Some Interface Properties of the Phase

2000, 2001); and to use this evidence to investigate the extensional definition of a phase. Chomsky (2000) states that CP is a phase, whereas TP is not, and (transitive) vP is a phase, whereas passive and unaccusative verb phrases (VP) are not. 1 I argue here that unaccusative and passive VPs are phases as well. Before turning to the arguments for phases, let us consider how they are used in Chomsky’s system. 2 A phase is a self-contained subsection of the derivation, beginning with a numeration and ending with Spell-Out. At the point of Spell-Out, the complement of the phase-defining head phase is sent to each of the PF and LF components for interpretation. Thus, after construction of the vP phase, VP undergoes Spell-Out. This results in the Phase-Impenetrability Condition, defined in Chomsky 1998 as follows: “In phase α with head H, the domain of H is not accessible to operations outside α, but only H and its edge, ” where the edge includes any specifiers of H and any adjuncts to H. This condition has for effect that any elements in the complement of v that need to undergo movement outside of the phase (e.g. an object wh-phrase) must move to the phase edge before Spell-Out. Support for this notion of a phase may thus be obtained through evidence for 1 intermediate traces of moved elements at the phase edge. In the first section of this squib, I consider three diagnostics for such traces, and demonstrate that they equally support passive and unaccusative VPs as phases. In the second section, I identify a test for phases at PF, and demonstrate that this diagnostic also supports the phasehood of passive and unaccusative VPs.