MIT Working Papers in Linguistics #1 Papers on Syllable Structure, Metrical Structure and Hannony Processes(1979) #2 Issues in Japanese Syntax (1980) #3 Papers on the Grammar of Semitic Languages(1981)
#4 Papers in Fonnal Syntactic Theory(1982)
#5 Papers in Grammatical Theory(1983)
#6 Papers in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics(1985) #7 Papers in Morphology( l984) #8 Papers in Theoretical Linguistics(l986) #9 The 25 th Anniversary of MIT Linguistics(1987) #10 Functional Heads and Clause Structure(1989) # II Papers from the First Student Conference in Linguistics. MIT(1989) # 12 Papers from the Second Student Conference in # 13 Papers on wh-Movement(1990)
Linguistics. MIT (1990)
#14 Papers from the Third Student Conference in Linguistics, MIT(1991) # 15 More Papers on wh-Movement(1991)
#16 Papers from the Fourth Student Conference in Linguistics, Ohio State University (1992) #17 Proceedings of the Kwa Comparative Syntax Workshop. MIT(1992) #18 Papers on Case and Agreement I (1993) #19 Papers on Case and Agreement 11(1993) #20 Papers from the 5th Student Conference in Linguistics. University of Washington(1993) #21
Papers on Phonology and Morphology(1994)
#22 The Morphology Syntax Connection(1994)
#23 Papers from the 6th Student Conference in Linguistics. University of Rochester(1994) #24 Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics: Papers from the May 1994 MIT Conference(1994) #25 The Interpretive Tract(May 1998) #26 Papers on Language Processing and Acquisition(1995)
#27 Papers on Minimalist Syntax(1995)
#28 Papers on Language Endangerment and the Maintenance of Linguistic Diversity(1996) #29 Fo nnal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics: Proceedings of FAJL 2 (1996)
#30 PF: Papers at the Interface(1997) #31 Proceedings of the Eighth Student Conference in Linguistics(1997) #32 Papers from the UPennlMIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect(May 1998)
#33 Papers on Morphology and Syntax. Cycle One #34 Papers on Morphology and Syntax. Cycle Two
#35 Papers from the UPennIMIT Round Table on the Lexicon #36 SCIL 9 Proceedings(200 1)
#37 SCIL 10 Proceedings(2001) #38 SCIL 12 Proceedings(2001) #39 A Few from Building E39 (2001) #40 Proceedings of the HUMIT2000 (200
I)
#41 Proceedings of FAJL 3(2002) #42 Phonological Answers (and Their Corresponding Questions)(2002) #43 Proceedings of HUMIT 2001 (2002) #44 Proceedings of AFLA VIII(2002) #45 SCIL 11 Proceedings(2003)
#46 WAFL
1 Proceedings #47 Romance Op. 47: Collected Papers on Romance Syntax #48 Plato's problem: problems in language acquisition
Perspectives on Phases
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 49
Edited by
Martha McGinnis and Norvin Richards
February 2005
MITWPL MITWPL is an organization of the graduate students in linguistics at MIT. Department of Linguistics, 32-DS08 MIT 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139
[email protected] http://web.mitedulmitwpl/
NOTICE: The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics is, as its name implies, work in progress. As such, the papers contained herein do not represent final versions of the work and all authors welcome comments. Inclusion in a volume of MITWPL should not preclude publication elsewhere. All rights remain with the authors.
Contents
Preface ............................................................................................... .............. vii Phase Theory account of absolutive extraction in Tagalog Edith A ldridge ................................................................................... Word-level phases: Evidence from Hebrew Maya Arad . . . . .. ............................ ............. ............................. 29 .... . ..... .
.
Split-DPs, generalized EPP and visibility Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu
..
.. ......... ..................... ...... ........ ..... 49
The phase structure of tense Jonny Butler ............................... ......... ........................................ 69 ... . ..
A phase-geometric approach to multiple marking systems Andrew Carnie .... . . .... ....... ....... ..... .................................... ....... 87 ........ .
.
QR in the Theory of Phases Carlo Cecchetto .. . . .. . .. . ... ....... ..... ................. ................... ....... 103 .. ...
.
. .
...
.
Phases and autonomous features: A case of mixed agreement in European Portuguese JOQO Costa and Sandra Pereira ..... . . . . ............... ........ ......... ..... 1 1 5 . .. ....
.
.
.
Towards a phase-based theory of sentential stress Arsalan Kahnemuyipour . .. .. . .... . .. . . ... ..... . .. ... ....... . ........
..... .
125
.......................................................................................
147
.
. ..
.
. .
. .
.
..
.
. ..
Phases and cyclic agreement Julie Legate Going through a phase Ora Matushansky .
.....
.. .. .. ... . ... .
.
.. .
. .
.
. ... .......... . ....... ...
UTAH at Merge:Evidence from multiple applicatives Martha McGinnis . . . . . .. . . . . .. ..... ..
On theEPP Shigeru Miyagawa
. ...... . . ..
..
.....
.. .
.
..
.. . . .
On phases and cyclicity Juvenal Ndayiragije
....... . .............. . .. .... . .
.
Asymmetries in Prosodic Domain Formation Michael Wagner . . .. . . . ..
. .
. . ..
. ...........
.
. 1 57 .
.
......... .
.......
...
.. . . .
183
..
.
.
....... .. ... .... .... 237
.
.... . .
. ....... .
.
..
..
.
... . .... .. ...... . ...
.... 265 .
. .. ........... . .. . . 283
. .......... .......... ..
Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study Andrea Rackowsld and Norvin Richards . ... .. ...
.
.. .
.. . . .. . ....................... .
Derivations without the activity condition . . ..... Andrew Nevins ........... .. .... . . .. .
.
..... .. . .... .. ......
...... ........... . . .... . . 201
.
.. . .. . .. ........... ............ ..
Transparent parsing: Phases in sentence processing Iris Mulders .. .. ... ..........
.... .....
.
.
.
.
. ..
........ . ... .
..
. ..
..
. ..
. . .
. ..
. . ......... .. ...
.
.. .
307
. . . ... . ......... .. .. . . . 329
.. ............ ....... . ... . .
.. .
.
.. .
...
This volume is a proceedings of the Workshop on Phases and the EPP. which was held at MIT. January 16-17, 2003.
The editors would like to thank Lea
. Nash and Alec Marantz for their help in organizing the workshop. MIT's O�partment of Linguistics and Philosophy for funding it, and the audience and
presen ters for their contributions to a lively and informative discussion.
The cover shows a sketch by Galileo Galilei moon.
(1564-1642)
of the phases of the
Preface
Recent work in syntactic theory has suggested that the syntactic derivation proceeds in a series of units known as phases. Phases are taken to be units for phonology, semantics, and syntax. Within the domain of syntax, phases are taken to be relevant for movement in several respects: they (partly) determine the range of syntactic objects that can move, and the domains that constrain movement. These ideas have been developed in various ways in recent work. In this volume, we bring together work on a wide range of topics arising out of this research program. The papers in this collection address a number of issues, including; •
• • •
What are the diagnostics for phasehood? Which categories do these diagnostics identify as phases? How do phases constrain movement? What is the role of EPP-driven movement? What is the empirical scope of phase theory?
These questions are raised against the background of existing work on phases, notably that of Chomsky (2000, 2001a, 2001 b). Chomsky proposes that the derivation proceeds incrementally: the operation Spell-Out sends units of structure- phases- to the phonological component as they are completed. Chomsky 2001a raises the possibility that phases are also the points at which material is sent to the semantic component, and refers to the operation that sends material to both interfaces as Transfer. On this approach, we expect to find independent semantic and phonological evidence for domains that play a role in the syntax. Chomsky proposes that the relevant domains are the ones he calls "propositional", namely CP and active transitive vP. As we will see. several of the papers in this volume further investigate the question of how phases are to be defined. As a consequence of Spell-Out. Chomsky suggests, the material sent to the interfaces becomes inaccessible to the syntax. He proposes the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC), which makes a phase inaccessible to operations outside the phase after Spell-Out. Crucially, material at the edge of the phase is exempt from the PIC; the edge consists of any specifiers of the head H of the phase, as well as any adjuncts to HP. For Chomsky (2000), Phase Impenetrability takes effect as soon as the phase has been completed, while Chomsky (2001 b) proposes a looser version of the PIC, according to which it is delayed until the next higher phase is completed. Several of the papers collected here consider evidence bearing on the correct formulation of the PIC along with the relation between the PIC and syntactic locality, and explore the possibility that the PIC subsumes previously posited conditions on movement, such as Shortest Attract. The tight conditions on movement operations imposed by the PIC can be evaded via successive-cyclic movement through the edge of the phase. Chomsky likens such movement to EPP-driven movement to the specifier of TP,
vii
arguing that both movements are motivated by purely syntactic considerations. though they may have intepretive consequences. He proposes that EPP features arc available both on T and on the heads of phases. Once a phrase has been attracted to the edge of a phase, it is exempt from the PIC and may continue to move after the phase has been spelled out. This approach raises a number of questions about the nature of EPP-driven movement, some of which are addressed by papers in this volume. A number of papers in this volume discuss the issue of how phases are to be defined and identified. Julie Legate, for example. draws on her earlier work in which she used existing diagnostics for phasehood to argue that unaccusative and passive vPs are strong phases, and explores the consequences
of this conclusion for the theory of agreement. Other authors aim to sharpen the concept of phase by giving it an explicit semantic characterization. Jonny Butler proposes that phases correspond to domains of existential closure, providing a syntactic representation of situation semantics. Andrew Carnie
develops an account of the complex properties of Case systems in Nez Perce and Dyirbal. based on the hypothesis that each argument is associated with its own phase. Ora Matushansky questions whether a coherent notion of the phase is even possible, arguing that standard diagnostics yield conflicting results in the DP domain. Several of the papers in this volume explore the role of phases and EPP in syntactic movement. One cluster of papers addresses the nature of the Phase Impenetrability C ondition: under what circumstances can the contents of a phase be targeted from outside the phase? Carlo Cecchetto shows that the PIC captures intricate conditions on QR out of non-restructuring infinitives, as long as only the phonological component is fed by mUltiple Spell-out operations.
Juvenal Ndayiragije argues that the PIC should be eliminated in favour of a
general locality condition (Minimal Link Condition I Shortest Attract). Similarly, Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Richards derive the effects of the PIC from Shortest Attract, yielding an account of the conditions on wh extraction in Tagalog. Edith Aldridge provides a different account of Tagalog wh-extraction, arguing that movement to the edge of a vP phase is linked to the
assignment of Absolutive case. Several other papers focus on the nature of EPP driven movement. Shigeru Miyagawa argues that the EPP feature on T works in tandem with agreement in some languages, and with focus in others. Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu propose two distinct types of EPP features to account
for the optionality of pied-piping in combien (de X) 'how many (X)' questions in French. Andrew Nevins uses quantifier scope interactions in a wide range of languages to argue that EPP plays a crucial role in motivating A-movement, and furthermor� that the role of Case in syntactic movement can be reduced to a ban on multiple Case assignment. The remaining papers in this volume focus on empirical extensions of phase theory. Several of these investigate phonological and morphological implications. Maya Arad proposes that the phase is a special domain for morphology
and
idiosyncratic
meaning,
thereby
predicting
systematic
differences between verbs derived from (phasal) nouns and (non-phasaI) bare roots in Hebrew. Michael Wagner argues that syntactic phases coincide with phonological domains for stress assignment, based on an analysis of stress placement in English and German compounds. Arsalan Kahnemuyipour
viii
provides evidence from English and Persian that sentential stress is assigned to the highest element in the domain of a phase, and that differences in the phrasal phonology of SVO and SOY languages arise from differences in their syntaX.
Iris Mulders invokes a similar notion of "highest element" in a quite different domain of inquiry. She proposes a phase-based theory of sentence processing.. in which a constituent can be reanalyzed to a position outside a phase if it originates as the highest and leftmost element inside the phase. Another pair of of papers extends the syntactic applications of phase theory. Joio Costa and Sandra Pereira argue that phases are domains for syntactic agreement Their proposal accounts for the mismatch between auxiliary and participle agreement with the Portuguese expression a gente ' I pi'. Martha McGinnis uses phase-by phase semantic interpretation to account for apparent constituency conflicts. in Kinyarwanda applicatives. These papers represent an exciting range of approaches to a new set: of questions arising out of recent work in the Minimalist Program. They bring together insights from a variety of subfields of linguistics, offering intriguing answers to some existing questions and raising new ones for future research. -Martha McGinnis and Norvin Richards References Chomsky, Noam (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard lAsnik, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 89-155. Chomsky, Noam (200la). Beyond explanatory adequacy.
MIT Occasiorwl
Papers i� Linguistics 20. Cambridge. Mass.: MITWPL.
Chomsky, Noam (200Ib).
Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.),
Ken Hale: a Life in lAnguage. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, p.p.
1-52.
Phase Theory account of absolutive extraction in Tagalog Edith Aldridge Stony Brook University
In Tagalog, and other syntactically ergative languages, only absolutive DPs are able to undergo A'-movement.
This
paper proposes a
mechanism which correlates this restriction with absolutive case-cheeking within the theory of Multiple Spell-Out.
I propose that T checks
absolutivc case only in intransitive clauses like antipassives. while v does so in transitive clauses. v is also able to host an EPP feature only when it checks absolutive casco This ensures that an internal argument can move from VP only in
transitive clauses. i.e. when it has absolutive status. An
oblique object in an antipassive will not be able to move out ofVP, since
intransitive v does not check absolutive case and does not host an EPP feature.
1.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to propose an analysis of the restriction on A' extraction in Tagalog illustrated in (1). As in many Austronesian languages, Tagalog exhibits a correlation between wh-movement and the type of morpbology on the verb. In (la), a theme is extracted and the transitive inf"IX in- appears on the verb. In ( 1b), an external argument has been moved, and the verb is infixed with the intransitive marker -um-. (1c) shows that the internal argument cannot undergo wh-movement when the intransitive infIX -um appears on the verb. -
(1)
a.
Ano
b-in-asa ang what Comp -Tr.Perf-read 'What did Maria read?'
ni Erg
Maria? M
b.
ang b-um-asa Sino who Comp -Intr.Perf-read 'Who read the book?'
ng ObI
book
b-um-asa ang Comp -Intr.Perf-read what 'Wbat did Maria read?'
si Abs
Maria? M
c.
*Ano
libro?
It is frequently assumed by Austronesian linguists (Georgopoulous 1991, Chung 1998, Rackowski 2002, and others) that this correspondence is the
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49, 1-28 n ______ • .:... __ ..... _
nL ____
tr\ "1)11(' C'A•• 1. A'rl�",.. n
Phase theory and absolutive extraction in Tagalog
reflex of an agreement relation in which the verbal morphology indicates the case of the moved DP. (2) -um-in
Case Agreement nominative accusative
This paper takes a different view. I assume an ergative analysis of Tagalog syntax. I exploit the cross-linguistic observation that A' -movement in ergative languages is the privilege of absolutive DPs and propose that the ability of a DP to undergo A'-extraction is correlated with its ability to check absolutive case. As for the relationship between verbal morphology and A' extracted DPs, I propose that -in- and -um- are markers of transitivity and intransitivity, respectively. (3)
-um-
-in
Ergative Analysis intransitive transitive
In transitive clauses in ergative languages, external arguments are marked with ergative case and an internal argument is given absolutive case. In intransitive clauses, including antipassives, it is the highest argument in the clause which checks absolutive case: the external argument in antipassives and the sole argument in simple intransitives. External arguments are able to undergo A'-movement only in antipassives. In transitive clauses, it is the absolutive case-marked internal argument which can be extracted. The issue to be addressed in this paper is how it is guaranteed that the internal argument can move over the external argument precisely in transitive clauses but not in antipassives. The crux of the proposal is that transitive v checks absolutive case with an internal argument and hosts an EPP feature. This EPP feature attracts a VP-internal absolutive DP to the vP phase edge, from where is can undergo further movement to [Spec, CPl. Intransitive v does not have anEPP feature. Therefore, oblique objects in antipassives are be attracted to the vP phase edge and therefore will not be able to move to [Spec, C] without violating the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2000, 2001a, 200tb). In this case, it is only the external argument absolutive, which is merged in the specifier of v, which is eligible to move to [Spec, C]. 2. Absolutive Case-checking Aldridge (2004) proposes an analysis of case-checking in ergative languages in which absolutive case is checked by either v or T. depending on the transitivity of the clause. Unlike accusative languages, in which two structural cases can be checked in a transitive clause, only one structural case is available in ergative languages: absolutive. Ergative case is inherent, assigned to the external argument by v. Which functional head checks absolutive case is detennined by the transitivity of v. Transitive v is merged with the absolutive case feature, just as transitive v in accusative language carries an accusative case feature. However.
2
Edith Aldridge
since only one structural case feature is available in an ergative language, T will not check case in transitive clauses. When v is intransitive, however, it does not carry a case feature, so the absolutive case feature will be merged with T. The rest of this section examines case-checking in different clause types. Tagalog is a VSO language. This word order is derived by moving the verb to T. (4) shows a basic transitive clause. The llninterpretable ahsoilltive case feature is merged on v. This feature probes down into its c-command domain to establish an Agree relation and value the case feature of the closest DP, here the theme. (4)
TP -------
vP
V+v+T
------v' -------
DP[Erg1
VP
tV+v[uCasc:Abs]
-------
t v DP(uCasc:Abs)
In an intransitive clause, v does not carry a case feature. Rather, it is T which checks and values the case feature of the closest DP in its c-command domain. This will be the external argument in an antipassive or unergative clause. (5 )
TP -------
T' -------
V+v+T [uCase:Absl
vP
-------
DP[IICasc:Abs]
VP
In an unaccusative, this will be the internal argument. ] assume with Chomsky (2000, 2001a, 2001b) that unaccusative vP is not a strong phase. Therefore, T and the VP-internal DP can enter into an Agree relation without violating the Phase Impenetrability Condition. (6)
TP
--------
V +V+T[Abs]
vP ------VP
------D P[Abs1 tv
3
Phase theory and absolutive extraction in Tagalog
Tagalog has applicative constructions. These clauses are always transitive, absolutive case being licensed on the applied object. In the following example, the applicative i- licenses a benefactive or instrumental DP as the absolutive.
(7)
Maria ang I-t-in-ali ni Abs M App-Perf-tie Erg 'Maria tied up the box with the tape.'
tape tape
sa Oat
kahon. box
Following Marantz (1993) and Pylkkanen (2002), I propose that the applicative heads a phrase ApplP and selects the applied DP as its argument. ApplP is merged directly below vP. A direct consequence of this is that the applied argument will always be the closest available goal for the probe on v and will always have absolutive status in the clause.
(8)
DP[&g]
v'
.----..-...
V[Abs]
ApplP
.----..-...
Appl'
DP[Abs]
.----..-...
i-
VP
This section has proposed the mechanism for absolutive case-checking, in which this case is checked by either v or T, depending on the transitivity of the . clause. The next section shows how this mechanism relates to the A' extraction facts.
3.
Account of the Extraction Facts
This section discusses how the absolutive case-checking mechanism introduced in the previous section accounts for the asymmetry between internal and external arguments in A' -extraction in Tagalog. As proposed in the previous
section, transitive v is merged with a case feature which values absolutive case on an internal argument. I propose in this section that transitive v also carries an EPP feature, which attracts the closest DP to its outer specifier. It is this EPP feature which allows an internal argument to undergo A' -movement, since only when located in the vP phase edge, can a DP carrying a [wh] feature enter into an Agree realtion with interrogative C and undergo movement to [Spec, C]. (9) shows an example of a basic transitive clause in which the theme wh-word is attracted to [Spec, C).
4
Edith Aldridge
(9)
a.
Ano ang b-in-asa -Tr.Perf-read what Abs What did Maria rea d?
ni Erg
Maria? M
'
b.
CP
� what TP �
V+v+T
vP
� V' twhol � v' lkfaria
�
tv+v(EP
� tv twhat
In an antipassive, v is intransitive. It does not have an absolutive case feature, and therefore also does not have an EPP feature. The result is that an internal argument canno t be attracted to the vP phase edge. The external argument, on the other hand, which is merged in the specifi er of v and therefore located in the vP phase edge in its bas e position, can be attracted to [Spec, C]. (10)
a.
b.
Sino ang b-um-asa who Abs -Intr.Perf-read Who is rea d ing the book?'
libro? book
ng ObI
CP
� TP who ------V+v+T
vP
!who
----V--� ,
t v+v
VP
� book tv
If an i nt erna l argument in an antipassive were to raise directly to [Spec, C], the Phase Impenetrability Condition would be violated accounting for the ungrammaticality of sentences like (11). ,
(11)
a.
an g b-um-asa -Intr.Perf-read what Abs 'What did Maria read?'
*Ano
si Abs
Maria? M
Phase theory and absolutive extraction in Tagalog
b.
*CP
�P
wha
� vP
V+v+T
� v' Maria
� VP
tv+v
�
tv
!what
�
In the case of unaccusatives, where the sole argument of the verb is merged in VP, I follow Chomsky (2000, 2001 a, 200 1 b) in assuming that unaccusative vP is not a strong phase. The internal argument will be able to check case with T and also be attracted by C and undergo wh-movement. (12)
a.
b.
Sino ang Who Abs 'Who arrived?'
d-um-ating? -Intr.Perf-arrive
CP � who TP � vP
V+v+T tv+v
�
P
�
tv !who
The above discussion has focused on interrogative constructions. Transitive v in declarative clauses also carries an EPP feature, meaning that internal argument absolutives must always move out of VP. There is robust evidence that this is the case. Firs� absolutive DPs are always specific. According to Diesing's (1992) Mapping Hypothesis, these DPs would have to . be outside VP at LF in order to escape existential closure. (13)
B-in-iIi ni Maria -Tr.Perf-buy Erg M 'Maria bought the/*a book.'
ang
libro.
Abs
book
Quantifier scope facts also lead to the same conclusion. The following examples indicate that absolutives take scope over other nominals in the clause, indicating that they must be in a higher position at LF than the ergative in (14a) and oblique object i n (14b). Since in the surface word order the absolutive follows the ergative nominal in (14a), this example makes it particularly clear that the absolutive must move in order to take scope over the ergative.
6
Edith Aldridge
(14)
a.
b.
B-in-asa ng [lahat ng Lk all -Tr.Perf.:.read Erg libro] ang [marami-ng book many-Lk Abs 'All the children read many books.' c:> ASS 'many' > ERG 'all'
ang [Iahat Nag-basa all Abs -lntr.Perf-read libro] [marami-ng ng book Obi many-Lk 'All the children read many books.' c:> ABS 'all' > OBL 'many'
bata] ch ild (one set of books) ng Lk
bata] child
(different sets of books)
Semantic properties such as these have long been observed Philippine linguists. Schachter (1976) calls Tagalog absolutives "topics" L_ points out that these nominals are always defmite and referential. Richards (2000) demonstrates that Tagalog absolutives have many of the same characteristics as topics in Icelandic and proposes an analysis in which the absolutive nominal moves obligatorily to an A' topic position. For the pUIposes of this paper, I propose that absolutives in Tagalog obligatorily raise to the vP pbase edge and need not move further in declarative clauses. Empirical evidence that this is the case comes from the fact that quantified absolutives in transitive clauses tend to take scope under negation, indicating that they should be located in a position between Neg and T at LF. (15)
a.
b.
bi-bilh-in ko Hindi l sErg Red.Fut-buy-Tr Neg ang [Iahat ng libro] book Lk all Abs '1 won't buy all the books.' (will buy some, but not all) c:> NEG> ABS 'all'
ng b-in-asa babae Hindi Neg Erg -Tr.Perf-read woman ang [lahat ng libro] Lk all book Abs 'The woman didn't read all the books.' (read some, but not all) r:::> NEG> ABS 'all'
Positing ob ligatory movement of absolutives out of VP also prevents a potential problem for the analysis of A' -movement proposed in this section. Ergative DPs, like oblique DPs, are ineligible for A'-extraction.
(16)
a.
Ano ang b-io-asa what Abs -Tr.Perf-read 'What did Maria read?'
ni Erg
Maria? M
7
Phase theory and absolutive extraction in Tagalog
b.
"'Sino ang
b-in-asa ang who Abs- Tr.Perf-read Abs 'Who read the bookT
libro? book
Obligatory movement of the absolutive DP to the vP phase edge ensures that this nominal is closest to C, blocking attraction of an operator in the position of the external argument. CP
(17)
�P
Crwh
------
V
vP
-----v' book
� v'
wh
�P
V(EP
------
tv
tbook
The issue of linear order must be clarified, however. While wh-words
in
Tagalog appear in clause-initial position, absolutives in declarative clauses
remain in their base positions, following ergative DPs. (I8)
a.
ang b-in-asa Ano Abs -Tr.Perf-read what 'What did Maria read? '
b.
ni Maria B-in-asa -Tr.Perf-read Erg M 'Maria read the book. '
ni Erg
a ng
libro.
Abs
book
Maria? M
Clearly, movement must be overt in the first case and covert in the ' second. Various analyses (Nunes 1999, Pesetsky 2000, and many others) have been proposed recently to ensure proper deletion of either the head or tail of a chain. To account for the difference in (18a) and (I8b), I will tentatively adopt an approach by Richards (2001) which posits that some instances of covert movement can become overt in the case that further movement takes place. I propose that the relationship between v and a VP-intemal absolutive in Tagalog is typically covert, i.e. the head of the chain in the outer specifier of v must delete. However, if further movement takes place, to [Spec, C), movement will become overt, all but the head of the chain deleting. This section has proposed an account of the absolutive restriction on A'-extraction in Tagalog. v carries an EPP feature only in transitive clauses, thereby ensuring that an internal argument can raise out of VP only when it checks absolutive case with a transitive verb. In an intransitive clause, v will not
8
Edith Aldridge
have an EPP feature. Crucially. in an antipassive, only the external argumell will be located in the vP phase edge and can be attracted to [Spec, C].
4.
Cross-linguistic Analysis
Support
for the
Absolutive Case-checkin:
As presented in section 2, this paper proposes that absolutive case is checked b either v or T, depending on the transitivity of the verb. This is a clear departur from traditional approaches to syntactic ergativity like Murasugi (1992), Bittne and Hale (1996), and Ura (2000), under which absolutive case is equated wit nominative. The position taken by this paper is that absolutive DPs do nc necessarily have the properties of subjects. In section 4.1, I present data from a wide variety of ergative languages and demonstrate that, cross-linguistically, absolutives in transitive clauses, which check their case with v, function more like objects than subjects, while external arguments, regardless of whether they have absolutive or ergative case, behave more like subjects. In section 4.2, I discuss the A'-extraction restriction and show that this is also a general characteristic of syntactically ergative languages, again demonstrating the cross-linguistic applicability of the proposal developed in this paper.
4.1 Surface position and case-checking possibilities of the absolutive DP This subsection presents evidence from a broad range of syntactically ergative languages for the split-level absolutive case-checking system proposed in this paper. Specifically, I show that absolutive case-marking is not necessarily correlated with subject status. It is external arguments, regardless of whether they have absolutive and ergative status, which have the properties of subjects. I also point out difficulties raised by these facts for analyses of the type proposed by Murasugi (1992) and others. In a transitive clause in an ergative language, the ergative DP is typically in a position where it c-commands the absolutive DP. The following examples show that external arguments can bind reflexives. In (19a), the ergative DP binds the absolutive. In (19b), the ergative binds an oblique. (19)
a.
x-O-u-kamsa-j r-iib' Compl.3sAbs-3sErg-kill-Suff 3s-self achih lee man the 'The man killed himself.' (Quiche; Larsen and Norman 1979:349)
b.
