his Multiple Spell-Out model (MSO).The central claim of the MSO model is that Spell-Out, the process of mapping or transferring from syntactic representation to PF, applies multiple times and by chunks.This architectural feature provides a solution to the problem of linearizing the specifier and head-complement without recourse to segment/category distinction.The MSO can easily be integrated into M0°S0 (WS) hypothesis.
The key feature of Uriagereka's (2001) solution is to limit the application of LCA to a structure known as Command Unit (or Current in Uriagereka (2012)) in ( 25).
(25) Command Units or Current (Uriagereka, 2001, p (30) also shows that the Specifier is assembled in another derivational cascade.It is assembled by merging the and lady as illustrated in (30f).This set meets the criterion of being a current.
The lexical items in these currents are linearized separately by the linearization mechanism which, in Uriagereka (2001Uriagereka ( , 2012)), is the LCA.By applying the LCA in separate currents, the problem of asymmetric c-command relation between these currents does not arise.
Linearizing the elements of each current separately does not allow any interaction among these elements outside their current.How then are these elements linearized in relation to one another?Uriagereka (2001Uriagereka ( , 2012) ) offers two solutions; the conservative and the radical one.
The conservative solution proposes that once a current is spelled out it becomes a "giant lexical compound or a frozen idiom" (p.89).This lexical compound can only enter into another derivation as a word with its tree structure gone.The structure-less unit is barred from entering relations that are predicated on its hierarchical structure making c-command relation impossible.The linear order of the elements in different currents is only possible via Induction in (32).
(32) Induction (Uriagereka, 2012 p. 85) If a non-terminal X dominates a terminal y, and X is linearized with regard to terminal z, then y is linearized with regard to z.
Induction ensures that precedence relation among the elements of two different currents can be established through the precedence relations of their mothers.Induction is also used to avoid the Untangling Condition of Partee et al. (1993).The radical solution, on the other hand, proposes that spelt out currents do not even merge with each other, and that the final process of interphrasal association is accomplished in the performative component (Uriagereka, 2001).
In both solutions, elements of different currents do not interact with one another and are only linearized based on precedence relation of their mothers.Uriagereka's (2001Uriagereka's ( , 2012) ) solution to the problem of linearizing the Specifier to the head-complement structure can be adopted by the linearization algorithm proposed in this paper in a simple fashion.According to Uriagereka's (2001Uriagereka's ( , 2012)), when a phrase marker reaches an FS limit it is spelled out that is, the linearization mechanism applies to the phrase marker.In Uriagereka's works, the linearization mechanism adopted was the LCA.In the current proposal, this is replaced by M0°S0.Take for example the Tagalog sentence in (33)  When elements inside each current have been spelled out, they are not allowed to interact with one another thus the problem of symmetric c-command between the specifier and headcomplement does not arise.The kind of derivation shown above is compatible with Uriagereka's (2001Uriagereka's ( , 2012) ) conservative and the radical solutions.

BIOLINGUISTIC IMPLICATION
In addition to filling in the theoretical gap, when linearization of syntactic objects is recast in 0-Search and 0-Merge hypothesis terms, it resembles the operation Internal Merge (IM) at the narrow syntax; both operations pick out and merge two syntactic objects in which the first object is an element of the second object.This core property suggests that both operations can be reduced to one i.e., linearization being the application of Internal Merge at the interface level.This is an attractive hypothesis especially to Chomsky's biolinguistic program.Chomsky's thesis is that the "core property of language is its use in creating and formulating thought" contrary to the "modern view that language evolved as an instrument for communication" (Chomsky in Taylor & Krikorian, 2015).His thesis centers on the idea that language originally emerged for thought, and was later recruited via exaptation to other domains.In 2006, Chomsky alluded to one domain to which such a process of exaptation may have occurred-arithmetic: "Suppose that a language has the simplest possible lexicon: just one LI, call it "one".Application of Merge to the LI yields {one}, call it two.Application of Merge to {one} yields {one, {one}}, call it "three."And so on.In effect, Merge applied in this manner yields the successor function.It is straightforward to define addition in terms of Merge (X, Y), and in familiar ways, the rest of arithmetic […].It may, then, have been a side product of some other evolved

