5 Narita and Fukui (2012, 2014) alternatively propose the notion of “feature
prominence” in (i), which defi nes the order of prominence inductively “from
bottom-up,” in contrast to the “top-down” induction in (18b).
(i) Feature prominence:
Suppose that Prom(F)(α) = n (n ≥ 0) is the order of prominence associated with
a feature F with respect to an SO α, with, let us say, lower prominence indicated
by higher number, 0 being the highest order of prominence. Then, we can say:
a. Prom(F)(H) = 0, if F is a feature of an LI H.
b. If Prom(F)(α) = n, then Prom(F)({α, β}) = n + 1 for any SO β.
(i) serves just as well for the purposes of this chapter as the notion of structural
prominence in (18), though the latter may have somewhat broader applications;
see Kato et al. (2016).
6 We maintain that the EIC also plays an important role in the determination of
featural (a)symmetry. Recall that featural symmetry is defi ned relative to the pres-
ence of some formal feature F in {α, β}, thus {nP, T’} in (19) counts as φ-symmetric
thanks to the presence of [φ], but not as, say, Q-symmetric or Q-asymmetric
given the lack of [Q] in the SO. However, one may still wonder whether the
same holds if the subject nP contains Q-features that are more deeply embedded:
for example, [the question of what John bought yesterday] or [the boy who John met
last week]. Obviously, the desirable result is that these occurrences of [Q] within
those embedded clauses are irrelevant to the featural (a)symmetry defi ned for nPs
containing them. We argue that this desideratum can be achieved once we allow
[Q] and other features in these lower domains (probably demarcated by notions
like “phase”; see Chomsky 2000 et seq., Narita 2014) to become invisible due
to the EIC, after forming an equilibrium on their own. More generally, we main-
tain that the calculation of F-(a)symmetry also counts as “F-related computation”
in the defi nition of the EIC (26).
7 Narita and Fukui (2012, 2014) point out that the interplay of the DSC and the
EIC can provide a full-fl edged account of A-movement in terms of φ-(a)symmetry,
thereby nullifying the recourse to the technical concept of Case-checking. They
argue that the notion of abstract Case can be thereby eliminated altogether from
the theory of syntax.
References
Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral
Dissertation, MIT.
Boeckx, Cedric, and Sandra Stjepanović. 2001. Heading toward PF. Linguistic
Inquiry 32:345–355.
Cable, Seth. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English trans-
formational grammar, ed. Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 184–221.
Waltham, MA: Ginn.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays
on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels,
and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26 Hiroki Narita and Naoki Fukui