Kaali immi-nik Junna-p uqaluttuup-p-a-a. self-Mod Junna-Erg Kaali.Abs tell-Ind-Tr-3sg 'lunna; told Kaali about himselfi.· (W. Greenlandic; Manning 1996:136)
n
Phase theory and absolutive extraction in Tagalog
In Tagalo g t an erga tiv e DP can also bind an absolutivet as in (20a). (20b) shows an a ntipass ive absolut ive as the ante c eden t of an obliqu e reflexive .
(20)
a.
b.
ng lalaki P-in-igi l man Erg -Tr . Perf-c on trol 'The man contro lled him se lf. ' siya
Nag-pigil
3s.Abs Intr.Perf-control 'He/she controlled herself.'
sa Oat
sa ri li self
ang Abs
sariti self
.
niya. 3sPoss
niya .
3sPoss
Exte rnal arguments a lso function as hortative or imperative addressees. (21) shows this for Tagal o g and (22) for Yup i k Esk im o '
(21)
a.
Bigy-an give-App
'Give him b.
(22)
a.
b.
siya mo 3sAbs 2sEr g the coffee .'
K-um-ain na -lntr.Perf-eat now 'Let's eat now!'
ng ObI
.
kape. coffee
tayo.
IPI.Abs
Ner-ci-u! eat-2pl-3sg
'You all eat it ! '
lnar-ci!
lie.down-2pl 'You all lie down!'
(Payne 1982:90)
These facts can be a ccommodated in the current analysis, since the external arguments are merged in the outer spec ifier of v, the highest argument position in the clause. In particular, the reflexive binding facts are accounted for straightforwardly. since the antecedent external argument is lo ca ted in a position c-commanding all other arguments in surface word. order.
(23)
TP
.----..-...
V+v+T
vP
.----..-... v' DP[Erg] .----..-... VP tv+v tv
.----..-...
DP[Abs]
In a no nfinite complement clause, PRO is loca ted in the external argument positi on This position can correspond to either the er gativ e or intra nsitive absolutive case-checking position. (24) shows examples of .
10
Edith Aldridge
transitive complement clauses, where PRO is in the ergative position, and an absolutive internal argument appears overtly. (25) shows intransitive examples, where PRO corresponds to the absolutive. (24)
(25)
a.
ikiu-ssa-llu-gu] [PRO Juuna Miiqqat help-Fut-Inf-3sg] children.Abs [(Erg) Juuna.Abs niriursui..pp..u-t. promise-Ind-Intr-3PI 'The children promised to help Junna. ' (W. Greenlandic; Manning 1996:124)
h.
Maria-ng si Nag-ba..balak Maria-Lk Abs Intr.Perf-Red-plan si Pedr01 [PRO tulung-an Abs Pedro help-App (Erg) 'Maria is planning to help Pedro.'
(Tagalog)
a.
Miiqqat [PRO qiti-ssa-llu..tik] children.Abs (Abs) dance-Fut-Inf-4PI niriursui..pp..u-t. promise-Ind..lntr-3PI 'The children promised to dance.' (W. Greenlandic; Manning 1996:124)
b.
ni Gusto Maria-ng want Erg Maria-Lk ng [PRO b-um-ili Obi (Abs) ..Intr-buy Maria wants to buy a book. ' •
libro] book (Tagalog)
Such data pose a challenge for standard Generative analyses of syntactic ergativity, such as Murasugi (1992), Bittner and Hale (1996), and Ura (2000). These analyses equate absolutive case with nominative. Murasugi (1992). for instance, proposes that ergative DPs move overtly to [Spec, AgrO], typically the direct object case-checking position, to check case. Absolutive DPs, on the other hand, check case covertly with AgrS, the subject case checking position. Since absolutive case-checking is always associated with AgrS, it is predicted that PRO always be associated with the absolutive position and that this case not be available for checking in a nonfmite clause. This prediction is contradicted by the data in (24).
Phase theory and absolutive extraction in Tagalog
AgrSP
(26)
-----AgrS' PRO -----AgrS TP -----... T AgrOP -----AgrO' DP[Erg] -----VP AgrO ------
V'
-----OP[Absl v
�
-------
(24) does not pose a prob lem for the current a nalysi s however. Absolutive case in a transitive clause is checked by v and not T, so it is still availab Ie in a nonfinit e clause. ,
TP
(27)
PR
�P
-----V· tpRO -----...
�v
V
VP
�l-J
------
This subsect ion has given evidence from c-command relations and control structures to indicate that transitive absolutiv es are lo cated in a position below the ergative OP and check case with a functional head lower than T. These facts can easily be accommodated in the case-checking system proposed in this paper: transitive v checks absolutive case with an internal argument, while T checks case when the clause is intransitive. 4.2. Absolutive extraction restriction in ergative languages The primary goal of this paper is to relate possibilities for A'-movement to absolutive case-checking. Specifically, this paper proposes that internal arguments can be A' -extracted when they check absolutive case with v and are attracted to the vP phase edge by the EPP feature on v. Internal arguments are prevented from moving in antipassives, because v is intransitive and therefore does check absolutive case or have an EPP feature to attract a VP-internal OP. In an antipassives, then, only the external argument is eligible for extraction.
12
Edith Aldridge
This pattern holds not only for Tagalog but for ergative languages in general. In Dyirbal, for example, relative clauses can be fonned only on absolutives. The sole argument of an intransitive verb can be relativized in (28a). In order to relativize a transitive agent, the clause has to antipassivize, as in (28b). (28)
a.
ngumaj [ej father.Abs (ABS) yabu-nggu
b.
bural-nga-ngu nguma-gu] yabuj [ej mother.Abs (ABS) see-AP-Rel.Abs father-Oat banaga-nyu retum-Nonfut 'Mother, who saw father, was returning.' (Dyirbal; Dixon 1994: 170)
banaga-ngu] retum-Rel.Abs bura-n see-Nonfut mother-Erg 'Mother saw father, who was returning.' (Dyirbal; Dixon 1994:169)
Manning (1996:84) gives examples from West Greenlandic. In the transitive clauses below, only the absolutive internal argument can be relativized, not the external argument. (29)
a.
b.
nanuq Piita-p tuqu-ta-a P -Ergkill-Tr.Part-3sg polar.bear.Abs 'a polar bear killed by Piita' *angut aallaat tigu-sima-sa-a take-Perf-Rel.Tr-3sg man.Abs gun.Abs 'the man who took the gun' (W. Greenlandic; Manning 1996:84)
Manning (1996:24-5) shows the same characteristic is also found in Mayan languages. Transitive patients, as in (30a), but not transitive agents, as in (30b), can be extracted in constituent questions. In order to extract a transitive agent, the clause must be antipassivized, as in (30c). (30)
a.
tzaj chi rna-a7 Rec-Emph 3pAbs Dir Cheep kab' xiinaq man two J 'Jose grabbed the men.'
b.
alkyee-qa x-hi tzaj Rec.Dep-3pAbs Dir who-PI 'Wbom did Jose grab?'
t-tzyu-7n 3sErg-grab-Ds
t-tzyu-7n 3sErg-grab-Ds
Cheep J
13
Phase theory
c.
d.
and
absolutive extraction in Tagalog
*alkyee saj Rec.Dep.3sAbs.Dir who xiinaq kab' man two 'Who grabbed the men?'
t-tzyu-7n 3sErg-grab-Ds
alkyee saj tzyuu-n grab-AP who Rec.Dep.3sAhs.Dir xiinaq ky-e kab' man 3p-Rn two 'Who grabbed the men?' (Mam; Manning 1996:24-5)
The preceding examples indicate that the absolutive restriction on A' movement is a general characteristic of syntactically ergative languages. This fact lends support to the analysis developed in this paper that correlates extraction from VP with the ability of v to check absolutive case.
5.
Alternative Approach to Asymmetry - Case Agreement
the
Austronesian
Extraction
As introduced in the beginning of this paper, other accounts of the extraction asymmetry in Austronesian languages assume an agreement relation between the verb and the case of the moved constituent. In this section, I introduce the case agreement analysis proposed by Rackowski (2002) for Tagalog. Rackowski (2002) assumes Tagalog to be an accusative language. Nominals check or are assigned case in their base positions. Nominative case is checked by T and accusative by v. Inherent oblique case is assigned by applicative projections to DPs in their specifiers. The nominal I call absolutive is assumed by Rackowski to be the subject of the clause. In her analysis, the subj�ct is the nominal which is located closest to T in the structure and enters into an Agree relation with T. As the highest DP in TP, it is also the DP which will be attracted to [Spec, C] in A'-movement contexts, thereby deriving the A' extraction restriction. Under Rackowski's proposal, detennination of the subject of a clause is not the result of checking a specific case, for instance nominative. Subjects may bear nominative, accusative, or oblique case.. Subject choice is determined rather by semantic properties of the OP. By exploiting the generalization that absolutives are always specific and antipassive direct objects generally nonspecific, Rackowski proposes (following Diesing 1992 and others) that specific VP-internal DPs undergo object shift and move to the outer specifier of v. The specific internal argument is then located in the position closest to T and will be the nominal to agree with T. When Agree obtains between T and the subject, the case feature of the subject is copied to T and is spelled out as an affIX on the verb. what I have identified as transitive, intransitive, or applicative morphology. This means that the verbal morphology is not directly responsible for checking case in Rackowski's analysis but is rather the reflex of case agreement. For example, (31) shows a transitive clause, where the theme has absolutive status. For Rackowski, this is an example of accusative agreement.
14
Edith Aldridge Under her analysis, accusative case is checked by v with the internal argument
in its base position.
(3 1 )
Lu-Iutu-in Asp-cook-Acc
a.
'The man b.
will
lalaki ng Case man cook the adobo.'
ang Ang
adobo. adobo
VoiceP man
�
voice
vP
/'-....
�
v[CV]
VP
O[Acq
The direct object then shifts to the phase edge (because it is specific)�jl When T is merged into the structure, it probes into its domain for a DP to chec�jl its uninterpretable features. The closest DP is the theme argument, located initl
the outer specifier of v. Agree takes place between this DP and T, and the;;' accusative case feature of the theme is copied to the verb and spelled-out as the
affix -in.
TP /'-.... VoiceP cook+v+T[ucase]
(32)
"-- adobo�voice'
/"'.... Voice' /'....
man
Voice
vP tv+v�P ........-..
tcook
1irdobo
(33) gives the derivation of the antipassive version of (3 1). In The internal Rackowski's tenns, this is a case of nominative agreement. argument is nonspecific and will not undergo object shift. When T probes for a DP, it will now agree with the external argument. The nominative case feature on this DP is then spelled out on the verb as a reflex of -um-.
15
Phase theory and absolutive extraction in Tagalog (3 3)
TP
� � (?
cook+v+T(cv.
oiceP
man[Nom
oice'
.......
vP
Voice
� tv+v
VP /'-... adobo t.:ook
6. Problems with the Case Agreement Approach By exploiting the different interpretive properties of absolutive and non absolutive internal arguments, Rackowski's analysis is able to straightforwardly identify the absolutive nominal and ensure that it is the DP eligible to undergo A' -movement in Tagalog. However, as I will discuss in this section, this proposal makes unusual typological statements about Tagalog and has doubtful applicability to parallel syntactic phenomena in Austronesian languages outside the Phil ippine subgroup. I will also point out a technical difficulty faced by the case.checking mechanism.
6.1
Function of subject
Rackowski claims that Tagalog patterns with accusative languages in its case marking system. Case is checked with or assigned to nominals in their base positions, as follows. (34 )
Type of Argument Complement of verb External argument
Type of Case Accusative (from v) Nominative (from T)
High applicative Low applicative
Dative (from Appl)
Dative/Oblique (from Appl)
However, this case assignment system is not made to correlate with the grammatical function of subject as observed in other accusative languages. Rackowski states that the subject of a clause is structurally the highest nominal and the one that agrees with T in case features. This nominal does not. however, necessarily function as subject As discussed in section 4.1, it is the external argument and not necessarily the absolutive (or subject) DP, which has the subject properties of binding reflexives, serving as an imperative addressee, and functioning as contro lled PRO in a nonfmite clause. The sole property of absolutive DPs which might be understood to identify them as subjects is the A' -extraction privilege. Keenan and Comrie (1 977) report that if a language allows only one grammatical relation to relativize, then this grammatical relation is the subject of the clause. It should be noted, however, that nine of the eleven languages cited by Keenan and Comrie as having the extraction restriction are Austronesian, many, if not most,
16
Edith Aldridge
of which are ergative. Additionally, Keenan and Comrie choose to accounl the extraction restriction in Dyirbal by identifying the absolutive as a sub:, Bearing in mind the discussion in section 4.2, in which 1 showed that tn� extraction restriction is a general property of syntactically ergative languages, Keenan and Comrie's ( 1 977) relativization hierarchy can then be understood tc imply that if only one nominal can relativize in a given language, then this must be a subject or an absolutive. The extraction restriction in Tagalog therefor� cannot necessarily be assumed to identify the absolutive as a subject. _ _ __
6.2 Case-checking in applicative constructions In addition to the conceptual problem pointed out above, Rackowski's (2002) case agreement analysis also faces technical difficulties. Under Rackowski': analysis, monotransitive verbs check accusative case with the internal argument A specific direct object raises to the outer specifier of Voice where it agrees with T and copies its case feature to the verb, in this case -in. (35)
a.
b.
Bi-bilh-in ko ang lsErg Abs Red.Fut-buy-Tr 'I will buy the book from Maria.'
Ubro
book
kay Dat
Maria. M
TP /"...... buy+T[uCase] VoiceP
boO�M subject
c. Some philosophers might go to those seminars (epistemic possibility) PresuppositionaVquantificationaJ reading:
'it might be the case that (at
least) some philosophers go to those seminars (because Quine, Camap. and Socrates all told me they were intending to) ' . Scope: modal > subject
Non presuppositionaVexistential reading:
unable to distinguish relative
SCOpe.7
7There are going to be gaps in the parodigm here, since we assume possibility modals instantiate existential
quantification: we can't therefore make any concrete predictions with regard to no�presuppositionallexistential readings of weak subjects and possibility modals since we can'l distinguish the relative scope of two existential quantifiers (May 1985).
79
The phase structure of tense
d. Some philosophers must go to those seminars (root necessity) Presuppositional/quantificational reading: 'Quine, Camap, and Socrates are required to go to those seminars' .
Scope: subject > modal
Non presuppositionallexistential reading: it is required that some philoso phers go to those seminars. as a condition on our being given money to run them' . •
Scope: modal
>
subject
e. Some philosophers can go to those seminars (root possibility) Presuppositional/quantificational reading: 'some philosophers-specifically Quine, Camap, and Socrates-are able/allowed to go to those seminars' . Scope: subject > modal Non presuppositionaJ/existential reading: scope. 7
unable to distinguish relative
The data in ( 1 1 ) confirm that the two positions posited are indeed available for modals; moreover, they show that the two scope positions for modals correspond to the two major readings for modals: those at the edge of the T phase are interpreted as epis temic, those at the edge of the V phase are interpreted as root. This is an interesting result; it correlates with the claim often found in the literature that epistemic and root in terpretations for modals differ semantically along the lines that 'epistemic modals modify a sentence [= proposition] and deal with the truth value of that sentence; root modals re late ... [a subject] to an activity and deal with permission, obligation and ability' (Cook 1978: 6). This is basically what we would expect epistemic and root modals to do if they correspond to the two scope positions I claim here, since the higher, epistemic modals will invariably scope over a tensed (Le. truth evaluable) proposition, including subject, whereas the lower. root modals will commonly intervene between a subject in [Spec, tP] and its vP predicate (the exception being where the subject is interpreted existentially, as above). This analysis also derives the old intuition from Ross ( 1 969) that epistemics are lexically one-place (intransitive) predicates. somewhat like raising verbs, while roots are two-place (transitive) predicates, somewhat like control verbs. For more extensive discussion of this story, see Butler (2003a); here. it is suf ficient to note that epistemic readings for modals correspond to modals scoping above tense and the subject. while root readings correspond to modals scoping below tense and the subject.
6.3. Modal/aspectuaJ interaction What does this have to do with aspect? If modals are quantificational elements in the edge of a phase operating over sit uational variables in the domain of that phase, and if perfect/progressive aspect introduce situation variables and phases, then we make another prediction about where modals can scope: not just in the edge of the T and V phases. but also in the edge of the PERF and PROG phases. We aren' t going to find evidence like that seen above relating to subject interpre tation, since subjects don't get interpreted in the aspectual phases. The clearest evidence. then. would come from the interaction of modality with aspect itself; and in particular. with perfective aspect. 80
Jonny Butler We take PERF to be a temporal predicate l i ke [+PAST] T. ordering two situatior:- temporally relative to one another-specifically, ordering the result situation associated with perf and its own CP as after the situation denoted by its complement (which will b� either a V phase or a PROG phase, depending) as in ( 1 2). ( 12)
CP
-------
�
perf
SITUATION j
PERFP
�
PERF[+PASTj
CP
�
3i
vP
�VP
SITUATION1
6
There are two CP levels in (1 2) that could act as the scope positions for modals the CP of the PERF phase and the CP of the V phase. There are therefore two times at which the modal evaluation could be understood to take place: either in the past, if the modal is associated with the V phase, or in the 'now' of the PERF phase. We can think of this informa1ly in terms of scope--the modals should be able to scope either over or under the perfect. depending which CP they are in. Condoravdi (2001) and Stowell (2004) show that this is so. Condoravdi shows that for cenain modal utterances containing perfect have. like ( 1 3), the modal receives different readings depending on whether it scopes above or below the perfect: if it scopes above it receives an epistemic reading (14), if it scopes below it receives what she calls a 'metaphysical' reading (I S), which doesn't relate to the epistemic state of the speaker (or whoever) but simply refers to 'how the world may tum out, or might have turned out. to be' (Condoravdi 200 1 : 3). This is essentially the reading labelled by Palmer (1990) 'dynamic' modality: dynamic possibility he describes as expressing 'neutral possibility, simply to indicate that an event is possible'. (p. 83). Butler (2003a) and Palmer both treat dynamic interpreted modals as a subcase of roots, a generalized version of what are often described as 'ability' modals. ( 13)
He might have won the game
( 1 4)
He might have (already) won the game (#but he didn't)
(15)
At that point he might still have won the game but he didn't in the end. (Condoravdi 2001 : 4; her (6b}-(7b»
As it stands, Condoravdi 's analysis doesn't actually say much about the structure in (9b) or ( 12). since all we see are an epistemic and a root reading. which were taken above to be associated with the T and V phases, respectively. However, Stowell (2004) takes Condoravdi's basic insight and shows that root interpreted modals can scope over PERF also ( 1 6- 1 7). in which case the modal must be associated with the PERF phase's 81
The phase
structure
of tense
CPo We have already seen that root modals can scope under
PERF
in
(1 5); ( l 8)
gives ·
another example. In this case, the modal must be associated with the V phase's CPo This
is exactly the kind of contrast we are looking for.
( 1 6)
( 1 7)
You should have bought that book when you had the chance Max ought to have kept his mouth shut at the meeting (Stowell forthcoming; his (22a.b»
( 1 8)
To be eligible for this loan,
you
must never have been turned down for credit
before
As Stowell notes, it is 'more plausible to suppose that in
[( l�17)]
the relevant
deontic obligation held at the past times in question, rather than obtaining at the utterance time (obligating the subject at the utterance time to have arranged things in the past in a particular way)' (p. 23). In ( 1 8), on the other hand. it is clear that the requirement for the subject never to have been refused credit does hold at the utterance time. Given that the modals in all of ( 1 �1 8) are clearly root interpreted. we may conclude that modals
are able to appear not just in the CPs of the
V
and T phases. as claimed above, but also
in the CP of the PERF phase.8 This then is more good evidence that this CP exists, and moreover that is is fundamentally equivalent in its function to the CPs of the T and
phases: that is, that these CPs are just as much phases on the current analysis as the and
V phases.
It is harder to use the same kind of reasoning to show that the
V T
CP of the PROG
phase exists, since the temporal relation5hip at stake (present rather than past) doesn't allow such an obvious distinction to be made; but it seems entirely reasonable to infer that if the PERF CP exists. then so too does the PROG CPo
7. 0utro
I have argued here that phases should be defined in terms of quantificational closure: the
T and V
phases (standard CP and vP phases) both involve quantificational (usually
existential) closure over situation variables; the putative N phase (standard
DP),
though
I haven't discussed this here, involves quantificational closure of individual variables (or perhaps sometimes situation variables, say with gerunds). More specifically, I have argued for the general structure to represent this shown in ( 1 9).
CP
(19)
�
3i
hP
h�
S ITUATIO N i
HP
6.
81t may possible to fonnaJize on this basis the distinction between what are known in the literature as 'ought to be' and 'ought to do' root modals, along the lines of: 'ought to be' modals are those where the modal scopes over aspect, but under the subject (thus having both roOI and epistemic propenies)� 'ought to do' modals are those where the modal scopes under aspect.
82
Jonny Butler
A Root head H is at the core of each phase; this is basically a property denoting category, telling us what property is going to be predicated. The predication itself is introduced by I-syntactic little heads h above H. Each of these introduces a sub-situation, which then compose to give a macro-situation variable s, this being something like a generalized Davidsonian event argument. The I-syntactic h layer basically spells out event structure syntactically, and any arguments of the predicate so derived are introduced as specifiers of the little heads. This is topped off by a CP layer, which is quantificational in nature. serving to close off variables introduced below. for temporal (§4), aspectual (§5), and modal (§6) interpretation. This CP layer corresponds to the EDGE of the phase, everything below is its DOMAIN. This story ends up deriving us more phases than the classic two (three if we count DP): we are led to propose that (outer/viewpoint) aspect (perfect/progressive) should be analysed along the same lines. with a Root PERF/PROG each introducing a temporal predicate and situation argument thereof, exactly parallel to T. Is this to be seen as a problem? No: the usual tests for phasehood. inasmuch as they work and are coher ent (see Matushansky 2003 for a critique), generally relate to matters of argumenn:E placement/interpretation-reconstruction. QR, expletives, etc (cr. Legate 2003). all these things really boil down to, though, is quantification: quantificational effects justJif happen to be more visible where you have a visible DP argument. Where you don't have �i!! ' such an argument (as far as interpretation is concemed)-e.g. in the aspectual phasesyou don't see the same effects DP-wise, but you do see the same effects more generally: i.e. there must be quantification going on in order for the temporallaspectuallmodal inter· pretation to come out right (§6).
Whar:�1
References Belletti, Adriana (200)). &InvelSion' as focalization. In Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock {eds.} Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory oJ Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford Univer sity Press. pp. 60-90 Brody. Michael & Anna Szabolcsi (2003). Overt scope in Hungarian. Symax 6: 1 9-5 ) Butler, Jonny (2003a). A minimalist treatment of modality. lingua 1 1 3: 967-996 Butler. Jonny (2003b). Sequence of tense phenomena and non-eventivity. Ms .• University of York Butler, Jonny (2004a). On having arguments and agreeing: Semantic EPP. York Papers in linguistics (series 2) 1 : 1-27 Butler. Jonny (2004b). Phase Structure, Phrase Structure, and Quantification. Doctornl disserta tion. University of York Cardinaletti , Anna ( 1 997). SUbjects and clause structure. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.) The New Com parative Syntax, London: Longman, pp. 33-63 Cardinaletti, Anna (2000). Towards a cartography of subject positions. Ms., SSLMIT University of Bologna - University of Venice Cardinaletti, Anna & Ian Roberts ( 1 99 1 ). Clause structure and X-second. Ms., University of Venice - University of Geneva Cardinaletti, Anna & Michal Starke (1 999) . The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.) Clirics in rhe Languages oj Europe: Empirical approaches 10 language typology, Berlin: de Gruyter. pp. 145-233 Chomsky, Noam (1 999). Derivation by Phase. MrrOPL 1 8 Chomsky. Noam (2001). Beyond explanatory adequacy. Ms., MIT Comrie. Bernard ( 1 985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Condoravdi. Cleo (200 1 ). Temporal interpretation of modals: Medals for the present and for the past. In David Beaver, Stefan Kaufmann, Brady Clark, & Luis Casillas (eds.) Stanford Papers on Semanrics. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 1-30
83
The phase SlrUcture of tense
Cook. Walter A. ( 1 978). Semantic structure of english modals. TESOL Qua rterly 1 2: 5- 1 7 Davidson. Donald ( 1 967). The logical form of action sentences. I n N . Rescher (ed.) The Logic oj Decision and Action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press Demirdache, Hamida & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (200 I). The primitives of temporal relations. In Roger Mnnin. David Michaels. & Juan Uriagereka (eds.) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor ofHoward Lasnik, Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press. pp. 1 57- 1 86 Diesing. Molly ( l 992). lntiejinites. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press Hale. Ken & Samuel 1. Keyser ( 1 993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.) The Viewfrom Building 20: essays in linguistic.� in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press. pp. 53- 1 09 Hallman. Peter (2000). The Structure of Predicates: interarrions ofDerivation, Case and Quantifi cation. Doctoral dissenation. UCLA Harley. Heidi (I 995}. Subjects, events, and licensing. Doctoral dissertltion. MIT Heim, I rene ( 1 982). Tile Semantics ofDefinite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Doctoral dissenation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer (1 998) . Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Hom. Laurence ( 1 989). A Natural History ofNegation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Hornstein. Norben ( 1990). As Tune Goes By: Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press Jayaseelan. K.A. (2001 ). IP-internal Topic and Focus Phrases. Studia Linguistica 5 5 : 39-75 Kratzer. Angelika ( 1 977). What 'must' and 'can' must and can mean. Linguistics & Philosophy I : 337-355 Kratzer. Angelika (1 98 1 ). The notional category of modality. In H.J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (eds.) Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics, Berlin: de Gruyter. pp. 38-74 Kratzer, AngeJika ( 1 99 1 ). Modality. In A. Von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.) Semantics: an Inremational Handbook ofComemporary Research. Berlin: de Gruyter. pp. 639-650 Kratzer. Angelika ( 1 995). Stage and individual level predicates. In Greg N. Carlson & Francois J. Pelletier (eds.) The Generic Book. Chicago, III.: University of Chicago Press. pp. 125-175 Legate. Iulie Anne (2003). Some interface p rop erties of the phase. linguistic Inquiry 34: 506-5 16 Manzini. M. Rita & Leonard M. Savoia (2002). Parameters of subject inftection in Italian dialects. In Peter Svenonius (ed.) SUbjects, Expletives, and the EPP. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 1 57-199 Marantz. Alec (200 1). Words. Ms., MIT Matushansky, Ora (2003). G oing through a phase. Paper presented at the lAP Workshop on phases and the EPP, MIT, January 2003 May, Roben ( 1 985). Logical Form in Natural Language. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press Milsark. Gary ( 1 974). Existenrial Sentences in English. Doctoral dissertation. MIT Palmer. frank ( 1 990). Modality and the English Modals. 2nd edition. London: Longman Pesetsky, David ( 1 995). Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Pesetsky. David & Esther Torrego (200 1 ). T to C movement: causes and consequences. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. pp. 355-426 Pollock, Jean-Yves ( 1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424 Portner, Paul ( 1992). Situation theory and the semantics of propOsitional expressions. Doctoral dissenation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst Pylklciinen. Liina (2002). Introducing Arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT Reichenbach. Hans ( 1 947). Elements ofSymbolic Logic. London: Collier Macmillan Rizzi. Luigi ( 1 997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (cd.) Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Dordrecht: Kluwer. pp. 281-337 Ross. JOM ( 1 969). Auxiliaries as main verbs. In W. Todd (ed.) Studies in Philosophical Linguistics, series one. Evanston. Ill.: Great Expectations Press. pp. 77-102 Sponiche. Dominique ( 1 996). Clitic constructions. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. pp. 2 1 3-276 Sportiche, Dominique (2002). Movement types and triggers. paper presented at the TILT workshop. GLOW 2002, Utrecht Slarke. Michal ( 1 993). En deuxieme posi tion en Europe Centrale. memoire, University of Geneva Starke, Michal (2001 ). Move Dissolves into Merge: a theory of Locality. Doctoral dissertation.