Extending 0 -
Search and 0-Merge Hypothesis to the Linearization of Syntactic Objects and itsBiolinguistic Implication asked whether this reduction could pave the way for the unification of Search and Merge.To this end, they put forward the 0-Search and 0-Merge hypotheses.This hypothesis rests on the idea that two same primitive operations underlie Search and Merge or in other words, Search and Merge are composite of two primitive operations.They called these two operations, 0-Search and 0-Merge or M0°S0 (WS).
initiates 0-Search which selects DP at the Specifier of VP. 0-Merge then applies to form {[ɸ] (of I), ([ɸ] (of DP)}.This set is then transferred to SM and interpreted as, there is ɸ-agreement relation between [ɸ] of I and [ɸ] of DP.Example of Anaphor-binding (adopted fromFukui et al., 2017, p.  132) (9) a. John criticized himself.b. [John [VP criticized himself c.S0= John, himself Extending 0-Search and 0-Merge Hypothesis to the Linearization of Syntactic Objects and its Biolinguistic Implication d.M0= {John, himself} Binding and Chain formation can also be reformulated in this way.Binding involves the matching of the references between the anaphor and its antecedent.In (9a), John has the same reference as the anaphor himself in VP.Thus, a relation can be established between them.(9c) shows that 0-Search picks out John and himself then these two elements are formed into an unordered set by 0-Merge in (9d).This set is then transferred to CI and interpreted as there is a binding relation between John and himself.(10) a.What did John buy? b. [John, [VPbuy what]] c.M0°S0 (WS)= {what (at the Spec of CP, what (at the Comp of VP)} Chain formation follows the same operations.Take for example the structures in (10).Once the Internal Merge applies, moving what to the Specifier position of CP, it and its copy would be selected by 0-Search, and then 0-Merge forms {what (at the Spec of CP), what (at the Comp of VP)} as shown in (10c).This is then interpreted at both CI and SM as there is a Chain relation between what (at the Spec. of CP) and what (at the Comp of VP).It can be assumed that at SM, one of the what's is deleted.Kato et al. (2016) and Fukui et al.'s (2017) also claimed that M0°S0 (WS) can capture labelling by adopting (11): Labelling (adopted from Kato et al., 2016, p. 33) (11) M0°S0 (Σ)= {Σ, λ} They exemplified the labelling of SO {love, himself}.love, and Σ= {love, himself} are selected by 0-Search and then 0-Merged to form a set.This is shown in (12).(12)M0°S0 ({love, himself}) = {{love, himself}, love} This is interpreted as, "love" is the label of the relevant constituent.Kato et al. and Fukui et al.'s further reduction of Merge and other relation-forming 14), YP asymmetrically c-commands X, ZP and Z' thus LCA would produce a set of ordered pairs <YP, X>, <YP, ZP>, <YP, Z'>.And since these pairs are mapped into linear order of terminal string via d, the terminal string would be ordered <y,x>, <y,z>.y precedes x and z.To compute the order of x relative to z, the LCA would produce the set <X, Z'> since X asymmetrically c-commands Z'.This will produce the ordered pair <x,z> for terminals x and z.This last ordered pair achieves transitivity of relation that LCA conforms to, R (y, x) & R (x, z)→ R(y, z).LCA is also asymmetric in such as R (y, x)→~ R (x, y) which means that in a Extending 0-Search and 0-Merge Hypothesis to the Linearization of Syntactic Objects and its Biolinguistic Implication International Journal of Language and Literary Studies 58 deploys and tests concepts and architecture developed in theoretical work, allowing for both understanding of the domain and sharpening of the concepts."(p.xviii).This paper synthesizes 0-Search and 0-Merge Hypothesis, the LCA, and the Multiple Spell-Out Model to reconceptualize linearization as Search-Merge based operation which further unifies the operations outside narrow syntax.Examples sentences used to illustrate how linearization can be recast as M0°S0 are from Tagalog and English languages.English sentences were contrived examples while the Tagalog sentences were adopted from Ceña & Nolasco (2011).4. DISCUSSION Kato et al. (2016) and Fukui et al. (2017) left a research gap in their proposal when they did not address how the linearization of syntactic objects can be recast in M0°S0 terms.Just like Agree, Binding, Labeling, and Chain formation, linearization or externalization is an operation at the broad syntax (Berwick & Chomsky, 2016 cf.Kayne 2013), and thus should be captured by M0°S0 as well.To this end, we propose (17): Linear Order (17) a. S0= {α}, Σ where Σ= {α, β} b.M0({α}, Σ) = {{α}, Σ} c. M0°S0 ({α, β}) ={{α}, {α, β}} or <α, β> Extending 0-Search and 0-Merge Hypothesis to the Linearization of Syntactic Objects and its Biolinguistic Implication
-buy ABS person ERG wine (20) a. S0= {Bumili}, {Bumili, {ang tao ng basi}} b.M0= {{Bumili}, {Bumili, {ang tao ng basi}}} c.M0°S0=({{Bumili}, {Bumili, {ang tao ng basi}}} in (23) clearly shows that the Infl that houses bili+um= bumili is the most prominent SO in the tree and that neither Infl nor VP dominates the other, which meets the formal restriction in (22).The (asymmetric) c-command condition for linear order adopted by the LCA can be considered as the natural consequence of minimality condition similar to what Kato et al. (2016) and Fukui et al. (2017) suggest for Binding.4.2.Linearizing beyond Head-Complement Structure M0°S0 (WS) hypothesis for linearization, just like the LCA, faces the problem of how to linearize the specifier to the head-complement.The problem stems from the fact that asymmetric c-command cannot be established between these two components.Although M0°S0 (WS) hypothesis for linearization indirectly relies on this syntactic relation through the minimality condition, it does not do away with the problem.In a typical sentence structure for instance, both the specifier DP and the lower IP have equal Depth as shown in (24) based on (21).

Search and 0-Merge Hypothesis to the Linearization of Syntactic Objects and its Biolinguistic Implication International Journal of Language and Literary Studies 64
Uriagereka (2012)ven byUriagereka (2012), he identifies (28a) as a single current but not (29a).isassembledby first merging the and paper in (30d).This SO is then merged with the verb reads in (30c) resulting in (30b).(30b) is a current because it is assembled by continuous application of Merge and its branches do not symmetrically bifurcate as shown (31a).The linearization mechanism then applies to linearize the lexical items contained in this current.
adopted fromCeña and Nolasco (2011, p. 51).The current-based derivation is shown in (34).The derivation in (34) shows that the sentence in (33) is composed of two currents.The one in (34a) is formed by merging the lexical items (LIs) inom and ng basi while (34d) is formed by merging the determiner ang and the noun sundalo.The phrase markers representing these two currents are shown in (35).