Some (not all) nonsententials are only a phase

This paper explores the derivation of nonsententials within Minimalist phase-based derivational models of syntax. The analysis of nonsententials proposed here capitalizes on the previously unexplored possibility that has emerged within these models: namely, that nonsententials are phases. A particular phasal architecture [Epstein, S.D., Groat, E., Kawashima, R., Kitahara, H., 1998. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford; Epstein, S.D., Seely, T.D., 1999. SPEC-ifying the GF “Subject”: Eliminating A-chains and the EPP within a Derivational Model. Manuscript. University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, MI; Epstein, S.D., Seely, T.D., 2002. Rule applications as cycles in a level-free syntax. In: Epstein, S.D., Seely, T.D. (Eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Blackwell, Oxford; Epstein, S.D., Seely, T.D., 2006. Derivations in Minimalism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge], wherein Spell Out is triggered by each transformational rule application, makes unique predictions with respect to the derivation of nonsententials, which are explored here in detail. However, aspects of the proposed analysis may be further generalizable to other phasal architectures. Within this model, I show that if a convergent XP (either sentential or nonsentential) can be generated from a particular Numeration, no further operations are required to apply. By appealing to independently motivated phasal architectures, I am able to provide an analysis of nonsententials without positing construction-specific stipulations uniquely concerning nonsententials.