84
Jonny Butler University of Geneva Stowell. Tim ( 1 99 1 ). Alignment of arguments in Adj ective Phrases. In Susan Rothstein (ed.) Per sperrives on Phrase Structure: Heads anti Licensing. Syntax and Semanlics 24: 105- 1 35 . San Diego: Academic Press Stowell. Tim ( 1 996). The phrase structure of tense. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Oordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 277-29 1 Stowell. Tim (2004). Tense and modals. In Jacqueline Guemn & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.) The Syntax ojTime. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press. pp. 621-637 Vikner, Stcn ( 1 985). Reichenbach revisited: One, two. or three temporal relations? Acta Linguislica Hafniensia 1 9: 8)-98 Zagona. Karen ( 1 990). Times as temporal argument structure. Ms . • University of Washington. Seat tle
Universitat Stuttgart Institut fUr Linguistik: Anglistik KeplerstraBe 17/4b (KII) D-70174 Stuttgart Germany
[email protected] 85
A phase-geometric approach to multiple marking systems
·
Andrew Carnie University ofArizona
Multiple marking systems refer to case, agreement. and word order patternings that make usc of more than two positions. agreement patterns or case markings, such as the phenomena of split ergativity and differentia) object marking. It is proposed here that such systems arc sensitive to a particular version of phase theory. In particular it is argued that each phase consists of a single argument, the predicate that introduces it and a temporal operator. Since each phase is independently sent to the LF and PF interfaces, it is claimed each phase contains a restrictor and a nuclear scope for the argument in question. It is mapping to these phase internal scopa) positions that gives rise to the appearance of argument (accessibility) hierarchies that seem to govern multiple marking systems.
1. Introduction Chomsky (2000) I defines a "strong phase" as either a vP or CP; the two functional projections he identifies as "complete propositions". While this characterization has had some important empirical and theoretical results (see for example the other papers in this volume), there is at least one conceptual problem and a family of empirical problems with this claim. I mention the conceptual problem here, and then wiJ) not talk about it again. The vP and CP do not, in fact, both represent " complete propositions" in any uniform sense of the words "complete" or "propositions". They are quite different animals. The vP represents a verb and its arguments. By contrast, the CP represents a speaker's intentions, beliefs and attitudes towards the predication, along with a temporal operator that locates the utterance relative to the speech time. While these a11 make important contributions to the truth conditions of the sentence, the two kinds of phase represent very different kinds of "complete propositions." It isn't at al1 clear (to me at least) what they have in common. Turning now to the family of empirical issues. Consider the predictions made when we assume both Chomsky's (2000) definition of phase, along with a Diesing (1 992)-style tree-mapping analysis of specificity effects (defined where the VP is the domain of existential closure.) In such a system, specific and definite NPs must have raised out of the VP, so that they the map to the �, Andy Barss, Tom Bever. Phil Cash Cash. Heidi Harley, Eloise • J would like to thank Judith Aiss Jelinek, Simin Karimi, Terry Langendoen. Martha McGinnis, Norvin Richards and the audience at the MIT workshop on Phases and the EPP for their input on this paper. As usual. any errors in this paper are the fault of my cat, Pangur. I
See also Chomsky (2001a. b).
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49. 87-102
Perspectives on Phases
© 2005 Andrew Carnie
A phase-geometric approach to multiple marking systems
restrictor. In phase theory, this means that only the vP phases have a domain of existential closure. There can only be one domain of existential closure per clause, simply because the vP phase is sent to LF before the CP phase comes into play.
Barss and Carnie (2003) address this problem with respect to English existential constructions and adverbial p lacement. They assume a typical view of Phase theory, where there is no covert movement; relationships previously taken to be covert movement are checked through the Probe-Goal relation (via AGREE). This means that the surface position of a phrase also marks its position with respect to scopal relations.2 Consider the sentence in ( I ):
1)
The woman always drove her car with her gloves on.
Taking temporal adverbs to mark the left edge of the vP (Emonds 1 976), we have a definite NPs surfacing in the nuclear scope. Such a structure can't be rescued without covert movement. A similar problem is seen in the example in ( 1 )3:
2)
There was some guy kissing the linguist (when I walked into the room).
This sentence is acceptable with a non-specific reading of some guy, taken to be the canonical reading of a there existential sentence. In this sentence we have a clear marker of the vP edge: some guy. We can thus also conclude that vPs mark the top end of the nuclear scope of the clause. What is surprising here is the acceptability of the sentence given the presence of the definite the linguist, also presumably within the nuclear scope. Under standard assumptions about how the mapping principle works (see Diesing 1 992, and much subsequent work), specific indefinites and definites such as the linguist should raise out of the vP in order to escape the nuclear scope. In versions of the minimalist program prior to Phase Theory, this was accomplished by covert raising of the DP. In this version of Phase theory, however, this option is not available. Word order considerations alone demonstrate that if we assume that surface order fixes scope and there are
no covert operations, then it is impossible for the linguist to have moved outside the nuclear scope, yet have some guy remain inside it (3) (an arch here indicates the nuclear scope. The first phase is the vP and all it dominates.)
! Wh-in situ, Quantifier scope ambiguities and other phenom ena commonly analyzed as covert
movements might seem at first to be prima-facie counterexamples to this claim. However, it isn't at
all clear that covert movements arc the appropriate analyses of such phenomena in any case. For
example. Cooper-stack analyses of quantifier scope am biguiti es seems to have a better account of
the full range of the phenomena - see Sag, Wasow and Bender (2003) for discussion.
3 Sec Barss and Carnie for extensive arguments that these constructions do not involve a reduced
relative clause rather than an associate/tail existential construction as is crucial to the story here.
88
Andrew Carnie
TP
3)
,...,.� ... T'
There
T
�
When the LF for the lowest phase is created, there is no way for the linguist to move to create an appropriate variable. That is, on a theory with no covert movement, the Mapping principle is seemingly violated, since the definite OP the linguist has to be interpreted in situ, and it is within the nuclear scope. :,' Fol1owing in the spirit of Percus ( 1 993), and building upon Barss Carnie (2003), and Jelinek and Carnie (2003), I propose that the definition phase is relativized to each argument as set out in (4). Each phase consists of an �ir argument, the predicative element that introduces the argument (V or vP) and a '[f functional category that represents a temporal operator that locates the predicate ' in time or space (Asp, T, etc.)
amtil o�m
1:
1f
(4)
Phases consist of: a. a predicative element (v or V) b. a single argument c. a temporal operator that locates the predicate and argument in time and space (Asp or T)
This gives rise to phases such as those seen in (5)4 :
(5)
Theme Phase Goal Phase Agent Phase
a. b. c.
[.�spP [Asp' Asp [vp t h e m e V]]J [EftdP [End' En d [v go a l [v' v . J]]]5 [TP h T [vp agent [v v . ]]]
..
..
The clausal architecture created by such phases is essentially that of Travis' ( I 991) inner aspect approach:
4 I am assuming here. of course. a Hale and Keyser (1 992. 1 993, 2002) analysis of theta roles. where
theta role is detennined by syntactie position.
J also leave aside the question of how CPs fit into this
system. Speculatively, the is a fundamental difference between CP and phases and the phases in (5).
such that CP phases define A-bar relations. whereas those in (5) represent A relations. I'm not
prepared at this time to show how phase edging would work under such a conception. 50 I leave it for future work. S The functional category End is meant to represent a temporal operator that detennines
grammatically defined aktionsanen. Sec Travis (2000). Borer ( 1 994) and van Hout (2000) for discussion of the motivation for such a functional category. The ordering oftbis phase relative to the Theme phase
is Wlimportant to the story presented here.
89
A phase-geometric approac h to multiple marking systems
(6) TP
/". /". T
AGENT PHASE
vP
/". agent /". v
EndP
GOAL PHASE
/". En
('
vp
/". goal � v
spP
THEME PHASE
/". /".
Asp
VP
/".
theme
Vi
Each of these phases has its own domain of existential closure (the vP or VP) and it's own nuclear scope. This means that the interpretation of each NP wilJ be logically independent of its clausemates. Using relativized phases, I am going to argue for an account of multiple (or split) marking systems, where the split is triggered by some kind of specified or markedness hierarchy effect. The most familiar kind of split system are split case systems; although I use the term "marking" systems to extend the empirical domain to agreement and word order marking systems. This includes both differential object marking (DOM) (Aissen 1 999, 2003) and differential subject marking (DSM). In the next section, I tum to a brief description of such systems.
2. The Larger Goal: Differential Marking Systems. There are at least two distinct notions of 'hierarchy' present in grammatical theory today. One is the hierarchical constituent structures created by multiple applications of the Merge operation. The other conception, which is more prevalent in the typological literature, but sometimes bleeds into generative work as well, concerns relational or markedness hierarchies. The so-called theta hierarchy (see, for example, Grimshaw 1 990) is perhaps the most salient of these markedness/relational hierarchies. Scholars working outside the realm of mainstream Indo-European languages also have to draw upon other less well known hierarchies. For example, argument ordering in Navajo apparently governed by an animacy hierarchy, such that animate arguments precede inanimate ones (independent of their thematic or grammatical relation); the interpretation of the nominals is determined by active/inverse marking on the
90
Andrew Carnie 6 verb (Willie 199 1 ). Similarly, the vast literature on split ergativity has shown the importance of person and number hierarchies with respect to ergative/absolutive split case-marking systems. Typically this second kind of hierarchy is presented as a ranked list. Some example of such rankings are given in (7): (7)
Animate > inanimate Definite > indefinite specific > indefinite non-specific Istl2nd person > 3rd person Topical > focal Agent > Experiencer > Goal > Theme > InstrumentlBenefactive Subject > Object > Indirect object
a. b. c. d. e. f.
There are two important things to note about these kinds of hierarchies. First, they represent tendencies rather than hard and fast rules. It is possible to ,� override a markedness hierarchy with, for example, a particular morphological marking or operation (e.g., special voice marking, clefts, scrambling etc.),;l¥ Second, as pointed out to me by Marantz (p.c.), it isn't at all clear what thell ontological status of such hierarchies is for an app�oach such as generative.jIi grammar. They aren't rules; they aren't constraints. Nevertheless they have ' widespread exponence in the syntax of the world's languages. In this paper (and other work), I aim to reduce all independent semantic/relational/accessibility hierarchies to the constituent hierarchy, whereby appearing to the left on the relational hierarchy corresponds to positioning high in the constituent tree. This approach to hierarchies is not particularly new. Hale and Keyser ( 1 992, 1 993. 2002) claim that thematic roles can be directly be determined by the argument's initial position in the constituent tree. The "thematic hierarchy" is an artifact of the fact that, for example. agents are generated higher in the tree than themes. Jelinek (1 993) presents a similar account of split ergativity in Lummi, exploiting Diesing's mapping principle. 1st and 2nd person subject pronouns are inherently specific, so must appear outside the nuclear scope, which results in a
jjl !
f r
I
6 See for example, Abraham ( 1 996),
Bittner and Hale ( 1996a,b), Bobaljik ( 1 993), Bok·Bennema
(199 1 ), Campana (1 992), DeLancey (198 1 ), Dixon (1 972, 1 979, 1 994), DuBois (1 987), Hoopa- and Thompson ( 1 980),
Isaak
(2000),
Jelinek ( 1 993), Johns
( 1 992), Levin (1 993),
Levin
and
Massam
(1 995), Murasugi ( 1 992). Silverstien ( 1 976), Ura (200 1 ), and Woolford ( 1 997) to name just a
sampling .
7 Aissen ( 1 999) and (2003) attempts to recast these hierarchies as universal constraint rankings iII
OptimaJity Theory. There are,
however, a number of significant problems with her account First, it
relies significantly on morphological markedness constraints, where unexpected mappings between
relational hierarchies must be realized with overt morphology. This is contraindicated by the fact
that such mismatches can be realized with non·morphologieal means, such as word order. Second, . some of her crucial arguments are based on a faulty empirical characterization of Dyirbal (she
assens that Dyirbal Nom/Ace patterns are unmarked for casc-this is false , class markers in n;'irbal
arc overtly marked for case). Finally, her constraint rankings are "derived" via hannonic alignment
from the relational hierarchies themselves. This requires that the
I. !
i
,
re lational hierarchies be some kind
of primitive whose ontological status is still in doubt. Similar proble�s can be found
with
the
systems described by Isaak (2000).
91
A phase-geometric
approach to mUltiple marking systems
nominative argument marking. 3rd person subject pronouns in Lummi are, by stipulation, non-specific and thus stay inside the VP. where they get an inherent ergative case. Diesing and Jelinek ( 1 995) extend this analysis to phenomena in other languages that appear to be sensitive to relational hierarchies. Under this kind of approach, we can derive certain kinds of split ergative system as schematized in 1 0. This approach follows a Murasugi ( 1 992) nested paths approach to ergativity. Under this view, presuppositionaJ, topical, definite, animate subjects -the relevant criteria depending upon the language-raise out of VP to create a variable within the nuclear scope, giving rise to a nominative accusative pattern as in (8a). (8)
a.
Nominative/Accusative pattern: "highly presuppositional subject " TP -----NOM T'
v' domain of 3 ' -----v' ACC v----VP ---
-------- V
b.
Ergative/Absolutive Pattern: "Asserted subject " TP -----ABS T'
domain of 3
v
�
-----t
V
By contrast asserted (non-specific, indefinite, inanimate) subjects are licensed within the VP, as seen in (8b). The agent receives a lexical ergative case and thus remains within the nuclear scope. This ergative case presumably blocks accusative checking. As a matter of last resort the object raises to the specifier of s TP where it gets nomlabs case . K The tree in (8b) seems to have a obvious violation of Shortest Move or the Minimal Link
Condition . The simplest solution to this problem is to say that inherently case-marked
92
Andrew Carnie
While this sort approach has a number of appealing qualities. it also na: some significant defects. First, in the system in (8), it appears as if the eventual. LF is driving the syntax. Second this system doesn't allow for cases witn identical interpretations of multiple arguments; for example, cases where tn.� subject and object are both interpreted presuppositionally or are both interpreted as novel. This can be seen by looking at the trees in (8), if the both the object and the subject are asserted, then they should both remain inside the VP. In such a situation, either the formal Case requirements of the object are not met resulting in a syntactic crash or the argument doesn 't appear in the correct position for interpretation, resulting in semantic anomaly. Similar effects would be found when both the subject and the object are topical. Such interpretations do occur, as seen in Nez Perce data in (9): (9)
a.
b.
Haama +0 man+0
hi+'wi+ye
wewiikiye
elk 3+shoot+asp "A man shot an elk" wewUkiye+ne pe+'wi+ye Haama+nm Man+NM 3/3+shoot+asp elk+NE "The man shot the elk" (modified from Woolford 1 997)
Third, while it captures "simple" cases of ergative splits, where nominativ; always co-occurs .with accusative and ergative always co-occurs with absolutiv� it fails to account for more complicated 3 and 4 way systems, where for exampJ;.. ergative and accusative co-occur, as is found in languages such as Dyirbal (Dixon 1 972), Finally, although it does so in a disguised form, it maintains tn� idea that there are two separate hierarchies in the system: a semantic one (tn� LF) and a syntactic one; the two hierarchies are related by a mapping relation. in an ideal situation these two kinds of hierarchies should be homomorphic. All but the first problem disappear in a system with relativized phasing. Problems (2) and (3) vanish because the interpretations of nominals are largely independent of one another, as each has its own phase. Problem (4) disappears in any phasin�. system where there is no covert movement, as . surface position will determin: scope, The first problem (the fact that interpretation drives syntax), does not necessarily require relativized phasing, but is easily overcome using another aspect of Chomsky ( 1 99S)-style minimalism: little v categories. Provided that we have an explicit enough set of lexical entries for functional categories and predicate categories, these lexical entries not only select for arguments but also detennine the functional structure that licenses the arguments, thus determininj! surface position and relative scope.
arguments-with perhaps Icelandic Quirky case marked arguments being the exception-arc not candidates for movement,
thus don't create intervention effects.
93
A phase.geometric approach to multiple marking systems
3.
Multiple Marking Systems
The relativized phase approach, when it is coupled with an explicit theory of formal features and lexical entries for functional categories, provides an explanation for the existence and range of variability in multiple argument marking systems.
Ergative Split in Dyirbal
3.2
Consider first the case of split case marking in Dyirbal. I will be discussing here a "simplified" form of Dyirbal, in that I'm only trying to account for the range
of phenomena already accounted for by other approaches. I'm not trying to account for all the case marking patterns that exist in the language. (See Dixon ( 1 972) for discussion ofthe fuller range of data). 2nd Dyirbal case marking is split along the lines of person . 1 $I and person subjects exhibit a nominative accusative pattern, 3M person subjects take an ergative/absolutive pattern. I ' m following Jelinek's analysis of person splits 9 here where 1 st/2nd subjects are more "presuppositionaI " than 3 M person subjects, which are typically asserted.
( 10)
a.
b.
c.
d.
banaga-nYu. retumed-NONFUT "You (pI) returned." nyura-0 Nana-na bu} a-no see-NONFUT I PL-ACC 2PL-NOM "You saw us." Numa-0] banaga-nYu. [bayi cl ass l .ABS father-ABS retumed-NONFUT "Father returned." [bayi Numa-0] [baNgun yabu-Ngu] class l .ABS father-ABS class2.ERG mother-ERG " Mother saw father." nyura-0
2PL-NOM
bu}a-n sawNONFUT
One means of encoding this type of split is through the use of different little v categories for introducing 1 /2 vs. 3rd subjects. This is a reasonable approach to take, since we will need to lexically specify that T subjects take a lexical ergative case in any event. It thus seems reasonable to assume tI�at these different functional categories also have different subcategorizational properties. The v that introduces 1 12 subjects subcategorizes for an accusative case assigning AspP, whereas the v that introduces :r subjects (as well as the ones that introduce passives and intransitives) selects for a defective AspP that lacks an accusative case feature. This is encoded in the lexical entries in ( 1 1 ) .
9
The nature of this "presuppositionality" and "asscrtedncss"
is of course a crucial open question. I
leave it as an open question requiring a precise formal characterization once the phenomena have been more thoroughly described and better understood.
94
Andrew Carnie
(1 1 )
a.
V3
NP (c. 1)
Nr
pp(c. 1)
d-nice ftudent
P not" (cf. Kato 1 988). In (3 1 ). we can see that, by scrambling the object to the left edge, partial negation becomes possible 10 {Miyagawa 200 1 ).
a I am using the formal style with
desuldesita to ensure that the sentence is interpreted as a root
cl ause and not embedded. Embedding the sentence leads to possibility of ambiguity in examples that arc not ambiguous in the root clause. See Miyagawa (200 I) for discussion. 9 There
is al so the possibility that the quantifier zen 'in 'aU' may be intetpreted outside the scope of
negation, as indicated by "all > nOl" In Miyagawa (2001 ). I suggest that this is due to the fact that zen 'in can be associated with a group reading, which does not have distributivity. 10
In Miyagawa (200 1) I used examples of the following sort.
(i) Zen'in-ga all-Nom •
tesuto-o
uke-masen-desita.
test-Ace
take-Neg-Past
All did not take the test.'
·not > all, all > not
215
On the EPP
How does negation take scope over "all" to achieve the partial negation interpretation? Following a long tradition starting with Klima ( 1 964), I assume the following.
(3 2)
A quantifier is in the scope of negation iff it is c-commanded by negation (cf. Klima 1964)
In (30). in which the subject "all" is outside the scope of negation. "all" begins in the Spec of vP, but moves to a position outside the c-command domain of negation. A reasonable assumption is that it moves to the Spec of TP as shown below. (The position of negation is roughly as proposed by Laka 1 990, Pollock 1989.)
(ii) Tesuto-oj test-Ace,
zen'in-ga all-Nom
t;
tj
uke-masen-desita. take-Neg-Past
'All didn't take the test' not > all, all > not Most people I consulted shared the judgment given, that
is,
(i) is solely "all > not" while, the OSV
order in (ii) made it possible to get the partial negation. Call this speaker A. There were two other speaker types. Speaker B does not get the partial negation ev�n in (ji). interpret scrambling solely as negation. Speaker type C
A'-scrambling;
is able to get
These speakers prefer to
or, they simply prefer a narrow scope reading of
the partial negation even with the SOY order in (i). I suspect
that the Speaker type C's judgment bas to do, at least in part, with the quality of the data I presented.
Given the situation of giving tests, it is highly implausible to imagine a situation where no student
took the test In addition, if such a situation did exist, it would be more natural to express it with "no student took the test" using the NPI:
daremo tesulo-o uke-masen-desita.
Hence Speaker type C may
simply be compensating for either the implausibility of the situation, Or the unnaturalness of the expression "aU did not take the test" to describe the intended situation. In the examples above in which examples are given in the context of test marketing, I hope to have overcome some of these problems with the data.
216
Shigcru Miyagawa
TP
(33)=(30)
T'
Neg
t. I
� · � v
VP
6
...Object...
In (3 I) in which the subject "aU" occurs in the "scrambled" order of OSV, it is able to be interpreted inside the scope of negation. The simplest assumption to make here is that this subject "all" stays in-situ in the Spec of vP. which is made possible by the movement of the object to the Spec ofTP. (34)=(3 1 )
TP
�
that tes
'
217
On the EPP Ifwe compare the two structures above, there is a simple generalization: (35)
Something must move to the Spec ofTP (e.g., subject, object).
If the subject moves to the Spec ofTP, the object stays in·situ, as in (33). On the other hand, if the object moves to the Spec of TP, this allows the subject to stay in.situ, as shown in (34). As I argue in Miyagawa (200 1 ), the simplest account of what we just observed is that the T in Japanese is associated with the EPP feature. The Spec of TP is filled by something (subject, object, etc.), and this meets the EPP. 1 1 How does the object "escape" vP in (34) to raise to the Spec of TP to satisfy the EPP? One possibility i s that it undergoes Object Shift ("short scrambling") to the edge of vP. It then raises to the Spec of TP to satisfy the EPP on T. In Indo·European languages, if the object were to undergo the same Object Shift to the edge of vP, it would get stuck there, because in IE the EPP can only utilize agreement, not focus, and the agreement would be with the thematic subject. The thematic subject, too, would be stuck, because now it is too far from T owing to the intervening object. As a result the EPP on T goes unfulfilled, and the derivation does not go through. The subject presumably also has an unchecked Case feature, which will get checked only if it moves to the Spec of TP. This, then, excludes the possibility of inserting an expletive to save the derivation. 1 2 4.1 Informational focus and nuclear stress
In this subsection I will make explicit the principal notions related to focus in an informational focus structure, which we just discussed for Japanese. Infonnational focus is signaled by sentential stress. This stress is autonomously assigned by the nuclear stress rule, and the sentence, once assigned the stress, is used by interface systems to relate the sentence to its context (Chomsky 1 97 1 . 1 976; lackendoff 1 972; Neeleman and Reinhart 1 998). Nuclear stress is the central prosodic stress assigned to sentences in neutral contexts (cf. Chomsky and Halle 1 968, Halle and Vergnaud 1 987, Cinque 1993, Selkirk 1 995, Ishihara 2000). In the neutral cases, the interface system uses the focus stress to partition the sentence into topic and focus, creating a theme-rheme infonnational structure. The nuclear stress rule, which is responsible for assigning the. main stress of the sentence that defines the focus in neutral contexts, is assigned by an independent rule. Cinque ( 1993), building on the work of Chomsky and Halle ( 1 968) and Halle and Vergnaud ( 1 987), argues that nuclear stress falls on the phrase located lowest on the syntactic tree. I I Kuroda (1988) was the first to propose that, for elC.ample. the object in Japanese can move to the Spec of TP. For him this is purely an optional movement, but in our approach it is an obligatory fulfillment of the EPP requirement, which can be achieved by moving the object or the subject or some other category into the Spec of TP. See Kitahara (2002) for an analysis of scrambling that also utilizes the EPP feature on T.
II I thank Noam Chomsky for this suggestion aboul lndo.European.
218
Shigeru Miyagawa
(3 6)
Mary read a book yesterday.
In this example the object phrase a book bears the nuclear stress. Note that there are two elements that are lowest in the structure, the object and its verb. The object and the verb are sisters. Cinque suggests that in such a case, what is selected by the other is the lowest, so that, in this example, the obj ect is the lowest because it is selected by the verb. In English the word order is fixed, so that if one wants to focus something other than the lowest element, nuclear stress must be supplanted by a special focus assignment. For example, in the above example, if the speaker wants to indicate that "John" is the focus (what is not presupposed), one has to forego nuclear stress (or it is masked) and invoke a special focus assignment rule that stresses the thematic subject. (37 )
John read a book yesterday.
In the so-called scrambling languages we see a different phenomenon for focus. Scrambling changes word order. By virtue of this, scrambling changes the focus structure of the sentence. Reinhart ( 1 995) and Neeleman and Reinhart ( 1 998) point out that scrambling allows a given phrase to move away from the position of nuclear stress. In the following Dutch example, the phrase that bears the nuclear stress is in bold. (38)
Oat that
Jan langzaam het boek las John slowly the book read
In this example both the object "book" and the verb ''read'' are lowest on the tree since they are sisters. As already noted, Cinque argues that in this situati�n the element that is selected is lower; in the above example, the object "the book" is selected by the verb, hence it is, by definition, lower. and it receives the stress. I ) Dutch allows some flexibility in word order; it is possible to "scramble" the object to the left of the adverb.
11 Gussenhoven ( 1984) (as quoted in Neeleman and Reinhart 1 998) gives confirmation for Cinque's idea from Dutch.
(i) a.
b.
Oat ik op een bankje wacbt that I on a bench wait 'that I am waiting on a bench' ik op een bankje wacht 'that I am waiting for a bench'
Oat
In (a) the locative " on a bench" is an adjunct not selected by the verb, hence, it does not receive nuclear stress, but instead, the stress falls on the verb, which is the lowest element. In (b) �the bench" is the object of "wait," hence selected by the verb, so that the stress falls on the object instead of the verb.
2 19
On the EPP (39)
Oat that
Jan John
het boek langzaam las the book slowly read
Note that now, the nuclear stress falls on the verb because the verb is the lowest in the structure. Reinhart and Neeleman ( 1 998) bring an interesting perspective on this word order flexibility. They note the well-known fact that Dutch scrambling of the type shown in (39) is possible only with definite phrases, and it is linked to some entity in the discourse, i.e., something that is presupposed in the discourse. But what is responsible for the word ordcr permutation in Dutch? Neeleman and Reinhart ( 1 998) argue that both the adverb-object and the object-adverb orders are base generated. However, there is much literature that argues that this type of object shift is movement. Chomsky (200 1 ) suggests that object shift as observed in examples such as (39) is due to the object moving to the edge of the v phase, where it is attracted by the EPP feature on v. This EPP feature is optional, so that object shift itself is optional. The movement here appears to be an agreement prominent one. Only the object may move, which means that the only phrase that can move is the one that agrees with the head v. The EPP is parasitic on this agreement, and if it occurs, it raises the object to vP. But why is it optional? Following Reinhart ( 1 995) and particularly Fox (2000), Chomsky (2001 ) suggests that this kind of optionality is allowed only when the movement has an effect on the output. The effect for object shift is on the focus structure of the sentence as clearly demonstrated by Reinhart and Neeleman. Returning to the Japanese cases, there are several points that distinguish the Japanese case from Dutch. First, in Japanese the "shift" is of the object, or a locative phrase, to a position above the subject. Dutch does not allow the object to shift above the subject in normal cases. Second, there does not appear to be a definiteness effect in Japanese since an indefinite phrase can move above the subject. Third and finally, as we saw earlier, the Spec of TP must be filled, which means that the EPP feature on T is always present. There is no optionality. The Spec of TP may be filled by moving the subject into it, or the object, or some other phrase such as a locative, but something mUst occupy the Spec ofTP. What Japanese shares with Dutch is that, in neutral contexts, what moves into the Spec of TP does not bear the nuclear stress, so that the focus falls on something lower in the structure. The following are taken from Ishihara (2000) (Ishihara assumes V-raising to T). 14
(40)
a.
Taroo-ga Taro-Nom
[vp ho n-o tv] katta. [vp book-Ace tv] bought
b. Hon-oj Taroo-ga book-Accj Taro-Nom
[vp lj [vp lj
tv] katta tv] bought
14 See Bailyn (200 I) for extensive discussion of these sort of issues for scrambling in Japanese and Slavic.
220
Shigeru Miyagawa
(4 1 )
a. Taroo-ga Taro-Nom b.
kyoo today
Taroo-ga Hon-oj book-Ace Taro-Nom
katta. ho n o book-Acc bought -
kyoo
lj
today tj
katta. bought
In (40a), the obj ect hon 'book' predictably receives nuclear stress. In (40b) the object has moved to the Spec of TP, and it is the subject, Taroo, that receives the nuclear stress. As Ishihara notes, this is different from Dutch; in Dutch when the obj ect shifts the verb receives stress. Ishihara argues that this is due to the fact that in Japanese the verb undergoes V-to-I raising (cf. Koizumi 1 995), so that, in the OSV order in (40b), the subject and the verb are the same height, and because the verb (more precisely, v) selects the subject, the subject receives the stress. In (4 I b), the object has moved again to the Spec of TP, and this time, an adverb, kyoo 'today', receives the nuclear stress since it is presumably lower than the subject or the raised verb. Just as in Dutch, nuclear stress gives the possible focus domains of the sentence; these are the domains that, informally speaking, are identified as "new" information. See Ishihara (2000) for a detailed discussion of how Neeleman and Reinhart's system applies to Japanese. B elow I summarize his work. Neeleman and Reinhart (1 998) propose to assign focus domains by their Focus Role. (42)
Focus Rule The focus of IP is a(ny) constituent containing the main stress of IP, as determined by the stress rule (=nuclear stress rule).
Let us look at (40a), repeated below. (40)
a.
Taroo-ga Taro-Nom
[vp hon-o tv] katta [vp book-Ace tv] bought
The focus here is on the object hon 'book', which is the phrase that bears the nuclear stress. According to the Focus Rule, the focus domain of this sentence may be hon, the VP that contains it, or the entire IP. Thus, (40a) can be used as an answer to the following three questions: (43)
a.
h.
c.
What happened? (focus on IP) What did Taro do? (focus on VP) What did Taro buy? (focus on object)
(40b) has a different focus domain set due to the scrambling of the object.
22 1
On the
(40)
Hon-oi
b.
Ta roo ga -
book-Accj Taro-Nom
EPP
ti
t;
tv) katta
tv] bought
The focus domains are the subject NP Taroo and the TP, but the VP cannot be a focus domain because it does not contain the stress. Therefore (40b) cannot be used to answer "What did Taro do?" If we compare (40a) and (40b), we can see that Japanese is a " topic p rominent language in the true sen se of the term. What occurs in the initial position of the sentence is ultimately interpreted as the topic in the informational structure: Taroo in (a) and hon 'book' in (b). In this way what I am arguing for directly reflects the intuition of traditional grammarians such as Mikami ( 1 960) that Jap anese is a topic prominent language, not subject prominent like English. Finally, there is one point I need to note about the "anti-focus" phrase in an inform ational focus structure. Recall from our discussion of identificational focus with indeterminate pronouns that, in a structure that contain s the indeterminate pronoun in, for example, the object position it i s p oss ibl e optionally to raise the subject. The object indeterminate pronoun is in a long-distance agreement with FOe without moving. This kind of long distance agreement never happen s in informational focus structure. What is marked for "anti-focus" must necessarily raise to Spec of TP. This is logical. If something other than this phrase raises to the Spec of TP, the structure would end up with two '·topics," something not allowed at least in Japanese (cf. Kuno 1973). "
,
-
5.
Kinande (Baker 2003)
this section I will look at Kinande, a Bantu l anguage 1 w ill depend on the Baker (2003). I am going to assume that Kinande is a focus prom inent language. However, Kinande also has agreem ent, in fact quite an elaborate agreement system that allows agreement between not only the subject and the verbal affix but also with the obj ect and with a locati ve (and p ossib ly other arguments). What I will propose is that while Kinande is a focus prominent language, it also manifests agreement on C, similar to West Flemish and Turkish that we saw at the stan of this article. Kinande falls together with Japanese in b ein g a focus promirient lan guage despite the appearance of agreement because Kinande shows a property that is not shared by the agreement prominent languages of Indo-European. As noted by. Baker, the agreed-with category must be interpreted as definite/speci fic . This is illustrated for the object below. In
.
insights of
(44)
Eritunda n a-ri-gul-a fruit.5 1 SG.S-T-OMS-buy-FV 'The fruit, I bought it ,
-
.
.'
In this "reversal construction," the object is in a position to trigger agreement on the verb and it must be interpreted as s pecific/defini te, i.e., the topic. Baker notes that " [t]rue polysynthetic languages . . . always have agreement and always ,
222
Shigeru Miyagawa have dislocation" (2003 : 1 1 2). What Baker means by "dislocation" is that he views the agreed-with category as ultimately being somewhere above the "basic" Spec of TP - he assumes that it is in the higher Spec of TP in a position comparable to the dislocation position in languages such as Italian. Dislocation in these languages is only possible if the phrase is not indefinite/nonspecific (Rizzi 1 986). The agreement, therefore, occurs in a specifier higher than the normal S pecifier of TP. Baker (2003: 1 09) expresses this as a biconditional for languages such as Kinande (and Mohawk, etc.). -
(45)
A verb X agrees with an NP Y ifand only if Y is in a dislocated, adjunct position.
How is the agreed-with phrase " dislocated"? Baker forces the agreed-with phrase to occur in a higher position - thus the agreement to hold between this higher specifier and some head - by requiring pro to occur in the "normal" Spec ofTP for Case reasons (see his article for details) (Ibid., p. 124). (46)
[yp NPj
[TP proj T+Verb . . . [vp ti . . . ]]]
The occurrence of pro in the lower Spec of TP forces the agreed-with phrase, NPj, to be in the higher specifier where the agreement takes place according to the biconditional in (45). What I wish to key in on is Baker's intuition that the DP triggering agreement in Kinande must occur in a higher specifier position than the normal IS Specifier of TP, which he calls the "dislocated" position. In our system, we have a way to capture this without having to postulate the pro in the lower Spec ofTP. A natural way under our approach is to postulate the following structure.
(47)
Kinande, etc. CP
�.
�/FOCU1
T
�
TEPP
AGREEMENT
�
IS
Baker's system is designed, in part, to account for the difference between IE languages such as Greek (Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 1 998). which appears not to have the EPP on T, and languages such as Kinande. I will not go over this portion of Baker's analysis.
223
On the EPP
As a focus prominent langua'ge, the focus feature on FOC probes an "anti-focus" phrase, and the EPP feature on T raises it to the Spec of TP. This leaves agreement on C. Here. let us make the following " design" stipulation. (48) Agreement or focus must occur in the context of EPP. Agreement, for example, may occur at C, and the EPP on T. But if the EPP on T is satisfied by focus, the agreement on C must come with its own EPP feature, which requires that a category be raised to C. 16 The closest one is the category already raised to the Spec ofTP by EPP/focus, and it is raised to the Spec of ep, where agreement takes place. By assuming that Kinande is a focus prominent language, but with also agreement in the higher node (C), we capture Baker's intuition embodied in his biconditional in (45) which states that the agreement holds of a specifier higher than the basic Spec of TP. Below, 1 will present some of the major data from Baker (2003). Baker observes that Kinande allows non-subjects as well as subjects in the Spec of TP, and the verb agrees with whatever occurs there. In the following pair, the subject occurs in the Spec of TP in the first example, and the object in the second example. (49)
a.
Omukali mo-a-seny-ire okukwi (lw' -omo-mbasa). woman.l AFF-LSIT-chop-EXT wood. I I LKl l-LOC. 1 8-axe.9 'The woman chopped wood (with an axe).'
b.
Olukwi
si-lu-li-seny-a bakali (omo-mbasa). wood. l l NEG-I I .S-PRES-chop-FV women.2 LOC. l S-axe.9 'WOMEN do not chop wood (with an axe).'
In (a) the subject occurs in the Spec of TP and the agreement is with this thematic subject. In (b) the object occurs in the Spec of TP, and the verb agrees with this object. The translation for (b) indicates that this construction, the so called "reversal construction," "expresses contrastive focus on the thematic subject" (Ibid. p. I t 3). This is telling of the purpose of the reverse construction. Although Baker does not pursue this notion of contrastive focus, it seems to be an indication that this effect comes at least in part from removing the object from the position of sentential nuclear stress, which is the region naturally interpreted as focus (new information). By moving the object out of this position, the subject gets the focus reading (new information). This parallels what we observed in Japanese, and it is a sign that Kinande is focus prominent. Auother kind of inversion i s with the locative expression. This construction is found with unaccusatives and passives of transitives.
16 Alternatively. the EPP feature could be merged on FOe, so that the category in the Spec of TP
needs to raise just to the Spec of FOCP. This will
be identical in modus operandi to the EPP on T. I
will not attempt to argue for one or the other, but will assume that the category moves to the Spec of CP in the exposition.
224
Shigeru Miyagawa
(50)
?Omo-mulongo mw-a-hik-a omukali. LOC. I S-village.3 1 8.S-T-arrive-FV woman , At the village arrived a woman.'
Unlike in English. in Kinande locative inversion leads to the verb agreeing with the inverted locative expression. It is important to note that although English has a similar construction of locative inversion (e.g., Bresnan and Kinerva 1 989) , the locative PP in English is not in the same position. It is not in the "basic" Spec ofTP. We can tell this easily by the fact that the locative PP does not allow Aux in version in questions, one of many pieces of evidence for this fact. 17
(5 1 ) *Whoj was on the wall hung a picture ofti? (52)
Who was there a picture oflj on the wall?
(5 1 ) indicates that the auxiliary was cannot invert across the locative PP on the wall, suggesting that this locative PP is positioned somewhere other than in the Spec of TP. possibly adjoining to the Spec ofTP. In (52), we see that there is no problem in inverting the aux was across the expletive there, which arguably is in the Spec of TP. That the Kinande locative in (50) enters into agreement with T indicates that the locative inversion in Kinande is fundamentally different from English. In Kinande. locative inversion moves the locative phrase into the Spec of TP. This difference is in part due to the fact that in Kinande the locative phrase is a DP. but in English it is a PP; P in English does not enter into agreement. In all of these cases, Baker argues that the phrase that is "agreed-with" must occur on the left edge, where it is interpreted as definite/specific. One piece of evidence for this has to do with "augment vowels." Nouns often begin with an "augment" vowel that matches the vowel of the class that the noun prefix belongs to. This augment vowel may drop under the scope of negation and in some other contexts; a noun without this augment vowel has a nonspecific, indefinite interpretation. The following exemplifies an object with and without its augment vowel. (53)
a.
Yohani si-a-nzire o-mu-kali. NEG- l .Srr-l ike AUG-CLI -woman John 'John does not like the woman.'
b.
mu-kali. Yohani si-a-nzire NEG-I.Srr-like eLl -woman John 'John does not like a(ny) woman.'
A point relevant to our discussion is that the agreed-with phrase can never drop its augment vowel. Because the agreed-with phrase only occurs on the left edge, 17 1 thank Noam Chomsky (personal communication) for pointing oul this fact.
225
On the EPP
the agreed-with phrase is always specific/definite. By a transitivity of reasoning, a nonspecific, indefinite phrase can only occur in a lower position, probably in their originally merged positions within vP/VP. In the first example below the subject has the augment vowel, while in the second example it does not.
(54)
ki-ndu. Omukali mo-a-teta-gul-a AUG-CL. I -woman AFF- l.S-NEG/PAST-buy-FV CL7-thing 'The woman didn't buy anything. •
a.
b.
* Mu-kali mo-a-teta-gul-a eritunda. CL l -woman AFF-1.Srr-NEGIPAST-buy-FV fruit.S 'No woman bought a fruit. •
As shown in (b), it is not possible for a phrase without the augment vowel, which is nonspecific and indefinite, to occur in the Spec ofTP. What we can observe by using the augment-vowel phenomenon is that in Kinande, something that moves to the left edge is marked for being the specific/definite topic of the sentence and also for agreement. Being just in the Unormal" Spec of TP does not force a category to be interpreted as specific/definite, as we can see from English and Japanese. This added interpretation arises from the category moving to a higher node, which I assume is the Spec of CP (or the Spec of FOCP), which is a position that the interface system interprets as specific/definite. This movement to the higber specifier is forced by the occurrence of agreement in a focus prominent language. What Kinande demonstrates is that a language that is focus prominent can also have agreement. It is just that this agreement raises a category to a higher specifier than the TP because agreement occurs on C (universally), and the EPP occurs with it.
5.1 Turkish
-
further evidence
Turkish provides a particularly dramatic demonstration of what we just saw for Kinande. The following from Ozturk (2003) shows the effect of adding agreement (example (b».
(55)
a.
Butun �ocuk-Iar dergi-yi sev-me-di. all child maga.zine-Acc love-not-past • All children didn't like the magazine. • not > all
b.
Biltun �ocuk-Iar dergi-yi sev-me-di-Ier. all magazine-Ace love-not-past-pl child 'All children didn't like the magazine.' *not > all, all > not
As Ozturk points out, without the plural agreement suffix -fer in (a), the universal quantifier in the subject position is interpreted as being in the scope of
226
Shigeru Miyagawa
negation, not > all. But if the plural suffix is added as in (b), the universal quantifier which the verb now agrees with can only be interpreted as being outside the scope of negation. Ozturk analyzes the universal quantifier here as being higher than negation. Setting aside the details of her analysis, what this shows is that the presence of agreement can raise a category higher than when the agreement is absent. In Kinande, the agreement on C raises the category in the Spec of TP to a higher specifier where it receives the definite/specific interpretation. This is the "dislocation" effect Baker notes. In Japanese, another focus prominent language, agreement in the traditional sense does not occur on C (but see below for something else that in effect instantiates "agreement" in Japanese), hence the category raised to the Spec of TP stays there, thus it need not be interpreted as definite/specific. Other languages that have this property of specific/definite include Hindi (cf. Mahajan 1 990) and Tagalog (cf. Rackowski 2002 and references therein) among others. 6. Wh-movement vs. Wh-in-situ
In this section I will show that the theory of the EPP I have outlined can predict with a measure of precision the presence/absence of overt wh-movement in a given language. The presentation will have to be brief due to limitation of space. In Miyagawa (200 I) I suggested that one can predict when a language requires overt wh-movement, and when it doesn't. In that work, I suggested that the feature [+wh] in overt wh-movement languages occurs on C, while it occurs on T in non-wh-movement languages. I argued that when it occurs on C, there is no option but to move a wh-phrase to the Spec of CPo However, when occurring on T. the [+whJ feature may be satisfied without moving the wh-phrase to the Spec of TP. because the T also has other features, e.g., features that go with a non-wh phrase category. If one moves such a non-wh category, the EPP on T is met, and there is no reason to move the wh-phrase. This allows the wh-phrase to stay in situ. Given the theory of the EPP outlined in this article, we can now refine the notions involved. We can make a simple statement, as follows.
227
On the EPP
(56)
Overt wh-movement: when it must occur, and when it does not Overt whwmovement to the Spec of CP only occurs in agreement prominent languages. The movement occurs when, along with agreement, FOe is projected due to the presence of a wh-phrase.
The structure below illustrates this for a sentence with an object wh-phrase. (I am going to somewhat arbitrarily assume that FOe in an argument prominent language occurs above C.) (57)
Overt wh-movement CP
�"
�
T
�
SUB whOBJ . . . TEPP
, Word order and scrambling. Blackwell Publishers. Miyagawa, Shigeru, and Fusae Ekida (2003). Historical development of the accusative case marking in Japanese as seen in classical literary lexts. A special issue of
Journal 0/Japanese Linguistics 1 9.
Neeleman, Ad and Tanya Reinhart (1 998). Scrambling and the PF interface. In Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments; lexical and compositional/actors, Stanford, California: CSLI Publications, pp. 309- 353. N i shigauch i , Taisuke ( 1 990). Quantification in the theory of grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Ordoiiez, Francisco. ( 1 997). Word order and clause structure in Spanish and other Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, CUNY. Ozturk, Balklz (2003). Configurationality: a typology based on case and referentiality. Ms., Harvard University. P ap er presented at CASTL, Trsmsa, Norway. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego (200 1 ). T-to-C : causes and consequences. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language. MIT Press. Pollock, J.-Y. 1 989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP.
Linguistic Inquiry 20:365-424.
Rackowski, Andrea (2002). The Structure of Tagalog: Specificity, Voice, and the Distribution of Arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Reinhart, Tanya (1995). Interface strategies. OTS working papers, Utrecht University. Rizzi, Luigi ( 1 986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro, Linguistic Inquiry
1 7:50 1 -557.
Rizzi, Luigi ( 1 997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliana Haegeman ( ed. ), Elements of grammar: handbook in generative syntax. Dordrecht: Kl uwer Academic Publishers, pp. 281-337. Rochemont, Michael (1 986). Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Saito, Mamoru ( 1 992). Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 1 :69- 1 1 8.
Selkirk, Elizabeth ( 1 984). Phonology and syntax: the relaiion between sound and
structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Selkirk. Elizabeth (l 995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In John A. Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of phonological theory. London: Basil Blackwell, pp. 550-569. Shibatani, Masayoshi ( 1 990). On parametric syntax. In Festschrijt for Professor Hisao
Kakesh; s Sixtieth Birthday. Tokyo: Kurosio, pp. 397-420. Sigurdsson, Halld6r Armann (2003). Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds. Ms., Lund University, Sweden. Simpson, Andrew and Zoe Wu (200 1 ). Agreement, shells. and focus. Language 78: 287313.
Szabolcsi, Anna. ( 1 98 1 ). The semantics o f topic-focus articulation. In Jan Groenendijk, Theo Janssen, and Martin Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study 0/ language, Amsterdam: Matematisch Centrum, pp. 5 1 3-4 1 . Tada, Hiroaki ( 1 993). A/A ' partition i n derivation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Uchibori, Asako (2000).The Syntax ofsubjunctive complements: evidencejrom Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Conn. Watanabe, Akira, ( 1 993), Agr-based case theory and its interaction with the A-bar system. Doctoral dissenation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
234
Shigeru Miyagawa
Webelhuth, Gert ( 1 989). Syntactic saturation phenomena and the modern Germanic languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Amherst. Whitman, John ( 1 99 1 ). String vacuous V to Compo Paper presented at GLOW. Yamashita. Hideaki (200 I ). EPr and the ordering effects on interpretation: a preliminary study. Nanzan studies in Japanese language education 8. 300-338. Nagoya: Nanzan University. Yang. Dong-Whee (2004). Scrambling, interpretive complex, and cyclic spell-out. A paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America, Boston, Mass.
Shigeru Miyagawa Department of Linguistics and Philosophy 32-D886 MIT Cambridge, MA 02 1 39 USA
[email protected] 235
Transparent parsing: phases in sentence processing* Iris
Mulders University
Utrecht
This paper discusses the role of phases in reanalysis during sentence pro cessing. First, it is shown that whereas reanalysis in syntactic processing is very difficult to perfonn in some cases, it is automatic in other cases. This calls for a constraint on reanalysis. It is argued that on conceptual grounds, we expect reanalysis to be impossible across phase boundaries. It is shown that indeed reanalysis is possible within phases, and that reanalysis across phase boundaries can only take place from the phonological border of a CP or VP-phase. Finally, it is investigated whether nominal projections constitute boundaries for reanalysis.
I.
The Basic Problem: Constraining Reanalysis in Sentence Processing
The goal ofthis paper is to convince theoretical linguists, especially syntacticians, that sentence processing is a field ofstudy which is directly relevant for their own work. My intention is to demonstrate that syntactic processing is not at all remote to syntax, but is actually governed by familiar principles. Therefore, sentence processing should not be dismissed by syntacticians as 'interesting but a different baUgame'; to a large extent, it is the same baUgarne as syntax. The empirical domain that this paper is concerned with consists of so called garden path sentences. Garden path sentences are sentences that are difficult to process due to a temporary ambiguity. A well-known example is ( 1 ): i. After Susan drank the water evaporated.
(I)
The element the water in (1) is temporarily ambiguous, because at the point in time where the parser encounters it, it could in principle be analyzed in two positions: in the subject position ofthe main clause (which would be the correct analysis for (1», or in the direct object position of the embedded clause, as in the minimally different (2): (2)
After Susan drank the water she disappeared.
It is generally accepted that the processing difficulty associated with ( 1 ) arises because the parser analyzes the water as the direct object of the preceding verb drank, rather than as the subject of a predicted main clause. One might attempt to account for the contrast in ease of processing between ( 1 ) and (2) along the following lines. In a string like After Susan drank the water.. .. , the parser initially analyzes the water as the direct object of drank. This analysis happens to be correct in (2), but it is not correct in (1); the initial analysis has to be revised in (J-) when the parser encounters evaporated: •
Many thanks to Kriszta
paper.
Szendroi and Eddy Ruys for their comments on an earlier version of this
49, 23 7-264. 2005 Jris Mulders
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics Perspectives on Phases.
©
Phases in sentence processing
i , � " !
(3)
TP
�
PP
.L oA. I
Susan
�
T
Jib.
TP
�
�
VP
o
Ap I
V evaporated
I drank
One might hypothesize that this reanalysis is costly for the parser, and that this is why (2) is so difficult to process. However. things are more complicated than this: not every instance of reanalysis leads to processing problems. To see this, consider the sentences in (4): (4)
a. b.
John believed Mary. John believed Mary came.
Note that (4b) does not induce any noticeable processing difficulty, compared to ( I ). It is important to note that the difficulty in processing ( I ) is very strong: native speakers of English tend to get rather confused when they are confronted with sentences like ( l ). This psychological state of confusion is indicated here with i. No such confusion arises when processing (4b). Nevertheless, (4b) does display a temporary ambiguity s imilar to (1): at the point it is being processed, Mary could be either analyzed as the subject of ·the verb following it, or as the object of the verb preceding it. The parser makes the same decision as in ( 1 ), and attaches Mary as a direct object of believed. This means that Mary will have to be reanalyzed as the subject 'of came when came is encountered. But this in tum means that our account for the processing difficulty in ( 1 ) cannot be as simple as stated above: it can'tjust be that reanalysis in itself leads to conscious processing problems: reanalysis leads to problems i n ( 1 ), but not in (4b). So, we can conclude that reanaly�is is possible in certain environments, but not in others. In other words, it is constrained. The fonnulation of the conditions under which reanalysis can occur and under which it cannot occur, is thus a topic for psycho linguistic study. The importance of intuitive processing judgments is emphasized in the work of Pritchett ( 1 992). Pritchett gives numerous minimal pairs of temporary ambiguity which do lead to a conscious processing problem in some structural environments, but not in others . Some of these examples are given below: (5)
a.
b.
238
Object-Subject Ambiguity John bel ieved the ugly little man hated him. i.. After Susan drank the water evaporated Double Object Ambiguity Rex gave her presents to Ron i.. Todd gave the boy the dog bit a bandage.
Iris Mulders
c.
Lexical Ambiguity i.. The old train the children. The church pardons many sinners.
(Pritchett 1 992: ex.22a,d,e)
In order to account for these types of facts, Pritchett argues for a serial processing model which consists of I . a theta-based strUcture·building component, which attaches incoming material in maximal compliance with the theta criterion, and 2. a reanalysis constraint, which rules reanalysis in or out based on structural differences between the 'easy' and the 'difficult' cases. Although Pritchett's model accounts for an impressive amount of facts, it has been widely rejected in the field of psycho linguistics. This rejection is party explained by the fact that in the field of psycho linguistics, the recognition of the importance of intuitive judgments by native speakers is not a matter of course. Furthennore, there has been some criticism on Pritchett's attachment procedure; this criticism does not hold up to closer inspection though (for details, see Mulders (2002), chapter 3). Finally, Pritchett'S reanalysis constraint has been shown to run into problems in accounting for some Japanese processing facts (Mazuka and Itoh
J 995) .
My work aims at solving these empirical problems, by taking a new take on the reanalysis constraint. For reasons of space, I cannot go. into the specifics of Pritchett's framework here, or the specifics of the objections raised against it, and how my approach remedies these objections while maintaining some of Pritchett's basic insights. The interested reader is referred to Mulders (2002), which discusses the development of the current proposal in detail. 2.
A
Transparent Parser
Having established the empirical domain of this work, we now move to the de mands we pose on our processing theory. We have already seen some evidence suggesting that in order to account for the presence vs. absence of strong gar den path effects. we need a parser that consists of two components: an analysis component, and a constrained reanalysis component. But what fonn could these components take? Ideally, we are looking for a transparent parser. Le. a parser which is as close as possible to grammatical theory as we know it, without any parser-specific operations. The rationale behind this wish is, firstly, a matter of a simple desire for elegance and simplicity in the theory of language (subsuming grammatical theory and processing theory). Syntactic theory already contains mechanisms for building structure (Merge), and it also contains a way to restrict grammatical operations to certain domains (the Phase Impenetrability Condition, Chomsky 1 999). If these building blocks rum out to suffice for explaining garden paths in sentence processing, no processing-specific operations are called for. Another requirement that our parser should meet is that it should be universal: it should apply to all languages, just like grammatical theory does. This seems like an even more acute concern than the similarity between grammatical and processing theory, for a simple reason: a child needs a parser to be able to learn his or her language in the fIrSt place, so assuming different parsers for different languages induces a bootstrapping paradox: the child will need a parser to learn its language, but it will have to kn ow its language before it can decide which parser to use. However, it has been argued in the processing literature that for instance Japanese is parsed by entirely different heuristics than English. I will come back to
239
Phases in sentence processing this in more detaiL For now, let us take the universality of the parser as a guideline that simply must be met. Now, let us see what these conceptual guidelines do for restricting our search space for the analysis component ofthe parser, and its reanalysis component. The form of the parser's analysis component is not very important for the work presented here; for present purposes, I will adopt without further discussion the theta-based structure-building mechanism of Pritchett ( 1 992):
(6)
Theta Attachment: The theta criterion attempts to be satisfied at every point during processing given the maximal theta grid.
Note that Theta Attachment implies that attachment during sentence processing is head-driven. i.e. theta-requiring element are stored in working memory until their licenser is encountered. Theta Attachment does seem rather close to Merge, the major difference being that it proceeds left-to-right rather than bottom-up (for more information, see Mulders (2002». As for the reanalysis component. which is the topic of this paper, I would like to pursue the intuition that our requirement for the parser to be transparent implies that the constraint on reanalysis should be on a par with constraints on movement in syntax. Of course, movement in syntax is contrained by the Phase Impenetrability Condition: (7)
Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC): The domain of H is not acces sible to operations outside HP, but only H and its edge. (Chomsky (1999), p. l O)
The PIC seems like a particularly nice starting point for looking at the constraint on reanalysis in sentence processing. The reason for th is is that we can be sure that during sentence processing, constituents will need to be 'closed' in order to avoid overflow of WOrking memory. It seems conceptually plausible that these units for closure would be identical to phases. In order to be testable, we need to fonnulate more precisely the intuition that phases should constrain reanalysis in syntactic processing. My proposal is to (onnulate it as follows: ( 8)
Phasal Constraint on Reanalysis (PCR) (to be revised); In case of reanalysis from source position S to target position T: ifS is phase-embedded with respect to T, S must be in the edge ofa phase.
Where phase-embedded can
(9)
be defined as follows:
X is phase-embedded with respect to Y iff there is a phase boundary P that dominates X but not Y (where P '# X and P '# Y).
The intuition behind the reanalysis constraint in (8) is rather straightforward: reanalysis should be barre d whenever the parser has to remove an element from a closed phase in order to perform the reanalysis. The only 'escape hatch ' from this constraint should be the edge of the phase, just as in syntax. To get a feel for how the peR works to constrain reanalysis, consider again ( l ), repeated here as ( 1 0): ( 1 0)
l After Susan drank the water evaporated
As we have seen, the water will be attached initially as the direct object of drank, due to (6).
240
Iris Mulders (I I)
PP
�
P
TP
I
� afterOp 81 T' � I Susan
T
VP
�
V
OP 82 ..... the water
I
drank
Now, the reanalysis that is necessary to arrive at the correct interpretation of ( 1 0), can be seen as 'movement' from the object position of the embedded clause, to the subject position of the main clause. This can be depicted as follows: TP
( 1 2)
� I DPij)' � � TP
PP
I
after
OP
Susan I
T'
VP
/'--.... � T VP the water I evaporated
� I
drank
In order to determine whether the reanalysis in (I I ) is permitted by the peR, we look at the reanalysis of the argument the water. We indicate the source position of the water with a singly boxed node. In this case, the source position is the complement position of drank. so the node that occupies that position in the end structure, is marked with a single box. The target position is marked with a double box. As we can see in ( 1 2). the source position of the water is phase-embedded with respect to its target position; the VP phase dominates the source position, but not the target position. The embedding phase is indicated here by the box around the VP-phase Since the source position is not in the edge of the VP, automatic reanalysis is barred by the peR. This means that automatic reanalysis is not possible for the parser in ( 1 0); we are basically stuck with a structure in which evaporatedhas no subject, and the water is 'trapped' in direct object position. It seems to be true intuitively that this is indeed the automatic interpretation of(lO): the interpretation seems to be missing a subject role for evaporated. Of course, a native speaker confronted with ( 1 0) will attempt to repair this, "and in doing so helshe may arrive at the grammatical analysis; the important point is that conscious processing is needed to arrive at the correct interpretation. Reanalysis is not done automatically and effortlessly by the 1 Throughout this paper. I use simplified VP-structures rather than an elaborate vP-structure, unless the difference between a vP and a VP structure really matters.
24 1
Phases in sentence processing
automatic human parser. Now, let us contrast this with the easi ly processible (4b), repeated here as ( 1 3 ). (13)
John believed Mary came
The initial parse ofthe string John believed Mary is depicted below: ( 1 4)
TP
�
DP I
John
T'
/'-..... T VP
�
V I
beJieved
DP I
Mary
This initial analysis has to be revised when came is encountered. The result in g structure is given below:
( I S)
TP
�
T'
DP I
John
/"-...
T
VP
� �
beli ved
�P
C
� Ug!J rf't, � I
Mary
T
VP _ I V
came As we can see in ( 1 5), the source position is not phase-embedded with respect to the target p osition: there is no phase boundary that dominates the source position but not the target position . This means that the peR correctly predicts no conscious processing problems in (14). The intuition with respect to examples Jike (l4) is that reanal ysis is possible as long as a constituent is 'still be ing worked on' � We have now seen two simple examples of how the PCR discerns auto matic reanalysis from non-automatic reanalysis. The approach may seem oddly representational in nature, especially for a theory about processing: it looks at the grammatical analysis for a garden path sentence and evaluates the relation be tween the source and the target position in order to determine whether reanalysis could take place automatically. However. as we will see, this way of evaluating reanalysis, which was introduced by Pritchett, turns out to be rather productive. In the remainder of this paper, we will see how the peR accounts for a cross-linguistic variety of garden path effects as well as for instances ofautomatic reana lysis. In section 3, I will discuss reanalysis from the VP-phase. Section 4 will discuss reanalysis from CPs. In section 5, we will see that the PCR has
242
Iris Mulders
to be constrained somewhat more. Finally, in section 6, I would like to make a contribution to the debate as to whether next to CPs and VPs, there is also a nominal projection that counts as a phase for reanalyis; I will review evidence from processing that bears on that issue. 3.
Reanalysis from the
VP
In this section, I will discuss reanalysis of arguments crossing a VP boundary. With respect to the VP-phase, the PCR makes a particularly interesting prediction: the peR allows for reanalysis of direct objects in OV-Ianguages, like Japanese, if we assume that direct objects in OV-Ianguages are located in the edge of the vP-phase. It may be good to note here already that the refonnulation of the PCR that will be undertaken in section 4 predicts that direct objects can be reanalyzed in OV-languages regardless of any assumptions about their exact position inside the VP. The prediction that it should be possible underthe PCR to reanalyze direct objects in OV-Ianguages sharply contrasts with the prediction the PCR makes for reanalysis of direct objects in VO-Ianguages like English: direct objects in these languages do not occupy an edge position, and therefore automatic reanalysis of direct objects is predicted to be impossible in YO-languages. We have alread seen that the latter prediction is borne out; (1) is a garden path sentence. As far as I know, it is cross-linguistically true that reanalysis from a direct object position to the subject position of a higher clause is impossible in YO-languages. Consider for example the following Hebrew case: ( J 6)
i,axarej §e+dana §ateta ma'yim zarmu me+ha+berez after that Dana drank water flowed from the tap After Dana drank water flowed from the tap. (Sadeh Leicht (2003), ex. (2»
The garden path effect in ( 1 6) is of course also accounted for by the PRC. Now, let us tum to the prediction of the PRC that reanalysis of direct objects in OV-languages is allowed. An example by Mazuka and Itoh ( l 995) shows that this prediction is in fact borne out: ( 1 7)
OK
0 Yumiko-o
yobidasita kissaten-ni nagai koto mata-seta Yumiko-ACC summoned tea room-LOC long time wait-made
• 0 made Yumiko wait for a longtime at the tearoom to which he summoned her' (Mazuka and Itoh 1 995: ex. l 8b) This'sentence is parsed as follows. When the verb yobidasita 'summoned' is encountered, the following structure can be built: ( 1 8)
TP
�
DP I
pro
T' �
VP
T
�V
DP I Yum iko-o
yobidasita
summoned
243
,
l
Phases in sentence processing
I ,
i '
This is a simple main clause analysis. Note that in Japanese, it is generally possible to drop arguments; in ( 1 8), a small pro is inserted in subject position. Note furthennore, that for ease of representation I use a flat structure to represent the VP. Bear in mind that the direct object, which is located in the left of the VP, is actually assumed to be in the edge of vP for our current purposes. The next input is the noun kissaten-ni 'tea room' . Relative clauses in Japanese are right-headed; the structure in ( 1 8) is attached as a relative clause modifying kissaten-ni 'tea room '. The resulting structure looks like this: ( 1 9)
NP I N'
�N '
CP
o�, I
h
� kissaten-ni
TP
C tea room
� DP T' I �
pro
VP
T
�
DP
NP
Yum iko-o
ti
I
I
V
yobidasita summoned
'The tea room where I1he summoned Yumiko. '
The next input is the matrix verb mata-seta 'made-wait'. According to Mazuka and Itoh, this verb triggers reanalysis of Yumiko-o from the embedded object position
to the matrix object position. It is not entirely clear why reanalysis is preferred over .simply inserting pro in the matrix object position. This probably has something to do with the distribution of pro in Japanese. The reanalysis is depicted in (20):
1 r
Ii
I 244
'
Iris Mu lders
(20)
TP
� r DP I �
pro
VP
T
mata-seta
wait-made
CP
�
OPj
C' /'-... TP C
�T' DP
N' I N kissaten-ni
tea room
I
V
yobidasita summoned
In this structure, there are two phase boundaries that embed the source position with respect to the target position: the relative clause Vp, and its CPo However, the peR predicts the reanalysis to be unproblematic, because the argument that is being reanalyzed, originates in the edge of the VP. Note that for the PCR to allow this reanalysist the source position has to be in the edge of a phase, so the presence of the extra embedding CP-boundary does not rule out the reanalysis. As we have already seen, this prediction is correct: ( 1 7) is processed effortlessly by native speakers of Japanese. I would like to stress again how similar the reanalysis in ( 1 7) is to the reanalysis in (10). In both sentences, a direct object has to be reanalyzed from an argument position in an embedded clause to an argument position in a main clause. But while this turns out to be possible in Japanese, it is impossible in English. The PCR correctly predicts this cross-linguistic state of affairs. The universal 'escape hatch' for reanalysis of direct objects crossing a VP-phase boundary, simply does not apply in VO-Ianguages. 4.
Reanalysis from CP-phases
Having looked at reanalysis from the vP-phase, we now move to the CP-phase. We have already established that direct objects can be reanalyzed in Japanese, and we may wonder about the reanalyzability of subjects in Japanese. It turns out that reanalysis of subjects in Japanese is in fact allowed. Consider (2 ] ):
245
Phases in sentence processing
(2 1 )
N akamura-ga tyuuko-no pasokon -o kana toki Nakamura-NOM sec ond-hand PC-ACC bo u ght when syuuri-site-kureta repaired (for me)
' When lI( he/she) bought a second-hand com puter, Nakamu ra repaired it for me. ' (Mazuka and Itoh 1 995: ex.9=37) At the point of discovery of katta 'bought', the string is straightforwardly analyzed as a main clause. When toki ' whe n ' is encountered, it is added to the i n iti al main clause, and we now have an adverbial clause:
(22)
CP
�C TP
� DP I Nakamura-ga
T'
toki when
/'....
VP
T
�
N
� pasok tyuuko-no
second-hand PC
on o
kana
bought
Now, when the matrix verb syuuri-site-kureta 'repaired for me' is encountered, it becomes clear that this is not the right analysis.2 Mazuka and Itoh report that it is poss ible to interpret the string in (2 1) with a pro in matrix subject position referring to a third person, but according to them this reading is difficult to obtain without a proper context. This means that at the point of discovery of the matrix verb, the subject in side the embedded clause has to be reanalyzed as the subject of the matrix clause, and the s ubject position inside the embedded clause has to be filled with a pro. lAs Mazuka and ltoh explain. the verb syuuri·site.kurela is a special verb form that is used when the speaker is the beneficiary of the action expressed by the verb - sile kureta means something like 'someone did - for my benefit'. Because of this meaning, lite verb syuuri.site-kureto 'repaired for me' cannot take apro as its subject which is interpreted as the speaker. Mazuka and Itoh contrast (21) with the following example:
(i)
Nakamura-ga tyuuka.no pasokon.a katta lOki 0 syuuri-site·yatta Nakamura-NOM second-hand PC-ACC bought when repaired 'When Nakamural bought a second·hand personal computer, (Ij) repaired (it) for him, ' (Ma zuka and ltoh 1995: ex. lO)
J n this case. because a different verb form is used which does not mean that the speaker is the beneficiary, a pro referring to the speaker can be inserted in its subject position, and no reanalysis is necess8J)' when the matrix verb is encountered; Nakamllra therefore Slays in the subject position of the embedded clause. According to Mazuka and ltoh, (2 1) and (i) 'are alike in their ease of comprehension' (p.303).
246
Iris Mulders
TP
(23)
�
Nakamura-ga
CP
�
TP
�
� I
pro
T
C toki
when
/'...T
VP
�V
NP
�
tyuuko-no pasokon-o
T'
/'-... T VP
�V
DP
I
pro
syuuri-site-kureta repaired (for me)
katta bough
second-hand PC
Two points can be made with respect to this example. The frrst one is a rem inder of the enterprise we are undertaking here, namely finding a constraint on reanalysis . Note that the vel)' fIrst analysis made is the analysis of a simple, complete, Japanese matrix clause. There is no (serial) processing theol)' that would predict otherwise. In order to arrive at the structure in (23), reanalysis has to take place. However. this leads to no conscious processing difficulty at all. So, we must conclude again, that reanalysis is not generally impossible for the parser; problems due to reanalysis only occur in certain structural environments. The second point with respect to this example is that we see that a subject can be reanalyzed from an embedded clause to a main clause. As it turns out, reanalysis of a subject from an embedded clause to the matrix clause is generally possible in Japanese. We will see some more examples in section 5. But under the PCR formulated in tenns ofthe standard conception of edge, we would not expect reanalysis of subjects to be possible, since subjects do not occur in the edge of a phase: they are not in the specifier of CPo One way to solve this, is to say that the notion of edge may be defined differently in processing. Note that whereas the subject in (23) is not in the edge ofCP syntactically speaking, it is in the edge in some phonological sense. In these examples, the subjects do constitute the edge ofthe CP-phase, in the sense that they are the first edge-positions within the CP-phase that are filled with overt material. A similar m ix-up ofa phonological notion ofedge versus a purely structural notion of edge plays a role in the discussion of object shift in Scandinavian in Chomsky ( 1 999); in orderto solve it, Chomsky introduces the notion ofphonological border, which refers to the leftmost phonologically oven constituent in a phase. It looks like something similar is needed to account for reanalysis from subject position. This means that the PCR will have to be refonnulated along the following lines:
(24)
Phasal Constraint on Reanalysis (PCR) (revised, and to be revised):
In case of reanalysis from source position S to target position T: if S is phase-embedded with respect to T, S must be in the phonological border of a phase.
247
Phases in sentence processing
To my mind. the implicit assumption here that the parser can only be constrained by overt material does not seem unreasonable� after all, overt material is the only material the parser can be certain of; elements like empty operators traces and pro argum e nts are postulated by the parser itself, do not appear as such in the input. and may tum out to be wrong. Note furthermore that i f we use the formu lation in (24). reanalysis of direct obje cts in OV-Ianguages w ill be allowed regardless of the precise syntactic analy sis of direct obj ects in OV-languages, since the direct obj ect will always be in the phon o lo gical border, even ifwe assume that it is base-generated in a position to the left of the verb, and stays there in the syntax. ,
s.
Fu rther Constraining the peR
So far, we have seen that the PCR can account for reanalysis from subject and object pos ition in OV-Ianguages, and that it successfully bars reanalysis from object p osition in VO-Ianguages. In this section, I will discuss some facts from Japanese that seem to indicate that the PCR in its current formulation needs to be c onstrained a little bit further. The Japanese facts that I have in m ind concern reanalysis of more than one element. M azuka and Itoh (1 995) g ive the following minimal pair: (25)
a.
ox.Yoko-ga
kodomo-o koosaten-de mikaketa onnanoko-ni Yoko-NOM child-ACe intersection-LOC saw girl-DAT koe-o kaketa called ' Yoko called the girl who saw the child at the inte rsection (Mazuka and Itoh 1 995:ex.8b) b. lYoko-ga kodomo-o koosaten-de mikaketa takusii-ni Yoko-NOM child-ACC intersect ion -LOe saw taxi-OAT noseta put on 'Yoko put the child on the taxi she saw at the inters ection (Mazuka an d Itoh 1 995:ex. 14a) '
-
.'
Let us first consider the parse of (25a). When the verb mikaketa 'saw' is encoun tered, the first three nominal constituents can be theta-attached in a single clause, as foll ows: TP
(26)
�
DP
T' � Yoko-ga VP T
I
�
NP I kodomo-o child
NP I koosaten-de intersection
V mikaketa saw
This main clause analysis has to be revised when onnanoko-ni' girl' is .encountered. Yoko has to be taken out of the structure, and then a relative clause can be built,
248
Iris Mulders
where the trace of the relative operator associated with onnanoko-ni ' girl ' can occupy the su bje ct position, as in (27):
(27)
I�I I
NP I N'
Yoko-ga
CP
�
OPj
C' � C TP
onnanoko-ni girl
�,
� T
VP
�
NP I
NP I
kodomo-o
koosaten-de
child
intersection
V
mikaketa saw
Note that the reanalysis of Yoko in (27) does not violate the PCR. The source position of Yoko is phase-embedded with respect to its target position. The relative clause CP dominates the source position (the subject position of mikaketa 'saw'), and it does not dominate the target position, because the target position is not even in the same structure: Yoko has simply been sent back to store. However, since the source position occupies the phonological border of this phase, the reanalysis is allowed by the PCR. The two nominal constituents in (27) can be theta-attached when the matrix "verb" koe-o kaketa 'called' is encountered:
249
in sentence processing
Phases
(28)
TP
�T'
NP
I
�
Yoko-ga
T
VP
�V
�alled NP I N'
CP
N' I N onnanoko-ni
�
OPi
C'
�T'
ti
girl
�
TP
koe-o kaketa
C
�T
VP
N� I
I
kodomo-o
koosaten-de
child
intersection
mikaketa saw
As We have seen, the parse of (25 a) does not run into problems at any point. However, (25b) is less easily processed. Its initial analysis is identical to the initial analysis of (25a), i.e. the simple main claus.e structure in (26). But when the head noun takusii-ni 'taxi' is encountered, a more drastic reanalysis is invoked.
I
I
250
Iris Mulders
I�I I
(29)
Yoko-ga
I�I I
NP I N'
kodomo-o child
CP
�
C'
OPj
takusii-ni taxi
�C TP
�, � pro
VP
T
~ t.I
I koosaten-de intersection
mikaketa saw
The trace ofthe relative operator cannot be attached in subject position, because the relative clause verb mikaketa has a thematic requirement for an animate subject, and takusii-ni is inanimate. This means that the trace of the relative operator has to be attached in direct object position, and the original object kodomo-o ·child', has to be sent back to working memory. This in turn means that Yoko-ga also has to be removed from the initial analysis, because of the linear order of Yoko-ga and takusii-ni. So in (29), both the subject and the object of the initial analysis in (26) have to be reanalyzed. This reanalysis turns out to be very difficult to perform for native speakers of Japanese. Mazuka and Itoh ( 1 995) claim that the reason is that it is very difficult in general to reanalyze more than one argument in Japanese. They provide numerous examples to prove this point. One of these examples is the ,
following: (30)
l,H uruhasi-ga
Yumiko-o 0 0 yobidasita kissaten-ni Huruhashi-NOM Yumiko-ACC pro pro summoned tea room-LOC nagai koto mata-seta long time wait-made Huruhasi made Yumiko wait for a long tim e at the tea room to which he (Mazuka and Itoh 1995 :ex. 1 7c=37) summoned her. ' •
(30) is almost identical to ( 1 7), the only difference being that (30) has an overt subject. The initial analysis looks like this at the point of discovery of the head noun of the relative clause:
25 1
Phases i n sentence processing
(3 1 )
NP I N'
�N'
CP
I
�
N � kissaten-ni TP C tea room
OPj
C'
�
T' DP I � Huruhasi-ga VP T
�
DP I Yum iko-o
V yobidasita
NP I tj
summoned
'The tea room where Huruhasi summoned Yumiko. ' When the main verb is encountered, the subject and the object ofthe relative clause have to be reanalyzed as arguments of the main verb: TP
(32)
�
II D
VP
I Huruhasi-ga
T
mata-seta wait-made
CP � C' OPj
/'-....
TP
�, I
C
N' I N kissaten-ni tea room
�
pro VP
T
� I
TO
I yobidasita ti summoned
But where reanalysis of just the object in (1 7) is unproblematic, as we saw, and reanalysis of just a subject is also possible (remember (2 1 », it is not possible to reanalyze both the subject and the object at the same time: (30) is a garden path. The peR however, predicts that it should be fine, since the source position of
252
Iris Mu l ders
Huruhasi-ga occu rs in the phonological border of the relative clause CP, and the source position of Yumiko-o appears in the phonological border of its VP. The pattern is general; Mazuka and ltoh give a number of minim al pairs with the same structure.
(33)
a. i.Yakuza-no kanbu-ga wakai kobun-o sagasi-dasita gang-GEN leader-NOM young member-ACC found kenzyuu-de utikorosite simatta gun-with shot to death 'The leader of the gang [shot; 1M} the young member to death with the gun he found.' b. OJ(.Yak uza-no kanbu-ga wakai kobun-o sagasi -das ita gang-GEN leader-NOM young member-ACC found otoko-ni rei-o itta man-OAT th anked 'The leader of the gang thanked the man who found the young (Mazuka and Itoh ] 995:ex. 15) member of the gang'
(34)
a.
i.Hati-gatu-ni natte kara, Yamasita-ga yuuzin-o August-to became after Yamasita-NOM fri end-ACe hoomonsita kaisya-de mikaketa company-at saw visited 'After it turned into August, Yam asita saw his friend at the company he visited. ' b. oI:Hati-gatu-n i natte kara, Yamasita-ga yu uzin -o August-to became after Yamas ita-NOM friend -ACe hoomonsita siriai-ni tegam i-o kaita visited acquaintance-to letter�ACe wrote 'After it turned into August, Yamasita wrote a letter to an acquain (Mazuka and Itoh tance who visited his friend. ' 1 995:ex. 16)
The unprocessability of cases like (25b), (30). (33b), and (34b) implies that the peR is too wide; it seems that reanalysis from a phonological border position has to be restricted to one element at a time. The exact formulation is no trivial matter. We have seen that simultaneous reanalys is of both a subj ect and an object from their base positions is impossible in Japanese. However, Mazuka and !toh show that it is possible to reanalyze both a subject and an object if the object is scrambled over the subject: (35)
OKY
umiko-o Hurahasi-ga yobidasita k issaten-ni nagai koto Yumiko-ACC Hurahasi-NOM summoned tea room-LOe long time mata-seta wait-made we can conclude that PPs do constitute boundaries for reanalysis in sentence processing. 6.3.
Reanalysis with a phase-embedded target positio n
Up until now, we have only looked at cases of unpermitted reanalysis where the source position is phase-embedded with respect to the target position. That is, we have only looked at cases where reanalysis 'removes> an element from a phase. There are, however, also cases where reanalysis 'adds' material to a closed phase. In this section, I will discuss cases like these. As we will see, they provide evidence that �ere is some nominal projection that counts as a boundary for reanalysis. Consider the following example, which is a garden path: (52)
i.
I put the candy in tbejar into my mouth
Initially, the parser attaches in the jar as an argument of put. The reanalysis in (52) then looks like this:
260
Iris Mulders
(53)
TP
�
NP 91
,
r
�VP
T
: - - DP 92-
-
-----:
NP - - - - ," : : the� I I I' I
t
I
N'
into my mouth
II
1 � 2, ? 2 > seem)
The associate, twa fISh, can't be "moving at Logical Fonn" since its scope with respect to the intensional verb would have to be obligatorily wide in that case, * The conclusions reached in this paper can be chrono l ogi cal l y traced as the result of conversations in chronological order: Milan Rezac, Karlos Arregi. Pranav Anand. Shigeru Miyagawa, Joh n Bailyn. Howard Lasnik . Usama Soltan, Noam Chomsky. Brent DeChene, Julie Legate, Klaus Abels, Norbert Hornstein. and Cilene Rodrigues. In ad dition. audiences at the MIT Phase Workshop (Jan 2003) and at Kanda University (Oct 2003) and Tsukuba Un iversity (Oct 2003) were vel)' encouraging and thought-provoking. I d oubt thaI any of the aforementioned parties are in full agreement with the conclusions I have drawn. I As the locution "It is the case that. . ... or "It is not the case that" is highly prevalent in this paper I . will capitalize all instances of Case when refening to the technical tenn.
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49. 283-306 Perspectives on Phases CO 2005 Andrew Nevins
f"
Derivations without the Activity Condition
counter to fact. Similar arguments (due to H. Lasnik, among others) against remerger of the DP at any conferred-upon level of representation can be mustered from the inability of t�e postverbal DP to bind an anaphor license a negative polarity item (3),
(2) or
(2)
* There seem to each other to be some biolinguists making progress.
(3)
* There seem to any of the biolinguists to be no philologists making progress.
The evidence that features can be valued at a distance (whether ultimately modeled with Agree or another operation) demonstrates that feature-valuation
cannot be what drives movement of a OP to FP as Agree should always be an
option. There are two less-conferred upon answers as to why OPs move (to A positions). The Inverse Case Filter answers that FO needs to assign Case to something (in a spec-head relation, no less). The EPP answers that there is a structural requirement that the immediate projection of FO is in a sisterhood relation with a DP. As the Inverse Case Filter is stated in tenns of the
requirement for an overt specifier-head configuration, the only divergent predictions from the EPP pivot upon whether or not the moved OP is actually assigned Case in the specifier of FO. A range of evidence to be discussed below demonstrates that the re-merged DP is not assigned Case by FO, The EPP in its pure form remains as the best answer to our opening question. Whether or not this is a sad conclusion for the hypothesis that movement is only driven by uninterpretable feature-checking is an evaluation left for the reader. We tum to the arguments that Movement can occur without Case, Agreement, or Inverse Case valuation. 2.
The Inverse Case Filter does not Subsume EPP Effects
The Inverse Case Filter (ICF henceforth) is "the requirement that traditional Case assigners assign their Case features" (Boskovic 2002: p. 1 70; see also Martin 1 999 for an earlier fonnulation) in an overt spec-head relationship. Thus.
(4) is modeled as illicit because fmite matrix T has not assigned nominative Case to anything. (4)
* Is likely that Agboh helped Mbaya.
The failure of matrix T to assign nominative Case in (4) poses no legibility problems for the LF interface. as the Visibility requirement (Chomsky 1 98 1 ) - that all arguments of all predicates bear Case -- is met (even by the CP, though not morphologically visible). It could be that the unmet lexical requirement on T to assign Case renders it ineligible for phonological spellout at PF. but I prefer to view the ICF as a syntax-internal constraint within models that posit it.
(5)
284
* was told Njoroge that Assefa left.
Andrew Nevins
(6)
* Qasba believes to have been told Sasha that Yves left.
After all, (5) shows that nominative Case assignment to the OP object isn ' t enough: Nominative must b e assigned i n a configuration resulting from overt movement2. (6) shows the same for accusative: it cannot be assigned at a distance in order to satisfy the ICF, but requires displacement. Why should PF be unable to spellout a predicate that has discharged its Case feature, but not in a spec-head configuration? The answer remains obscure; hence, let's consider the ICF purely syntax-internal . Note that it still does not subsume all EPP effects. Though (4)-(6) are ruled out by the EPP, there is a class of derivations that the EPP can rule out that the ICF can't: those without successive-cyclic movement through intermediate specifiers of TP. Evidence for this intermediate movement is easy to find: in (7), neither the surface nor the theta-position are suffjcient to bind the anaphor, but the intermediate specifier ofnonfmite T is3:
(7)
Thelonious seems to Mrs. Monk to appear to himself to be a genius
Thus, above and beyond the ICF, a representational principle ensuring successive-cyclic movement is required in models that attempt to model derivations without the EPP. Suppose we make this move, temporarily. What about (8), an Icelandic sentence in which there is no nominative Case being assigned?
2 The lCF may also be employed to rule out instances of there-existentials wirhout an associate, e.g. *There seems that Kate Icnows everyth ing . However, sentences like rhese independently crash due to lack of a DP to val ue the phi-features of matrix T. An leF-based explanati on in terms of O vert Case assignment adds nothing to this independent sy,ntactic requirement. In addition, blocking effects (the availability of an it-expletive variant) and perhaps semantic requirements on there-existentials are
additional sources of explanation.
3 Grohmann, Drury, and Castillo (2000) attempt to provide an alternative explanation for (7), in which there is nO intennediate A-movement.. but rather, that himself is a logophor in the complement of appear. citing the following sentence as evidence (with the judgement that it is grammatical):
(i)
John kissed Mary because it appeared to himself that rhe earth was flat
I find the status of thi s sentence egregious, as do all of the people that I have asked. In any event,
more nuanced arguments for successive-cyclic movement can be found with quantifiers. Sauerland
(2003) uses data such as the following to argue for successive-cyclic movement through
(must > neg > every)
(i)
Every student mustn't get an A.
(ii)
Every child; doesn't seem to hisj father to be smart. ( neg > every)
[. .
.
vP:
At most a third of them can get one.]
(i) rules out the possibility that when ne gation scopes over a universaJly-quantified subject, it is due to neg -rai sin g , rather than reconstruction. as negation cannot scope above the modal. (ii) shows that the universally-quantified subject can reconstruct below negation. to a position still high enough to
bind the experiencer pronoun. (II also cannot be the case that the lowest copy of every child is
Quantifier-Rai sin g to bind the pronoun, as that would constitute a weak-crossover violation). The LF
posi ti on, then. must be an i ntcnnediate projection, which Sauerland argues to be specifier of the v
above seem, with movement triggered by an EPP feature.
285
Derivations without the Activity Condition
(8)
a.
Okkur var hjelpao We-dat was helped 'We were helped'
b.
1>ao logaoi a kertinu There flamed-3.sg at the.candle 'There flamed at the candle'
To maintain the ICF as operative in (8a), we must analyze it as follows: " Quirky subjects have a structural nominative, not morphologically realized, on top of the inherent Case" (Boskovic 2002, p. 17 1). (8b) represents a class of unaccusatives which have no argument capable of bearing Case (Sigurdsson 1 989/1 992: chapter VI), not even a quirky one. Perhaps a similar claim could be made, that there bears nominative Case in these constructions. Suppose we make these moves, temporarily, to keep the I CF afloat, and assume, contra morphological evidence, that datives and expletives actually bear an invisible nominative Case. Consider now structures in which the only DP in the clause is postverbal: (9)
Into the room rolled the basketball
Let's not enter into the debate about the ultimate surface position (A or A') of the locative; it's irrelevant for the present discussion. But recall that nominative Case must be assigned overtly (i.e. in a Spec-Head configuration) on the ICF account. For (9) to converge, the matrix T must assign nominative Case overtly . Hence it would have to be to into the room for the ICF to remain empirically correct. The conclusion is thus forced that the preverbal PP bears nominative Case, the lone instance of a preposition bearing nominative Case in the literature. It cannot be the case that the basketball ha� checked nominative Case overtly in Spec, T (say, with subsequent verb-raising even higher). Coopmans (1 989) demonstrates that it is not structurally high enough to control into an adjunct ( 1 0), while canonical preverbal subjects are ( 1 1 ): ( 1 0) (1 1 )
* Near the oasis lay two sheiks [without PRO talking] Two sheiks lays near the oasis [without PRO talking] .
The postverbal OP cannot be receiving nominative Case on the ICF account, as it never targets a high enough position for a spec-head configuration with T. Hence, the next question is, what Case is assigned to the basketball in (9)1 Notice that the ICF, as stated, requires overt movement for accusative case as well (cr. (6) above). But it can't be the case that the postverbal subject in (9) is moving overtly to, say, AgrO or v, as that would license pseudogapping (if we follow Lasnik's account). (1 2)
286
* Into lohn's office rolled a basketball, and into Mary's did a volleyball
Andrew Nevins
Pseudogapping ( 1 2) is extremely degraded. The explanation without overt movement is simple: the postverbal subject cannot move to AgrO, hence can't escape the ellipsis site. With the ICF, something extra must be stated. Let' s conclude, then, that the basketball isn't being assigned accusative Case. The standard account, of course (see Collins 1 997, So11an 2003) is that the postverbal subject has nominative case, assigned at a distance: incompatible with the ICF. Suppose then that locative inversion structures don't contain a nominative-assigning Tense, and that the postverbal subject is being assigned 'partitive' case (though definite NPs in this position sound quite acceptable, so the semantic determination of partitive Case would have to be abandoned) under sisterhood with the verb. Lasnik ( 1 992), based on Belletti ( 1 988) suggests that some instances of postverbal subjects (e.g., in expletive constructions) are assigned partitive Case. If this were to occur in (9), it would not constitute a violation of the ICF, as partitive case isn't structural, and all structural case assigners (trivially satisfied here, as there would be none, by stipulation) have assigned their Cases. But then why is ( 1 3) completely ungrammatical: ( 1 3)
* rolled the basketball into the room
The ICF cannot rule out ( 1 3) on the partitive account for the postverbal DP, cannot rule in (9) on the overtly-assigned nominative account, and cannot rule out ( 1 2) on the overtly-assigned accusative account. Suppose we amend the ICF account of ( 13): partitive Case can be assigned to the postverbal DP, and nominative Case must then be assigned to the PP in an overt spec-head relation. Baroque or not, this captures the facts considered so far. The reader is no doubt weary of the number of theoretical options we have considered and discarded in order to preserve the ICF account of word order. In the next section, however, we tum to evidence from quantifier scope that even this last emendation cannot be maintained. 2.
Moving without Structural Case & Structural Case without Moving
Kuno ( 1 97 1) noticed a scope contrast between locative inversion structures and postverbal locative structures, demonstrated here: ( 14)
Some actress stood on every stage (3 > \/, \/ > 3)
( I S)
On some stage stood every actress (3 > \/, *\/ > 3)
The contrast can be explained by a version of the generalization from Nevins & Anand (2003) in ( 1 6) ( 1 6)
Non-nominative subjects cannot take narrower scope than their surface position
Obviously, the assumption needed by the ICF for theory-internal reasons that the PP has nominative case in (IS) leads to the inapplicability of (16) in explaining the quantification contrasts with (14), In short, the ICF assumption that
287
Derivations without the Activity Condition
nominative case is always overtly assigned (even to PPs and morphologically dative subjects) not only complicates PF, it obscures contrasts at LF. The alternative is the EPP. XPs move without doing so in order to value structural case. The locative in ( 1 5 ) moves and does not receive structural Case. The postverbal subject in ( I S) does not move (at least, not enough to license pseudogapping or adjunct control) and yet does receive structural Case. We have what biolinguists call "a double dissociation". The EPP as a purely fonnal principle of structure-building enables us to model this. The contrasts in ( 1 4)-{ l 5) extend to many kinds of non-nominative subjects (ergatives in Hindi, datives in Greek). We return to Russian accusative subjects below. For the moment, though, consider another domain in which movement seems to occur completely independently of structural Case assignment. Though it is obligatory that at least one left-peripheral head (usually T(ense» bears the EPP property in English, it is often optional for lower functional heads to bear an EPP property. Concretely, we will assume that there is a head H distinct from (but quite cartographically close to ECM v)4 which may optionally bear EPP, inducing a movement of the ECM subject completely independent of Case assigment. Recall that the ICF requires overt movement for structural Case assignment. However, the order of the ECM subject and a particle of the matrix verb may vary, as Lasnik has shown with the ECM verb make oU15: ( 1 7)
1 made Cuijian out to be a fool
( 1 8)
I made out Cuijian to be a fool
The optionality of word order in ( 1 7) & ( 1 8) looks like good evidence for a head H with an optional EPP, whose specifier is linearly after the verb and before the particle. In fact, as ( 1 6) can more strongly be formulated as ( 1 9), there is a pre9iction for quantifier scope, attested in (20) and (2 1 ), from Lasnik (200 1 ) ( 1 9) (20)
4
Movement of a QP only for the EPP does not reconstruct for scope I made out every Mersenne number not to be prime (neg > � \7' >
neg)
ln the current model. perhaps rather empirically naively, it is assumed that
V-to-v raising
is overt
in English.
5
Make out, for the unfamiliar, has two relevant meanings in the ECM conslrUction: one is roughly convince. e.g. (i)
I made out my missing homework to have been eaten by the dog
The other is roughly discover. e.g. (ii)
I finally made out close tabs to have been kept on me all along by the CIA
A third meaning, used later in this paper. is roughly Sleai, as in (iii)
I made out like a bandit
The fourth, meaning roughly reciprocally kiss and embrace. is probably more common than any of these, but unhelpful in this paper (though the imaginative reader can substitute it in (22».
288
Andrew Nevins
(2 1 )
(*neg > V.
I made every Mersenne number out not to be prime
> neg)
tf
To be clarify the readings: (20) can mean either that I discov ered/let on that all Mersenne numbers aren't prime (i.e., they're all composite): this is the tf
> neg reading. It can also mean that I discovered/let on that it's not the case that h they ' re all prime: the 23 7 t one isn't. This is the neg > li reading, which (2 1 ) lacks. Recall, now, that the ICF does not allow structural Case assignment
without movement. Hence Boskovic maintains that object shift is always overt in all of (1 7),( 1 8),(20),(2 1 ). and hypothesizes that the particle has two different positions, one before and one after the position of object-shift for the ICF; l et 's call them both GutP for clarity ' s sake. How then, to capture the scope contrasts
(20)-(2 1 )? Boskovic suggests that the ambiguity is not due to reconstruction of the DP, but to neg-raising, " a sort of QR . . .bounded by GutP (p. 206)6. In other words, in (20), negation can neg-raise over the universal quantifier, leading to the non-surface reading. However in (21 ), negation cannot neg-raise past GutP, hence it cannot move to a position c-commanding (and outscoping) the universal quantifier. This captures all of the facts in (20)-(2 1); after all, by themselves they underdetennine a unique analysis. The claim that OutP bounds QR, however, is false. (22) can clearly describe a scenario in which a different guest absconds with each dessert. in
"
(22)
Some guest (or other) made out with every dessert (3
) V, V > 3)
Suppose then, that the account is revised, and that outP only blocks QR negation, but not universal quantifiers. Then it is predicted that while (22) may allow the inverse scope reading, (21 ) cannot. Again the facts underdetennine an analysis, and this aspect of the revised ICF model is consistent with (2 1 )-(22). It's wrong for the contrast in (23)-(24). ,
(23)
I made out some guest to have eaten every dessert (3
> V, V > 3)
(24)
I made some guest out to have eaten every dessert (3
> V, • V > 3)
Putative movement of outP should be irrelevant for QR of the universal quantifier if it is only n eg- raising that is affected. However, the contrast in (23) (24) receives an explanation if the different structures are due to movement of
the DP. The contrast is straightforwardly pred icted by ( 1 9) and the explicit axiom that structural Case can be checked without movement. It has been demonstrated that Case valuation can occur without
movement ( leading to vP internal nominative subjects and IP-internal ECM subjects) and that movement can occur without Case valuation (leading to frozen scope). The ICF predicts neither, and hence misses empirical generalizations about the interaction between Case, word order, and logical 6 Further doubt can be cast
on neg-raising due to ilS unavailability to provide negation with scope leave has only the must > not reading. No proponen t of n eg -rais i ng (when invoked as a counterexplanation to DP-reconstruction) has provided
over modals and quantificational adverbs: You must not a principled set of constrainlS on its application.
289
Derivations without the Activity Condition
form. The best answer we have at present for why a DP moves to the specifier of a functional head FO is the EPP. Non-nominative subjects in A-positions (as diagnosed by lack of weak crossover, ability to bind subject-oriented anaphors� and ability to control into adjuncts; cf. Ura 2000) are precisely that: non nominative.
3. Non-nom inative Subjects and the Activity Condition We have seen that while inherently-case marked (i.e. dative, ergative) and prepositional-phrase subjects can be argued to have a (morphologically invisible) nominative case. such a theory-internal stipulation complicates Case theory. On the empirical side, there is a more difficult problem: the lack of a distinction between agreeing and non-agreeing subjects eliminates the representational vocabulary to describe scope contrasts between nominative and non-nominative subjects; only the former display narrow scope with respect to a lower DP (Nevins & Anand 2003). Even if a characterization of subject properties were to include the stipulation that inherently-case marked elements have obligatorily wide scope, the adversity impersonal construction in Russian (Lavine & Freidin 2002, Bailyn 2003) presents a more serious challenge to proposals that inherent-case bears a hidden nominative, as the accusative subject is structurally case-marked: (25)
ranilo puljami Soldat Soldiers-ace wounded-past.nonagr bullets-jnstr
The accusative subject is in an A-position: it can bind the Spec-T oriented anaphor svoj and it does not induce weak-crossover violations (Bailyn 2003). Moreover, it is an instance of structural case: it undergoes the genitive of negation, which inherent accusative does not (Lavine & Freidin 2001). The verb is in default fonn and shows no agreement with , the subject. Finally, the accusative subject shows obligatorily wide scope with respect to the instrumental (Nevins & Anand 2003). This latter fact, that the accusative-initial order has semantic effects (namely, freezing scope at LF), effectively rules out a "Stylistic Fronting" analysis (e.g., Holmberg 2000) for these constructions, in which non-nominative subjects are displaced only at PF. All three of the above papers thus agree that the most fruitful analysis of the construcition has the . following properties: (26)
Subject Position is Spec-Ti The accusative subject is in Spec-T, an A-position, allowing anaphor binding and obviating weo.
(27)
EPP-Only Movement Exists: Movement of the accusative subject to Spec-T is triggered by the EPP, a requirement that a functional head have a DP specifier. Movement of the accusative does not involve instances of Agree or uninterpretable feature valuation.
The analysis of adversity impersonals in Russian, whereby movement of a non-nominative subject can occur ··only for the EPP", finds parallels in
290
Andrew Nevins
analyses of ergative and dative subjects crosslinguistically; however, it is the clearest instance of an already structurally case marked DP satisfying the EPP. Movement of this type, however, involves an operation between T(ense) and a phrase that has already valued all of its uninterpretable features. In the framework of Chomsky (200 1 et. preq), however, an element that has already elim inated its uninterpretable features (28) cannot enter into further operations
(29) (28)
(29)
Inactivity of an XP: An XP that eliminates its uninterpretable features (case, wh-) is rendered inactive. The Activity Condition: Inactive elements are not accessible for further operations.
The models in (26)-(27) and in (28)-(29) are directly incompatible. Hence I will argue that the latter (specifically (29), as (28) may remain terminologically useful) must be abandoned, and that its role in constraining derivations must find other sources. I argue that the Single Case Constraint, the locality of A-movement (in its formulations under Relativized Minimality or the Minimal Link Condition) and the Phase Impenetrability Condition (itself a locality condition) are sufficient to rule out derivations that (29) does, rendering (29) unnecessary.
4.
The Role of the Activity Condition in Phased Derivations
Once (27) becomes an active part of the model, the question arises as to what rules out movement of case-marked elements to satisfy the EPP. Specifically, consider a configuration in which a nominative DP in a fmite clause is c commanded by an athematic-subject verb, which in tum will be c-commanded by a T(ense) with
an EPP requirement and uninterpretable phi-features.
Consider (30)-(3 1), where unbracketed · left-to-right linear order denotes c command, lower occurrences of moved phrases are shown as copies, and some functional structure is omitted: ( 30)
TEPP. � is likely RhodaNom is intelligent
(3 1 )
RhodaNom.Nom T is likely RhodaNomNom is intelligent
Agreement of matrix T with the embedded subject is an illict derivational move. This derivational step could be ruled out by (29), as Agreement and Movement occurs for an inactive XP. However, consider another detail. As nominative case assignment will accompany cp-valuation, the DP in (3 1 ) is assigned nominative case twice. A universal generalization about derivations is that DPs cannot be valued with more than one case feature: (32)
The Single Case Constraint: A DP that is valued with more than one case feature is illegible to PF.
29 1
Derivations without the Activity Condition
The generalization in (32) has been upheld by Schutze (2001 ), who demonstrates that an apparent counterexample, the appearance of "case stacking" in Korean is not an instance of multiple case markers, but rather that the second morpheme is a focus marker and simply cannot be analyzed as case related. I propose that the implementation of (32) occurs in the morphological component7• Incidentally, some readers might wonder, if (32) is all that is active in constraining movements, why is *A book read John ungrammaticaL Satisfaction of the EPP by the object in fact presents no problem, but in order to move above the subject, a book must undergo topicalization. The ban on improper movement (from an A' to an A position), discussed below, will thus rule out this sort of example. As the subject position in (30) is athematic, the only derivational option is to merge an expletive, which will yield a convergent derivation. A variant of (30), however, that will not run afoul of (32), is a configuration with a non-fmite T(ense), (spelled out as lo), with no uninterpretable cp-features. Consider (33) (34), where unbracketed left-to-right linear order denotes c-command, lower occurrences of moved phrases are shown as copies, and some functional structure is omitted (italics intentional this time): (33)
tOEPP be likely RhodaNom is intelligent
(34)
RhodaNom to be likely RhodaNomNom is intelligent
The derivational step in (34) is illicit (as can be verified by the fact that a continuation of the derivation with an expletive, e.g. *It is certain Rhoda to be likely is intelligent is ungrammatical). If movement of the DP is only to satisfy EPP on nonfinite T, however, what rules out this step? Suppose we put aside de_rivations in which an expletive is available in (33). If an expletive is not available at the point of (33), then the fmite TP that eventually dominates (33) will not have access to an expletive either. Hence movement of the DP in (34) will always result in movement to specifier of a finite TP, yielding an eventual violation of (32). Note that this explanation, however, though correct due to the fact that finite TPs are at every root, provides no account for the illicit local step in (34). In ruling out the local derivational step in (34), we note that (29). clearly bans movement of inactive elements, yielding an apparent argument for the activity condition. Closer examination of the structure of (33), however, reveals that there is an independent factor that prevents this movement. An active hypothesis in models of the relationship between functional structure and case assignment is that nominative case valuation by T(ense) requires the "participation" of a c-commanding C(omplementizer}. Specifically, -
7 In a lexicalist morphology. (32) would be implemented as a ban over precompile d OPS with more than one fonnal case feature. In a realizational morphology. (32) can be implemented through the ordering of rewrite rules (Anderson 1992. Noyer )992) or through Vocabulary Insertion (Halle & Marantz 1993) that requires a one-to--onc pairing between the Vocabulary Item inserted and the feature realized under a single tenninal node.
292
Andrew Nevins
Iatridou ( 1 993) demonstrated that nominative case assignment in Greek always implicates the presence of CP structure. Rizzi ( 1982, Chapter 4) implicates a C Nominative relationship, Aygen (2002) continues this line of research for Turkish nominative case, and Chomsky's Beyond Explanatory Adequacy formalizes within the Agree framework that the C-T relationship enables nominative case. (35)
c!-Nominative Valuation: Nom. case is valued by T immediately
within a CPo
The empirical data in Greek & Turkish, in addition to English, if we consider the optional nonpronunciation of that in the fmite complement of is likely and seems, demand (35). Further confirmation comes from Icelandic (facts due to Halld6r Sigurdsson), in which a matrix verb may agree with an embedded subject (36), just as long as the embedded clause is not tensed, regardless of the presence of a complementizer (37) (36)
(37)
(38)
Mer virOast margar baekur vera Me-OAT seems-pi many books-nom-PL be-INF skemmtilegar interesting 'To me seem many books to be interesting' ... Mer viroast margar baekur eru/seu Me-DAT seems-pi many books-nom-PL are-pl-ind/subj skemmtilegar interesting ' *To me seem many books are interesting' Mer virOist aO margar baekur seu Me-DAT seems-sg that many-books-nom-PL are skemmtilegar interesting 'To me, seems that many books are interesting'
A closely related Germanic language thus reveals that fmite T in (37) implicates the presence of a strong phase boundary, preventing agreement into it. With (35) in mind, we return to the structure of (34) and the illicit derivational step. The light verb v above be likely, athematic in this case as it introduces no external argument, is included as well. (39)
tOEPP v be likely [cp C RhodaNom is intelligent ]
(40)
RhodaNom to v be likely [cp C RhodaNom is intelligent ]
The derivational step in (40) is illicit because it is A-movement out of a CP. Research from van Riemsdijk ( 1 978) to Chomsky (200 1 ) has established that no syntactic operations can relate a phrase outside a CP to a phrase c commanded by the head of that CP:
293
Derivations without the
(4 1)
Activity Condition
Phase Impenetrability of CP: N o phrases i n th e complement of CO may Move to or Agree with phrases higher than CP.
Since (40) involves Movement from the complement of an embedded CO to the sp ecifier of a T which dominates the embedded C, (4 1 ) rules out (40). In the implementation of Phase I mpenetrabil ity in Chomsky (200 1 ), in which the
complement of CP becomes inaccessible only upon the introduction a do minating v, nonfmite T will not be able to induce EPP movement of the embedded subj ect. No appeal to the Activity Condition is necessary. Recall that all of the non-nominative subjects whose existence m otivates the impossibility of (29) originate within the vp, A likely possibility is
that vP in these configurations is simply not a strong phase8. To summarize, (4 1 ), an independently motivated locality condition on
syntactic operations, rules out EPP satisfaction by DPs that are embedded too far from the attracting T. The case valuation of the attractee is irrelevant. Before concluding, we should however consider what Bob Franks has called the implicit Phase Penetrability Condition within (4 1 ): that movement to
the specifier of CP allows further movement out of Cp, This derivational option should be considered for ( 1 2), traditionally ruled out under the rubric of improper movement.
(42)
RhodaNom to v be likely intelligent ]
[cp
RhodaNom CEPP,Top RhodaNom is
The first question that arises with respect to (42) is what features the embedded CO bears. Clearly an EPP feature is present, to enable movement to
the specifier position. All intennediate specifier,CP landing sites of successive cyclic A ' movement bear an EPP feature. And the DP in question is not a wh pbrase, so the embedded CP cannot be interrogative. Suppose that it is
topicalization-driven. Then movement to specifier of the higber nonfinite T will still be banned, as that would constitute improper movement. The ban on improper movement should be considered in tandem with another effect of
A ' movement: it renders the moved argument invisible
as an
8 When considering the role of the Phase Im�netrability Condition, howeVcr, it is im�rtant
to
recal l that vPs (inc lud ing unaccusatives and passives, according to the successivc-cyclic movement and nuclear stress d iagnostics advanced in Legate 2003b) may constitute a strong phas e, at least in
English. If (41 ) is to be invoked in blocking derivational steps in which T attracts or agrees with a DP ins ide a strong phase, it looks like the same constraint wiIJ block T from Agreeing with the vP
internal DP in an unaccusative expletive construction:
(i)
There T seem to have v arrived three ships.
Although the \I in (i) does not introduce an external argument, it still constitutes a strong phase. Legate (2003a) proposes that the apparent agreement of T and the postverbal OP is actually
mediated by \I. The unaccusative v Agrees with its internal object, valuing its case as nominative.
Recall that the complement of v is inaccessible. However, T(ense), requiring t-valuation. can enter into an Agree relationship with
v, resulting in
plural agreement. The difference betwe en C- and
v
headed phases. then. with respect to apparent accessibility of the complement, is due to the fact that a higher Probe can �Agree with \I, but not with C.
294
Andrew Nevins
intervener for cp-Agree. Consider negative quantifier movement in Icelandic, which displaces an object DP above the base position of the subject, licenses parasitic gaps, and induces weak crossover v iolations (Svenonius 2000): (43)
Strakarnir, hofdu [engu grj6ti] t, [hent t2 ibilana] The.boys had no rock thrown at.the.cars
If the Activity Condition were correct, (43) should induce a defective intervention constraint, similar to superraising, as the moved object intervenes between T and the in-situ position of the subject. Why should a case-valued DP that intervenes between a Probe and Goal while occupying an A position incur a Minimality violation, while a case-valued DP intervening between Probe and Goal while occupying an A' position does not? It appears as though A'-moved elements become invisible for cp-Agree once they have targeted their final landing site (see e.g., Rezac 2003): (44)
A'-agreement renders a DP 's categorial and cp-features invisible
The solution pursued here does not assume that A' -operations render A-operations invisible, but simply that they occur necessarily later. This rests on changing a few assumptions about the way in which phrase markers are built. Bottom-up application of Merge requires that embedded clauses are fully constructed before matrix clauses. Suppose that trees are not built in this way, but rather, that embedded clauses and matrix clauses are built in parallel, in separate workspaces. The embedded vP and matrix vP are constructed at the same derivational step, and the embedded IP and matrix IP are constructed in the same derivational step. Finally, the embedded CP and matrix CP are joined at the same cycle of phrase-marker construction. In essence, this is a derivational rendering of the model in Williams (2003), and is schematized in (45) (45)
Workspace 1 John TpBSt V say cP
Workspace 2 Mary T ["pwho v saw <who>]
At this point, C is merged in each of the subtrees and the wh- phrase moves to Spec, C: (46)
Workspace J Workspace 2 [c did John T v say CP ] [cp who C Mary T [vpwho v saw <who>]]
At this point, the syntactic object is merged with the CP, and the wh- phrase may move on to matrix CP (47)
Workspace 1 [cp who did John T v say [cp <who> C Mary T ["pwho v saw <who>]]]
I will address technical questions that have no doubt arisen. What is the status of ? In this model, it serves essentially as a 'placemarker' for the embedded CP. One theoretical option is that it literally is a place marker� and
295
Derivations
without the Activity Condition
that fusion of two subtrees always involves variable-substitution: the sister of
say is literally replaced with the CP, reminiscent of a generalized transfonnation. No de-merge of cj> would be necessary; it would be replaced by the CP. Though the number of operations in the model has increased, it is not
immediately obvious that any empirical problems of overgeneration necessarily arise from substitution of this sort9, given constraints on where variables can be inserted and what types of phrases may substitute for them. However, I will pursue another theoretical option, needed for independent reasons. The representation in (47) does not commit to intennediate movement through the matrix vP. However, there is a some evidence that A' movement is successive-cyclic through every vP, which is theoretically enforced by making vP a strong phase. Strong phases, however, necessarily contain no uninterpretable features. The placemarker cj> is clearly uninterpretable at the interfaces. Hence the matrix vP in (47) is not a strong phase until substitution of the CP occurs. When substitution occurs, the vP is eligible for spellout, and requires movement of the wh- phrase to its edge.
(48)
Workspace 1 [cp T [vp who v say [cp <who> C Mary T [vp <who> v saw • . .
<who>]]]
Thus, three new aspects of phrase-marker construction have been introduced. First, trees are not built strictly bottom-up, but rather respect Parallel Cyclicity. Second, interarboreal fusion occurs as a substitution operation. Third, a phrase becomes a Strong Phase only once it is interpretable at the interfaces. That is, transfer of a strong phase to the interfaces can take place after, say, the vP has been merged with higher material. The reader may fmd these three new aspects of syntactic computation wholly unmotivated. Let us see how, in the spirit of Williams (2003) (though his model is, as its name implies, thoroughly representation�l). improper movement is ruled out by these very principles of tree construction. Improper movement is A-to-A'-to-A movement. However, as subtrees are built in parallel, the highest A position will necessarily be filled by the time the embedded A' movement occurs. Consider the point in the derivation in which a T has been merged in both subtrees:
(49)
Workspace 1 Workspace 2 [ T v seems � ] [ T [vp who [Mary [v saw <who>]]]]
EPP satisfaction of both T(ense)s must occur immediately. In Workspace 2, this is accomplished by movement of the agent, Mary. In Workspace 1 , the EPP property of T must be satisfied somehow. Workspaces 1 and 2 have not been fused yet, and will not be until a C is merged. Hence no 9 Of course, it may be possible to view ell as more than a placemarker: suppose that the visibility criterion for arguments is correct in every detail, but that the formal implementation is that every
argument is dominated by a Kase head that that must be valued. CP arguments will need Case. ell could be a Kase head that say values the Case of. in tum merging with the embedded CP.
296
Andrew Nevins
existing X P in the derivation can satisfy the EPP of matrix T, and an expletive must be merged. (50)
Workspace
I
Workspace 2
[IP It T v seems cp ] [IP Mary T [vp who [<Mary> [v saw <who>]]]]
The CP layer is built, and the embedded wh- moves to specifier of the embedded C. It's clearly too late for improper movement to occur, as the A position in the matrix clause is already filled. (5 1)
(52)
Workspace 1 Workspace 2 [cp does [ it T v s eem lj> ] [cp who C Mary T
..
.] .
The Generalized Ban on Improper Movement (Williams 2003): A
movement operation cannot move an element from Xn+ 1 in the embedded clause to Xn in the matrix clause (where X l..n denotes the selection sequence of functional projections, Le. from embedded C to matrix T, from embedded T to matrix v, etc.)
(52) is implemented here in a derivational model by a Relativized Extension Condition that forces extension within each derivational workspace, without the
possibility of delaying EPP satisfaction until after CP-Ievel merger. Identical remarks apply in banning the derivational step in (42) that motivated the present discussion. (42) and the class of movements from an embedded A-position to a matrix A-position are thus prevented by (4 1 ), which rules out movement from within (i.e. the non-edge of) a strong phase, while movement through the edge will occur after the matrix A-position has necessarily been filled, by (52). No appeal to the Activity Condition is needed to rule out movement from one Case position to another.
5. A note on Hyperraising Though the focus of the current paper is to dispense with the Activity Condition, as it wrongly rules out A-movement of a structurally case marked DP to satisfy EPP, it is worth briefly considering other configurations that pose a problem for the Activity Condition about which I have only a little to say at present. In the last section, I have shown that A_movement out of a tensed clause in English is ruled out by the Phase-Impenetrability Condition, with no appeal to the Activity Condition necessary. Hyperraising is a phenomenon in which there is apparent movement of a DP from a tensed embedded clause (often with a complementizer) to matrix Case position, often of an athematic subject verb. Ura (1 994) presents a comprehensive study of such constructions. l will report facts here from Brazilian Portuguese (BP; Ferreira 2000, Rodrigues 2003): (53)
0 Joao parece que esta doente The John seems-sing. that is-sing. sick-sing.
297
Derivations without the Activity Condition
Ninguem parece que esta doente Nobody seems-sing that is-sing. sick-sing.
(54)
A few remarks on (53) are in order. Skeptics that this is hyperraising would have to reckon with the fact that if 0 Joao were base-generated in the higher clause, it could not receive a theta-role. Hence it seems reasonable to assume that 0 Joiio entered the derivation in the embedded clause. Another objection to waylay is that 0 Joao might be topicalized (A'-moved) from the embedded clause, with a null expletive in the matrix Spec, TP. But Ferreira (2000) shows that negative quantifiers, which make lousy topics, can undergo hyperraising (54). What could be the difference between languages that allow hyperraising, such as BP, and languages that do not, such as English? If the account provided here for English is correct, there must be two properties of BP that differentiate it from English. The frrst is that the surface subject is not receiving Case in either the matrix or embedded position. Ura in fact suggests that the embedded position does not assign Case hyperraising configurations. He points out a striking one-way correlation: if a language has hyperraising, it will have pro. One reason that Brazilian Portuguese is particularly interesting is because it seems to have lost pro due to morphological change (Rodrigues 2003). Hence, I will not pursue the pro-related analysis, and instead adopt another possibility here, based on the phenomenon of copy-raising (also discussed by Ura). Consider the English example below: (55)
John seems like he is often in trouble
(56)
John seems like he just told everyone that he will resign
(57)
... John seems like it was told him that he must resign
In (55), John must receive a theta-role. The only place to get it is in the embedded clause. I will adopt the proposal of Fujii (2003), in which (55) involves movement of John from the embedded clause, with evidence from the impossibility of superraising (57). How does the DP come to bear two Cases, in apparent contravention of the single case constraint? It doesn't; I suggest that what is going on here is peeling (a term due to M. Starke): moving a DP out �f a larger KaseP, and re-merging the DP in the matrix clause undet anothei KaseP (see also Boeckx 2003 for a very similar approach to A'-resumption). The remnant KaseP in the embedded clause is spelled out as he, as it only bears nominative Case features, and agreement features (valued through concord with the DP): (58)
[K KasCNom [op <Joh n>]] seems like [K KasCNom lop <John>]] is often . . .
(59)
PF: John seems like he is often . . .
(60)
298
*
. . John to seem that (he) left .
Andrew Nevins
Contrast the current proposal, which rules out (60) due to the Strong-Phasehood of the CP, with the Activity condition, which rules it out due to freezing of DPs in a Case position. Both proposals must assume something like a Kase-peeling analysis for (56)-(60). Why is Kase-Peeling not applicable in (60)? In fact, I will suggest that it is, but that the movement still runs afoul of the Phase Impenetrability Condition. The Activity Condition. for its proponents, must be bolstered with a statement that Kase-peeling is not available with that, but it is available with like, with no connection between the environment where it is available and the
mechanism itself. In other words, the Activity Condition could be relaxed specifically for as-ifconstructions. In the current proposal, where there is no Activity Condition, Kase peeling is always available 10, but the movement is bounded by phases, and as-if does not head a strong Phase l l . Potsdam & Runner (200 1 ), who pursue a non
movement analysis in which an A-chain is "generated" between the matrix subject and the embedded pronoun, pursue a similar intuition: like and as are prepositions, not complementizers (see also Heycock 19 84)1 2 . Returning to hyperraising: the suggestion would be that hyperraising
always constitutes an instance of Kase-peeling 13. Languages that allow Kase peeling spell out the remnant as an empty category, recoverable through morphological agreement or other means. English allows Kase-peeling, but must 4 spell-out the remnant as a pronoun 1 .
1 0 The reader m ay wonder if Kase-peeling is aJlowed, say, from object position to subject position.
Of course, the perspective of Hornstein (200 1 ), this could be precisely what is happening: there is movement to a second theta position, and die spellout of a remnant accusative KaseP is himself.
This would be fine, but dlen, of cou rse, die DP would get two theta-roles, which is illicit. from
1 1 Pr epositional as and like heading an IP seem to select for a 'defective' IP, as the EPP of the
tensed verb does not even seem to need to be satisfied (Postal 2002):
(i)
Lasers can, as is[-EPP) obvious, cut through walls
(ii)
Lasers can, as was[-EPP) proved by Mike, cut through walls
My hope is that the non-phasehood of as-headed IPs and die lack of an EPP on the T head can be related i n further research.
12 Further evidence comes from the fact that like can co-occur with that (Shimada 2004):
(i)
Their idea was something like dlat die government was airport security to be tough
13 Ura ( 1 994) has one argument (p. 133) against hyperraising as an instance of copy-raising:
replacing the empty position in a hyperraising structure with a full pronoun blocks the idiomatic interpretation with idiom chunks. Note that dlis does not occur in English: The cal seems like it's out
of Ihe bag. My guess is that die emphatic nature of full pronouns in pro-drop languages is incompatible with an idiomatic interpretation. Stressing die pronoun in English copy-raising with idioms yields a fairly bizarre result: The cal seems like idioms:John seems like HE ;s the one to do the job.
14
IT is out of the bag, while not with non
It is tempting to relate die necessity of spelling out a remnant in English to the necessity of overt
possessors. Consider get-passives, such as John got his wallet stolen. My analysis of these
conslrUctions is that John receives a dleta-role as possessor, and moves to the higher position for Case, where it receives no theta-role. The obligatory "affectedness" and "possessor" requirements of get-passives (Oehrle and Nishio 1 98 1 ) are automatically derived. If John is in fact A-moving from
Spec, DP - a left branch extraction, it must leave a resumptive his. The corresponding g et-passives
299
Derivations without the Activity Condition
remnant
Brazilian Portuguese is not out of the woods, yet, however. Recall that, the difference between licit and illicit finite
spell-out notwithstanding,
clause-to-fmite-clause raising has been reduced to the Phase Impenetrab ility Condition. How do configurations like (53) skirt this derivational locality requirement? An uninteresting solution is to suggest that the C heading the embedded clauses in these cases does not head a Strong Phase. While this seems like an unmotivated stipu lation, hyperraising often out of subjunctive and irrealis/future embedded clauses, known to be more penneable that indicative tensed clauses (and hence, perhaps not Strong Phases). As the repertoire of functional heads includes a Vde/ (passives) and a Tdef (infmitives), the existence of a Cdef (subjunCtive/irrealis) might be expected. However, I will pursue another possibility here, based on an interpretation of the Phase Impenetrability Condition offered in Lightfoot & Rodrigues (2003), in their analysis of clitic
climbing in Romance. The formulation of the Phase Impenetrability Condition in (4 1 ) was sufficient for our discussion at that point, and indeed, could even be understood as a representational constraint on well-fonned A-chains, if one wanted such
things in one's theory. However, let us consider the derivational formulation of the PIC offered by Chomsky (200 1). When a strong phase is completed, the next phase down (i.e. the specifier, the phase head, and the complement of the phase bead) becomes inaccessible to further operations.
(60)
Suppose that there is a projection
Brazi lian
Portuguese
(Uriagereka
1 997).
FP in between CP and TP in Suppose,
furthermore.
that the
embedded subject raises to Spec, FP after raising to Spec, Tp15. On the view of the PIC in (60). when CP is completed. the next phase down will be spelled-out. The next phase down is the entire TP projection. H�nce, when an English embedded CP is completed. the entire TP projection is inaccessible, including
in Japanese. on the other hand. have no overt possessor, yet all the same require obligatory affectedness and possession between the matrix subject and the subject of the passive participle.
1 5 Some preliminary evidence for BP subject-raising to a position higher than Spec. TP comes from quantifier float above TP-oriented adverbs. While quantifier-float is known to be a dubious diagnostic for A-traces (see Bobaljik 2003), the following BP sentence
(C. Rodrigues. personal FP:
communication. January 2004) may indicate that the subject occupied embedded (i)
? As vitimas me
parcccm que todas inesperadamentc resolveram testemunhar
the victims CI-l Sg seem-pi
a favor dos
that ail-pi unexpectedly
decided- 3pl witness-inf
policiais.
in favor of.the-pl policemen "The victims seem to me to have unexpectedly all decided to witness in favor of the policemen." On the hypothesis that
inesperadamente is a TP-Ievel adverb. and that there is V-to-T raising in BP.
the presence of todas on the left of the adverb may diagnose movement through embedded Spec. FP. Further research
300
is clearly needed.
Andrew N ev ins
the embedded subject in Spec, TP, as we saw i n the disc ussion around (34). In Brazilian Portuguese, on the other hand, the embedded subject moves to Spec, FP. When the CP ph ase is completed, though the TP projection is inaccessi ble, FP is still accessible. Hence the embedded subject is av ai lable for further raising to the matrix spec, TP (possibly through the edge of spec, vP. if it is a strong phase when introducing parece).
Hyperraising, then, is only allowed in languages that manage to avoid the embedded subject being trapped by the PIC. On the account developed here, it has nothing to do with the (un)availability of Case-assignment in the embedded clause, nor with the Activity Condition. To conclude this section: I have shown that the existence of accusative subjects in Russian contravenes the Activity Condition. The Activity Condition does not seem to be operative with extraction from certain types of vPs (and, perhaps, certain types of CPs). The generalization that there is no A-movement from a Case-position is wrong, but most of its effects can be captured by independent principles (the Single Case Constraint, and the Phase Impenetrability Condition). 6.
Obligatory Pied-Piping for Internal Experiencers
This section concludes with a few more puzzles. There is one more derivation that, at first blush, looks like an instance in which case-valued DPs cannot undergo EPP movem ent Consider the experiencer argument of an athematic subject verb, and the illict derivational step of preposition-stranding to satisfy the EPP: .
(6 1)
tOEPP seem [to [EddieoBdl [cpthat California is in political trouble]
(62)
* EddieoBL to seem [to �QRLt] £Cpthat CA. is in political trouble]
The fonnulation of the EPP in (27) should allow for satisfaction by a non-nominative subject. Prepositions can be stranded under A-movement, as is known from pseudopassives: (63)
EddieEPp,Nom was lawyer.
vpass
spoken to tEddie on the train by a maniacal
There is no violation of The Single Case Constraint in (62), and no appeal to strong-phase locality can block the derivational step in (62). The Activity Condition can rule out (62), however, as the experiencer already bears oblique Case1 6. However, Brent DeChene (personal communication, October 2003) has pointed out that there are two structurally analogous configurations to (62) that 16 The Activity Condition would have trouble, of course, with Ihe corresponding Icelandic examples, in which the experiencer is dative and not contained within a preposition, since raising them is are perfectly grammatical. This reinforces that suggestion that preposition stranding is wbat
is problematic in English.
30 1
Derivations without the Activity Condition
should allow perfectly licit EPP movement of the experiencer, without contravention of the Activity Condition. Both involve passivized verbs. Compare (63) with (64), and (65) with (66): (64)
* EddieNom was said [to �] £Cpthat California is in trouble.]
(65 )
* This charityNom has been given [to [tcharity]] a book about adverbs1 7.
(66)
This charityNom has been donated [to [tcharity ]] by nearly everyone.
There is no constraint against A-movement with p-stranding of the experiencer/goal in a passivized verb when a non-argument follows. However, when an argument follows, A-movement with p-stranding is impossible. The relevant configuration seems to involve an "internal gap". Kuno' s (1973) formulation of the Clause Nonfinal Incomplete Constituent Constraint roughly captures this set of facts, though nonfmal must be appropriately delimited to refine the generalization, and its source remains puzzling. To demonstrate that (non)finality is relevant, consider a contrast in A' movement of the experience with p-stranding, which obtains between internal and external (i.e, extraposed) gaps:
(67)
(68)
* Who does Luisa seem [to [twho ]] to be a genius? Who does Luisa seem to be
a
genius to twho?
Though an explanation is lacking for the "internal-gap" restriction on experiencer preposition-stranding (possibilities involving remnant movement suggest themselves), it should be clear that the impossibility of (62) does not constitute an argument for the Activity Condition, as it is related to a much broader class of phenomena unrelated to case-valuation. One potential problem arises with the verb surprise, which disallows A-movement of the experiencer (69)-(7 1 ) but allows A' -movement (72): (69)
TOEPP surprise Mary that John won
(70)
It is certain lit to surprise Mary that John won
(7 1 ) (72)
* Mary to surprise tMIlIY that John won Who did it surprise twho that John won?
There is a possibility, however, that the experiencer is assigned case by a null preposition, similar to McGinnis' ( 1 998) analysis of strike in John struck Mary as a complete fool. The obligatory pied-piping of internal experiencers developed in this section would ban (7 1), a case of preposition stranding. A 17 There is no Case problem in this example; pied-piping is what's relevant. Consider To ,hat charity had been donated a book about metathesis, and 10 this charity has been given a book about adverbs.
302
Andrew Nevins
pied-piping derivation is disallowed because PP-experiencers cannot satisfy the EPP: (73)
* [To Eddie] seemed t that Zak would survive
Aside from its postu lat ion of null prepositions (also argued for by Hornstein 2003 for the object ofpromise in subject control uses), the restrictions on movement of the experiencer of surprise can be understood. A' movement in (72) arguably involves p ied-p iping . A fin al question arises concerning the difference between strike and surprise with respect to A-movement across the experiencer. Contrast (74)-(75) and (76):
(74) (75) (76)
John struck Mary [xp tJohn as a fool]
John seemed to Mary ri P tJohn to be a fool] * John surprised Mary that tJohn was so foolish
.
The Phase Impenetrability Condition will rule out (76) 18, as the subject has A-moved from out of a CPo Return ing to our main conclusion, there is a generalized ban on preposition -stranding of internal experiencers that requires investigation, but in no way supports the Activity Condition. 7.
Concluding Remarks
I will summarize the argumentation of the entire paper. DPs move because there
is an EPP, indep end ent of Case-valuation I9. The Inverse Case Filter does not subsume EPP effects, and can be abandoned with no loss of empirical coverage; on the contrary, EPP-only movement affords the theoretical vocabulary to describe many contrasts in quantifier scope. EPP-only movement in Russian shows that · a stru cturally-Case marked DP may move only to satisfy the EPP. The putative generalization that A-movement of structurally-Case-marked DPs is impossib le falls under the Activity Condition, suggesting that the latter should be abandoned. A number of configurations that the A ctivity Condition rules out can be ruled out instead by a morphological constraint (only one Case-valuation is possib le) , a.nd two syntax-internal constraints (Phase Impenetrability t taken as an axiom, and the Ban on Improper Movement, derived as a consequence of parallel cyc lici ty in subtree construction). Hyperraising is assimilated to Copy18
II is worth considering why the complement of surprise should contain more structure than strike.
Howard Lasnik (personal communication. November 2003) suggests that it the additional structure of the complement may come from factivity: (i)
It surprises me Ibat it's raining. #but it's actually nOl raining
(ii)
It strikes me Ibat it's mining, but it's actually not mining
19 Though I have assumed the EPP is axiomatic within phrase-marker consuuction, for an C and phase
explanation involving the need for an intervening XP in the linearization of the head
below, under an interpretation of the Linear Correspondence Axiom, see Richards (2002).
303
Derivations without
the Activity Co ndi tio n
Raising, and argued to be the result of Kase-peeling: moving a DP out of its Kase-phrase. A few remaining puzzles concerning the impossibility of moving DPs from within PPs are shown to be equally problematic for the Activity Condition and the model developed here, hence providing no argument for the former.
References Anderson, Stephen. ( 1 992). Amorphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press. Aygen, Gulsat. (2002). Finiteness. Case. and Clausal Architecture. Doctoral Dissertation. Harvard University. Bailyn, John Frederick. (2004). Generalized Inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, pp. I-SO.
Belletti, Adriana. (1 988). The Case of Unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 17. pp. 375-4 1 6. Bobaljik, Jonathan. (2003). Floating Quantifiers: Handle with Care. In Lisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma. eds. The Second Gl01 International Sta1e-of-the-Article Book. Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 107-148. Boeckx, Cedric. (2003). Islands and Chains: Resumption as Stranding. John Bejamins. Boskovic, Zeljko. (2002). A-Movement and the EPP. Syntax 5.2. Chomsky, Noam. ( 1 98 1 ). Lectures o n Government and Binding. Foris: Dordrecht. Chomsky. Noam ( 1 993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor ofSylvain Bromberger MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. (200 1 ). Derivation by Phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. MIT Press. Cottins, Chris. ( 1 997). Local Economy. MIT Press. Coopmans, Peter. (1 989). Where Stylistic and Syntactic Processes Meet: Locative Inversion in English. Language 65, 728-5 1 . Ferreira, Marcelo. (2000). Hyperraising and N u l l Subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. Ms., Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Fujii, Tomohiro. (2003). Licit and Illicit Long Subject-to-Subject Raising. In Yukio Otsu (ed.), The Proceedings of the Fourth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics.
pp. l 09- 133. Hiluzi Syobo. Grohmann, Kleanthes, K., John Drury. and Juan Carlos Castillo. (2000). No More EPP. In the Proceedings of WCCFL 19. Somerville. MA: Cascadilla Press. Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz (1 993). Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.). The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger,
Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press. Heycock, Caroline. 1 994. Layers ofPredication. New York: Garland. Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Stylistic Fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 3 1 : 445-483.
Hornstein, Norbert. (2003). On Control. In Randall Hendricks (ed.) Min imalist Syntax. Blackwell. Iatridou, Sabine. (1 993). On Nominative Case Assignment and a Few related Things. In J. Bobaljik and C. Phillips (eds.), MITWPL 19. pp. 1 75-1 96. Kuno, Susumu. (1 973). Constraints on Internal Clauses and Sentential Subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 4.3, pp. 363-385. Lavine. James and Robert Freidin. (2002). The subj ect of defective T(ense) in Slavic. Journal ofSlavic Linguistics 10( 1 -2). http://www .facstaff.bucknell.eduljlavine/publicationspage.htm Lasnik, Howard. (1 992). Case and Expletives. Linguistic Inquiry 23 . pp. 3 8 1 -405.
304
Andrew Nevins
Lasnik,Howard. (200 I ). On a Scope Reconstruction Paradox. http://cognet.mit.edullibrary/bookslchomsky/celebration/essays/1asnik.html Legate, Julie. (2003a). Identifying Phases. Paper presented at the EPPlPhases Workshop at MIT. http://john.ling.yale.eduljlegate/phasews.pdf Legate, Julie. (2003b). Some Interface Properties of the Phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3). Lightfoot, David and CHene Rodrigues. (2003). Subject Inversion and Clitic Climbing. In I. Calgri, L. Meroni, and G. Tesan (eds.) University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 1 2. Martin, Roger. ( 1999). Case, the Extended Projection Principle, and minimal ism. In S. Epstein and N. Hornstein (eds.), Working Minimalism . MIT Press. McGinnis, Martha. (1 998). Locality in A·Movement. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MITWPL. Nevins, Andrew and Pmnav Anand (2003). Some AGREEment Matters. In G. Garding and M. Tsujimura (eds.), The Proceedings of WCCFL 22. Cascadilta. Noyer, Rolf. ( 1992). Features, Positions, and AffIXes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MITWPL. Oehrle. Richard T. and Hiroko Nishio. ( 1 98 1 ). Adversity. In K. A. Fanner and C. Kitagawa (eds.), Proceedings of the Arizona Conference on Japanese Linguistics. Coyote Papers, University of Arizona, Volume 2. Postal, Paul. (2002). A Paradox in English Syntax. Ms., NYU. http://www.nyu.edulgsasldeptllingulpeoplelfaculty/postal/paperslskeptica1/ Potsdam, Eric and Jeffrey T. Runner. (2001 ). Richard returns: Copy Raising and Its Implications. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society. Rezac, Milan. (2003). The fine structure of Cyclic Agree. Syntax 6.2. van Riemsdijk, Henle (1 978). A case study in syntactic markedness: The Binding Nature ofPrepositional Phrases. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press. Richards, Norvin (2002). Why there is an EPP. Paper prcsented at Movement and InteIpretation Workshop. Meikai University. Rizzi. Luigi. 1 982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rodrigues, Cilene (2003). Doctoral Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park. SchUlZe, Carson. (2001). On Korean "Case Stacking": The varied functions of the particles IaJ and luI. Th e Linguistic Review 18(3): 1 93-232. Sauerland, Uli. (2003). Intermediate Adjunction with A·Movement Linguistic Inquiry 34, pp.308-3 14. Sigurdsson. HaUdor. ( 1 992). Verbal syntax and Case in Icelandic. lnstitue of Linguistics. University of Iceland. Soltan, Usama. (2003). Locative Inversion: A Phase-based Analysis. Ms, University of Maryland, College Park. Svenonius, Peter. (2000). Quantifier Movement in Icelandic. In Peter Svenonius (ed.), The Derivation of VO and OV, John Benjamins. Ura, Hiroyuki. ( 1994). Varieties o/Raising and the Feature·Based Bare Phrase StroclUre Theory. MITOPL 7. Distributed by MITWPL. Ura, Hiroyuki. (2000). Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford Univeristy Press. Uriagereka. Juan. (1997). An F position in Western Romance. In K. Kiss (ed.) Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, Edwin. (2003). Representation Theory. MIT Press.
305
Derivations without the Activity Condition
Department of Linguistics
E39-245 MIT 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02 1 39 USA
[email protected] 306
and Philosophy
* Phase edge and extraction: a Tagalog case study
Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Richards MIT
In this paper. we examine evidence for the phase theory of movement (Chomsky 2000, 2001). in the context of Tagalog, arguing in particular that Tagalog has overt morphology that signals movement of arguments to check EPP on the head of the lIP phase. We show that this morphology interacts with extraction in ways which Chomsky's theory leads us to expect, and develop a theory of the Tagalog facts which also accounts for the effects of Huang's (1 982) CED.
1.
Introduction
According to the phase-based theory of syntax (Chomsky 2000, 200 I ). in order for some element to be extracted out of a phase, it must be located at the edge of that phase, either by merging into that position or moving there. Movement to the edge of the phase is accomplished by an EPP feature that forces some argument within the domain of the phase head to move to. check it. In this paper, we examine evidence for this theory in the context of Tagalog. In particular, we argue that Tagalog has a process of 'object' shift for specific arguments. We argue that. just as in Germanic languages. specific arguments are forced to move to the edge of the vP phase in order to receive the correct semantic interpretation. In Tagalog, this movement is signaled by morphology on the verb which agrees with the shifted argument (in Case, we will claim; see Rackowski 2002 for arguments). and also by the marker ang (or si for proper names) on the shifted argument. The shifted argument is underlined in the following examples� and the agreement morphology on the verb is in bold (Maclachlan 1992): (1)
Agent um -
a. .
-
B-um-ili ang bata ng tela sa palengke para sa nanay Nom.asp-buy ANG child CS c10th DTmarket P DTmother 'The child bought cloth at the market for mother. •
Theme -in
b.
8-in-ili-0 ng bata ang tela sa palengke parasa nanay asp-buy-Acc CS child ANGc10th DT market P DTmother 'The child bought the cloth at the market for mother. '
• The authors would like to thank Geitara Banzon for her help with the facts of Tagalog; thanks. too, to Alec Marantz, Martha McGinnis. David Pesetsky, and the audience at the Workshop on EPP and Phases for helpful comments. Responsibility for any remaining errors is entirely ours.
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49. 307-328 Perspectives on Phases 0 2005 Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Richards
Ph ase edge and extraction:
A Tagalog case study
Locative -an c.
B-in-ilh-an
ng bata ng tela ang palengke parasa nanay asp-buy-Dat CS child CS cloth ANG market P DTmother 'The child bought (the) cloth atthe market for mother. '
Benefactive ;-
I-b-in-ili ng bata ng tela sa palengkc ang nanay Obl-asp-buy CS child CS cloth DTmarket ANGmother 'The child bought (the) cloth at the market for mother:
d.
The ang-marked phrase has been known by a number of names in the literature on Tagalog, including 'subject', 'topic" and 'pivot' - here we will refer to it as the 'subject', though this term should be regarded with caution. I Since extraction can only occur from the edge of the phase, the morphology exemplified above correlates with the possibility of extraction; only 'subject' DPs may be extracted in Tagalog, as shown in (2); (2)
a.
Sino [ang binigy-an ng lalaki ng bulaklak _ ]? who ANG gave-Dat CS man CS flower 'Who didthe mangivethe flowerto?'
b.
* Sino lang i-binigay ng lalaki ang bulaklak who ANG Obi-gave C S man ANG flower
c.
*Sino [ang nagbigay ang lalaki ng bulaklak _ ]? who ANG Nom-gave ANG man CS flower
]?
This morphology also interacts in interesting ways with long-distance extraction; embedded clauses must become the 'subjects' of higher verbs in order to allow extraction out of them. We argue that this follows from a requirement that embedded clauses enter into Agree relations with higher heads in order to allow the extraction of arguments out of them. The resulting theory will capture the facts of Tagalog wh-extraction. and will also offer a new account of the CED and its effects in more familiar languages. 2.
'Subjects'
Consider again the examples in ( l ), repeated here as (3):
(3)
A gent -um-
a.
B-um-iIi ang bata ng tela sa palengke para sa nanay Nom.asp-buy ANG child CS cloth DTmarket P DTmother 'The child bought cloth atthe market formother:
I For some discussion of the syntactic properties
associated with 'subjects' in Tagalog, see
Schachter ( 1 976. 1 996), Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis ( 1 992), Kroeger ( 1 993), Richards ( 1 993, 2000). Maclachlan ( 1 996), Aldridge (2002),
308
Rackowski (2002), and references cited there.
Andrea Rackowski and Norvin
Richards
Theme -in b. ng bata ang tela sa palengke parasa nanay B-in-ili-0 asp-buy-Acc CS chil d ANG cloth DT market P DTmother 'The child bought the cloth at the market for mother. ' Locative -an c. B -in -ilh-an n g bata ng tel a ang palengke para sa nanay asp-buy-Dat CS child CS cloth ANGmarket P DTmother 'The child bought (the) cloth atthe market for mother! Benefactive. id. J-b-in-ili ng bata ng tela sa palengke ang nanay Obl-asp-buy CS child CS cloth DTmarket ANG mother 'The child bought (the) cloth at the market for mother. ' One interesting property of 'subjects' that is evident from these examples is that all 'subjects' are obligatorily specific in Tagalog. That is, the sentence in (3a) cannot mean 'A child b ought cloth at the market for mother. ' In contrast, direct objects are obligatorily non-specific in sentences where the external argument is the 'subject' (3a) and are optionally sp eci fic in sentences where some other argument is the ' s ubject' (3c,d). The effects of , subjecthood' on specificity are particularly clear in the c ase of pronouns; being obligatorily specific, pronouns are ungrammatic al as ordinary objects in Tagalog. If an object pronoun is present, the form of the verb which makes the pronoun a 'subject' must be used, as illustrated in (4).
(4)
a.
b.
Sinampal-0 ako ng mandurukot asp.slap-Ace I.ANG CS pickpocket 'Nthe pickpocket slapped me. ' ... S-um-ampal ko ang mandurukot. Nom.asp-slap me ANGpickpocket 'The pickpocket slapped me.'
This pattern is strikingly reminiscent of object shift in Germanic languages, where sp eci fi c d ire ct obj ects are disallowed in VP-intemal positions. In Icelandic, for exampl e, spe cific objects shift out of VP and nonspecifics do not. Pronouns obligatorily shift. Shifting is to a position to the left of VP-adjoined adverbs and negation. (5)
a.
b.
Nemandinn las b6kina ekki students-the-NOM readbook-the-ACC not 'The students didn't read th e book. '
(Thrain sson 200 I)
Hann las ekki baekur he readnot books 'He didn't readbooks . '
309
Phase ed ge and extraction: A Tagalog case study
c.
?* Hann
he d.
e.
las baekur ekki read books not
( Diesing 1996)
Nemandinn las hana ekki students-the-NOM read it not 'The students didn't read it.' '"
Nemandinn las ekki hana students-the-NOM rcadnot it 'The students didn't read it. '
(Thrainsson 200 I )
Chomsky 200 1 argues that object shift occurs as the result of an EPP feature on v that is present only when it has an effect on semantic outcome. There is an effect on semantic outcome because the position at the edge of the vP is assigned a specific interpretation, while everything internal to vP is assigned a non specific interpretation. According to this theory, any specific argument must therefore raise to the edge of vP in order to receive the correct interpretation. The process is diagrammed in (6). (6)
vP ------
OBJspcic fic ---SUBJ
______ VP v -----V
We claim that Tagalog 'subjects'. like the object-shifted phrases in Icelandic, are DPs which have entered into an Agree relation with v, allowing them to raise into the edge of the phase and triggering Case-agreement morphology on the verb: (7)
( 8)
Lu-Iutu-io ng lalaki ang adobo. Asp-:cook-AccCS man ANG adobo 'The man will cook the adobo. ' vP
------
DPoo
-----DP EA _______ VP V[SPP]
------V
310
too
Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Richards
As in Icelandic, direct objects may fail to undergo this process, in which case they wi II receive a non-specific interpretation, and verbal agreement will register the external argument:
(9)
Magluluto ang lalaki ng adobo Nom-asp-cook ANG man CS adobo 'The man wi l l cook adobo'
3. Multiple Shift in Icelandic and Tagalog The mechanics of Icelandic object shift become more complicated when there is than one internal argument: If there are two objects, the higher one must shift first in order for the lower one to be allowed to shift. For instance. if a specific indirect object shifts, a specific direct object also may do so, but without shifting the higher argument the lower one cannot move, as shown in ( 1 I a). more
Eg Icina Mariu baekumar ekki lend Maria(DT) books(ACC) not • I do notlend Maria the books:
( 1 0)
I
(I I)
a.
?* Eg hina baekurnar I
b.
ekki Mariu. lendbooks(ACC) not Maria(DT)
Eg hina Mariu ekki baekumar. I lend Maria(DT) not books(ACC) 'I do not lend the books to Maria.' (Collins and Thrainsson 1 996)
The ordering of shifting between the indirect and direct objects has been observed by Richards 1 997 and Bruening 200 I, as being simply a case of the movement obeying Superiority/Shortest. Since the 10 begins in a position higher than the DO, it must be the first argument to Agree with the higher attracting head but, once it has done so, the DO is free to raise up and tuck-in below it (Richards J 997). This process is illustrated in ). ( 1 2). ( J 2)
____ 10 · _______ DO
_______ -------
----
tlO
_______
tDO
In this section we will argue that the locality conditions on this shift are just as strict in Tagalog as we have just seen them to be in Icelandic; if more than one argument shifts, the closest ope must move first, with the lower argument tuCking-in below it (as in ).
31 1
Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study
( 1 2) above). 2 On the face of it, it seems counterintuitive to say that the process of making DPs into the 'subject' in Tagalog is subject to strict locality conditions. What we have seen so far suggests that almost any DP in the sentence can become the 'subject'. In a sentence containing both a benefactive and a direct object, for instance. the benefactive and the direct object are both possible 'subjects': ( 1 3)
a.
I-pinagluto ni Romeo ng adobo ang babae Obl-asp-cook CS Romeo CS adobo ANG woman 'Romeo cooked (the) adobo forthe woman'
b.
Niluto-0 ni Romeo ang adobo para sa babae asp-cook-Acc CS Romeo ANG adobo for DT woman 'Romeo cooked the adobo for a woman'
How can both ofthese DPs be equally accessible to Agree? Rackowski (2002) offers arguments (reviewed in the next section) that the examples in ( 1 3) actually have different argument structures; ( 1 3a) involves an instance of Pylkkanen's (200 1 , 2002) high applicative construction, while the benefactive in ( I 3b) is in a PP below the direct object.3 The structures are given in ( 1 4): ( 1 4)
a.
High applicative
vP
� v
ApplP
� DPbcn /'---.... Appl VP � V
b.
DPoo
vP �
v
Prepositional benefactive
VP
� DPDO � Vroot PP /'--... P
DPbcn
Considerations of locality lead us to predict that in struchlres like these, only the highest internal argument - the benefactive in ( 1 4a) and the direct object in ( 1 4b) - will be able to become the ·subject'. This prediction is correct: it is ungrammatical to move the DO past the benefactive in a clause l ike (14a), as 2 In what follows we are asswning that there is no tucking-in below a thematic specifier (see Chomsky 200 I, Rackowski 2002 for discussion).
3 See also Nakamura (1996) for a similar claim. 3 12
Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Richards
evidenced by the impossibility of a DO-subject clause with an in situ applicative benefactive, ( 1 5a):
( I S)
a.
* Niluto-0 ni Romeo ng babae ang adobo. asp-cook-Ace CS Romeo CS woman ANG adobo ' Romeo cooked the adobo for a woman.'
b.
I-pinagluto ni Romeo ng adobo ang babae. Obi-cook CS Romeo CS adobo ANG woman ' Romeo cooked (the) adobo forthe woman.'
The proposed account also allows us to capture a surprising fact about the behavior of the direct object when the benefactive argument is the 'subject'. We have seen that in ordinary transitive clauses, the direct object may either undergo object shift or not. If it does, it controls Case-agreement morphology on the verb. and receives a specific interpretation; if it does not. it receives a non-specific interpretation, and the external argument controls Case-agreement on the verb. The two options are illustrated again in (16):
( 1 6)
a.
Niluto-0 ni Romeo ang adobo asp-cook-Acc CS Romeo ANG adobo 'Romeo cooked the adobo'
Object Shift
b.
Nagluto si Romeo ng adobo Nom-asp-cook ANG Romeo CSadobo 'Romeo cooked adobo'
No
Object Shift
In example ( I 5b) above, however, the direct object may be either specific or non-specific, a kind of optionality we have not yet dealt with. This surprising fact is now recognizable as just another case of tucking in below an already-shifted object, as in Icelandic ditransitives. The DO is optionally specific in a benefactive-subject clause because once the features of v have been checked by .the raising" of the benefactive, the DO is free to raise to that position (if it is specific) and tuck-in below the benefactive, as shown in ( 1 7). Wh ile object shift of the DO will presumably have effects on the specificity of the DO, it apparently has no effect on the morphology on the verb, which continues to Agree with the benefactive argument. What the specificity facts in ( 1 Sb) show us, then, is that the verbal morphology is controlled by the first argument to undergo object shift (or, equivalently in this case, by the structurally highest argument):
31 3
Phase edge and extraction: A Tagal og case study
vP
( 1 7)
�
DPsen � DPDo� DPEA � V[ePPl
ApplP
� � appl
VP
�
V
The important thing to note about multiple argument shift is that in both Icelandic and Tagalog it is constrained by exactly the same superiority condition: The higher argument must shift first in order to license shifting of the lower one. This analysis correctly predicts the impossibility of applicativized benefactives in a DO-subject clause, since that construction would violate superiority. It also allows US to explain the optional specificity of the DO in a benefactive-subject clause, since object shift of the DO, being the second instance of object shift, has no morphological effect. 3.1 Variable binding and clause structure
We mentioned above that Rackowski (2002) offers the structures in ( 1 9) for the vPs (prior to Merge of the external argument) in the examples in ( 1 8) : ( 1 8)
( 1 9)
a.
I-pinagluto n i Romeo ng adobo ang babae Obl-asp-cook CS Romeo CS adobo ANGwoman 'Romeo cooked adobo for the woman'
b.
Niluto-0 ni Romeo ang adobo para sa babae asp-cook-Acc CS Romeo ANG adobo for DT woman 'Romeo cooked the adobo for a woman' .
a.
vP �
High applicative
v ApplP
� DPben � Appl VP � V
314
DPoo
Andrea Rackowski and Norvin
b.
vP /'-..... v YP
Richards
Prepositional benefactive
/'-.....
DPDO/'-..... VrootPP /'-..... P DPben These structures are crucial to our claim that promotion to 'subject' status is constrained by locality in Tagalog; only the highest internal argument may undergo the Tagalog equivalent of Object Shift. One of Rackowski's (2002) arguments for these structures is based on the facts of pronominal-variable binding in Tagalog. Pronouns may be bound in Tagalog by quantifiers which c-command them; thus, for instance, a quantificational external argument may bind a pronominal embedded in a non 'subject' while the reverse is not true (word order is irrelevant in all of the
DO,
following examples; Tagalog scrambling does not affect quantifier-variable binding): (20)
a.
b.
* Nagmamahal
ang kanyangiama ng bawat anakj. Nom.asp-pag-Iove ANG poss. father CS every child 'Heri father loves everychildj: (Richards 1 993)
Nagmamahal ang bawat ama; ng kanyangj anak. Nom.asp-pag-Iove ANG every father CS poss. child 'EveD' father; loves hiSt child.'
Crucially, these binding relations are not disrupted by promotion to ' subject' status; (20b) is well-fonned, even if the direct object becomes the 'subject': (2 1 )
Minamahal-0 n g bawat amaj
ang kanyan&j,anak
asp-love-Ace CS every father ANGposs. • Every fatherj loves hisi child'
child
The contIast between (20a) and (2 1 ) is the interesting one. In both ofthese examples, a non-'subject' quantifier attempts to bind a pronoun embedded in the 'subject', and binding fails in (20a) and succeeds in (21 ). Apparently binding relations of this kind can always succeed if the Merged position of the quantifier c-commands that of the pronoun; the grammaticality difference between (20a) and (2 1 ) therefore arises because the subject asymmetrically c-commands the object. With this in mind, we can consider pronominal variable binding relations between internal arguments. Rackowski (2002) discovered that the conditions on these relations reflect the structures in ( 1 9); a 'subject' benefactive argument, which can only arise from the structure in ( 1 9a). may not be bound by a direct object:
315
Phase edge and extraction:
(22)
A Tagalog case study
* I-binantay
ko ng bawat anakj ang kanyangjmagulang. Obl-asp-watch I CS . every child ANG poss. parent. ' I watched everychildi for hisiDarents. '
A prepositional benefactive argument, by contrast, ought to have the structure in ( I 9b), and is thus correctly predicted to be susceptible to binding by the direct object: (23)
B-um-antay ako ng bawat anakj Nom.asp-watch ANG.! CS every child [para sa kanyangi magulang]. P DTposs. parent '! watched everychildi for hisiparents. '
Note that the ill-formedness of (22) crucially cannot be attributed directly to the fact that the benefactive argument is a 'subject'; as (2 1) shows, 'subjects' are susceptible to binding by non-'subjects'. The structures in ( 1 9), on the other hand, offer a straightforward explanation for the asymmetry; the DO is Merged in a position c-commanding the benefactive argument in (23), but not in (22).
3.2 Summary
In the past sections we have argued that promotion to 'subject" in Tagalog is syntactically akin to Object Shift in the Germanic languages. We have seen that Tagalog 'subjects' have the specific reading associated with Object Shifted arguments in Germanic, and that promotion to 'subject' is constrained by considerations of locality which are identical to those in Germanic. The 'subject' in Tagalog triggers agreement for Case on the verb, and we have seen that this morphology is sensitive to the first argument to occupy the specifier of vP; multiple arguments may shift, we have claimed, but only the first (and therefore highest) of them will control agreement on the verb. 4. Tagalog, English, and the Syntax of Extraction Knowing what we now know about the syntax of case-agreement in Tagalog, we can tum to the facts of wh-extraction. We will see that a number of English and Tagalog conditions on A-bar movement can be made to follow from fairly basic assumptions.
4.1 Some assumptions We will crucially assume, following much work on locality, that a probe must Agree with the closest available goal, where a potential 'goal' is taken to be anything that is capable of moving (following Chomsky 2000, 200 I , we assume that all and only phases are in principle capable of moving), and that dominates the feature the probe is seeking. The definition of 'closest' we will use is given in (24):
316
Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Richards
(24)
A goal G is the closest one to a probe P ifthere is no distinct goal G' such that the mother ofG' dominates the mother of G.
As noted by Fitzpatrick (2002). defining 'closest> in terms of domination allows us to caprore both the effects of Shortest Attract and of Chomsky's {I 964) A over-A condition. This is demonstrated in the trees below; in both of these trees, G' is closer to P than G is, because X', the mother ofG', dominates X, the mother of G: (25)
8.
'Shortest Attract'
b. 'A-over-A condition'
/'--.. /'--..
/'--..
P /'-...
P
X'
X'
/'--..
/'--..
G' /'-...
G'
/'--..
X /'--..
X
/'--..
G
G
If we assume that phases are always in principle capable of moving. then we also derive the effects of Phase Impenetrability, as a special case of the A-over A condition; in a tree like the one in (26), for example, the probe C cannot Agree with the whP Goal, because vP is a closer potential Goal that can move (since it is a phase) and dominates a wh-feature (namely. the wh-feature that is also dominated by the wh-phmse):
(26)
CP
-------
C [+wh]
TP
_______
T'
�
v'
�
We do expect phrases in the highest specifier position of a phase to be accessible to Agree, if we accept Kayne's ( 1 994) claim that the specifier of 8 phrase is not dominated by that phrase (only by a segment of that phrase). In a tree like (27), for example. the whP is not dominated by vP; whP and vP both have the same mother (namely T') and are therefore equally close to the probe C:
317
Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study
(27)
CP
-------
C TP [+wh] _______ T'
�p wh
v'
------v
We will also assume that once a probe P has Agreed with a goal G, P can ignore G for the rest of the derivation. It will be unimportant for our purposes why this is so (see Richards 1 998, Hiraiwa 2001 for theories about this), but some version of this assumption seems to be needed to deal with the facts in (28). once the Copy Theory of movement is assumed:
(28)
a.
? you gave :lj! to whom?
b.what
? didyou give� to=rm?
In the derivation of a multiple-wh question like the one in (28), the step in (28b) is somewhat problematic on standard assumptions; the copy of what is an XP bearing a wh-feature that is closer to the Probe than whom, yet it faHs to interfere with Agreement. We assume that this has to do with the fact that C has already entered into an Agree relation with what, allowing C to ignore this chain for the rest ofthe derivation. Finally, we will make some (fairly standard) assumptions about which heads are capable of entering into Agree relations. In particular, we will assume that v is responsible for checking Case on the direct object, and can also have EPP features which allow it to attract other Active phrases to its edge, making them accessible for Agree by higher probes. We will make similar assumptions about interrogative C, which also has a feature that it needs to check (namely [+wh]), and could in principle attract other Active goals as well; though this will play no role in the account. It will not be necessary in our account for declarative C to Agree with anything at all. The assumptions discussed above are summarized in (29): (29)
318
a.
A probe P must Agree with the closest Goal G that can move.
b.
A goal G can move if it is a phase.
c.
A goal G is the closest one to a probe P if there is no distinct goal G' such that the mother of G' dominates the mother of G.
d.
The specifier ofXP is not dominated by XP (Kayne 1 994).
Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Richards
e.
f.
g.
Once a probe P Agrees with a Ooal G, P can ignore 0 for the rest of the derivation (Richards 1 998, Hiraiwa 200 1). v
has a Case feature that is checked via Agree, and can also bear
EPP fearures which move Active phrases to its edge.
[+wh] C has a [+wh] feature which is checked via Agree (and sometimes Move).
We will see in the next two sections that these assumptions, most of which are fairly widely held in some form, yield a version of Huang's (I 982) CED (see Ceplova 200 1):
(30)
Only those CPs and DPs that Agree with a phase head on independent grounds (e.g., direct objects, complement clauses, and phrases in Spec CP) are transparent for wh-extraction.
We will also see that the Tagalog facts follow straightforwardly, given the picture of Tagalog syntax developed by Rackowski (2002); in fact, the Tagalog data will lend further support to our account of the English facts. 4.2 English: CED
Let us first consider the formation of a well-formed long-distance wh-question in English. (3 1 )
[cp Who do you [liP think [cp that we should ["p hire
_
]]l]?
The heads that participate in the derivation are the ones in (32); we will sketch the derivation as though movement begins once the tree has been completed, simply for ease of presentation:
who]]]]
(32)
In the first relevant step in the derivation, the v head of the embedded clause Agrees with who, and who moves to the specifier of vP, as is standardly assumed:
(33)
[ q+wh) [
V
[ C [
"'--,to])]]
.. _ vi...._
In the second step. v of the matrix clause Agrees with the complement CP, just as it would with a direct object; for the time being, we will simply assume. contra much of the literature, that CPs and DPs have similar requirements with respect to Case. We will present evidence from Tagalog in the next section that this Agree relation does in fact exist; we ask readers who are skeptical about what kind of licensing relation could exist between v and CP to bear with us for now:
319
Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study
(34)
[C(+wh) [
I
[ C l (..:..:.w:r.:.t0::..:.-.- v..:. u
I
..:..:. wh9 =...1Jw llw J
__
As we saw in the last section, once a probe has Agreed with a particular goal. it can disregard that goal for future Agree relations. Matrix v can therefore now Agree with phrases dominated by
CP,
CPo
since it has already Agreed with It can also agree with
could, for example, Agree with the embedded
vP.
It
who.
since who is in the specifier of the embedded vP and therefore, as we also saw in the last section, not fully dominated by who and embedded vP are thus equally available to Agree with matrix v; v Agrees with who, which moves to Spec vP:
vP.
v
(3 5) Finally, matrix
v
[ C [who
I
!
C Agrees with who, causing it to move to its scope position:
[C[+wh] [ who v [ C [wile
(36)
wile)]]]
I
v
I
whe]]]]
The long-distance wh-question in (3 1 ) can thus be derived successfully 4 given our assumptions about how locality works. Let us now move on to consider an ill-fonned example:
(3 7)
*
[cpWbo do you we'll
[vp
[vpthink[cpthat (epif we ("p hire_II,
regret it]]]]?
The first two steps of this derivation are unproblematic, proceeding along lines that are familiar from the previous derivation. adjunct clause will Agree with
(38)
[cp q+wh) [vp
v
First the v of the embedded
who. causing it to move to Spec
[ep C lep if Il..:J who n. [vp .
vP:
v]]]]
The next relevant step is that matrix v Agrees with its complement before:
CP, as
4 The successive-cyclic movement path of the wh-pbrase in our derivation is somewhat unorthodox; it is stopping in Spec vP but not in Spec CPo This is straightforwardly consistent with some of the kinds of evidence that are standardly used to motivate postulating successive-cyclic movement, but others will need to be considered carefully. The effects of successive-cyclic wh-movement on Irish complcmcntizers, for example, would need to be reinterpreted; Irish complementizers would have their forms determined not by wbetber they had hosted a wb-phrase in their specifiers. but by
whether they had entered into Agree relations with v beads which had hosted wh-phrases. Panial
wh-movement, in tbis theory, would have to analyzed in tenns of the Indirect Dependency Approach
1 994, 2000) rather than the Direct Dependency Approach (van Riemsdijk 1983, McDaniel 1 989); thanks to Robert Frank for raising this problem, and to Ben Bruening for solving it.
(Dayal
320
Andrea Rackowski and
N orvin
Richards
Finally, the matrix v must attract a wh-phrase, in order for this wh-phrase to move to its edge and so escape Spell-out. As before, v is entitled to ignore the complement CP, since it has already Agreed with it. However, even given this, the closest moveable phrase that dominates a wh-feature is now the adjunct CP;
general principles of locality therefore prevent attraction of who , which is dominated by this CP and therefore further away from the Probe. We have no
theory to offer of why English rejects phrases like if we hire who as possible wh phrases, but whatever conditions on pied-piping rule this out will also doom the current derivationS . The assumptions we made in the previous section, then, derive the effects of Huang's (1982) CEO. They do so on the basis of another assumption,
however, which some might find questionable; that CPs and OPs behave alike with respect to attraction by v, in that complement CPs, but not adjunct or subject CPs, enter into checking relations with v to check Case or something like it. Of course, if v is going to agree with any CPs at all, these are the ones we would expect it to agree with. Still, we might prefer to find some kind o f independent evidence for the Agree relations that we are positing.
4.3 Tagalog In previous sections we argued that Tagalog is a language in which the Agree relations that v enters into have a morphological consequence. Recall from section Error! Reference source not found. above that Tagalog has verbal morphology which, we argued, signals the Case of the OP which has undergone (possibly covert) movement to the edge of the vP phase. In (40), the Case agreement morphology is in boldface, and the OP this morphology agrees with is underlined:
(40)
a.
Nagbigay ang magsasaka ng bulaklak sa kalabaw Nom-gave ANG fanner CS flower water-buffalo 'The fannergave a flowerto the water buffalo'
h.
I-binigay ng magsasaka ang bulaklak sa
DT
kalabaw
Obi-gave CS farmer ANG flower OT water-buffalo • Althe fannergave the flower to the water buffalo '
5
There do in fact appear to be languages which exploit clausal pied-piping to circumvent CEO violations: Basque (Ortiz de Urbina 1 990, 198)
(i)
[Mikeli zer esan ondorenljoan zen etxetik? Mikel-Oat what say after go AUX home-from '[After saying what to Mikel) did he leave home?'
Thanks to Jeong-Me Yoon for pointing this out to us.
32 1
Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study
c.
Binigy-an ng magsasaka ng bulaklak ang kalabaw gave-Dat CS fanner CS flower ANGwater-buffalo Althe fannergave althe flowerto the water buffalo' •
The agreement morphology on the verb may agree either with a DP argument, as above, or with a CP argument. In (4 1 ). for example, the verb sabi 'say' bears either Nominative morphology that agrees with its DP 'subject' or Accusative agreement that agrees with its CP complement: (4 1 )
a.
Nagsabi ang kalabaw na masarap ang bulaklak Nom-said ANGwater-buffalo that delicious ANG flower 'The water buffalo said that the flower was delicious'
b.
Sinabi-0 ng kalabaw na masarap ang bulaklak said-Ace CS water-buffalo that delicious ANG flower 'Althe waterbuffalo said that the flower was delicious'
Wh-extraction in Tagalog imposes constraints on the kind of agreement morphology the verbs in the clause may bear, of a kind that the theory outlined in the previous section leads us to expect. Long-distance extraction in Tagalog always requires intervening verbs to Agree with the CP from which extraction takes place. This is shown for long-distance extraction of the adjunct kailan in (42)-(44): (42)
(43)
a.
Kailan [ sinabi-0 ng sundalo when said-AccCS soldier r na uuwi ang Pangulo e ]] ? that Nom-will-go-home ANG President 'Whendidthe soldiersay that the President would go home?'
b.
... Kailan [ nagsabi ang sundalo when Nom-saidANGsoldier [ na uuwi ang Pangulo e ]]? that Nom-will-go-home ANG President 'Whendidthe soldiersay that the President would go home?'
a.
b.
322
Kailan [i-pinangako ng sundalo when Obi-promised CS soldier ang Pangulo e ]}? [na uuwi that Nom-wiII-go-home ANG President 'Whendidthe soldierpromise that the President would go home?'
* Kailan [ oangako ang sundalo when Nom-promised ANG soldier [na uuwi ang Pangulo e ]1? that Nom-will-go-home ANGPresident 'Whendidthe soldierpromise that the President would go horneT
\ ,
Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Richards
( 44)
a.
b.
Kailan [ pinaniwala-an ng sundalo when believed-Oat CS soldier [ n a uuwi aDg Pangulo e ] ] ? that Nom-will-go-home ANG President 'Whendidthe soldierbelieve that the President would go horn eT ang sundal o When Nom-believedANG soldier r na uuwi aDg Pangulo e ]]? that Nom-wiU-go-home ANG President 'Whendidthe soldierbelieve that the President would go horneT
* KailaD [ naniwala
The same constraint is shown to hold in cases of long-distance relativization in (45); here we have given only the well-fonned examples, but choice of any other kind of agreement on the verbs would make the sentences ill-formed:
(45)
a.
b.
c.
ang kalabaw [ na sinabi-0 ng goro ANGwater-buffalo that said-Acc CS teacher ng lalaki ng bulakl ak e ] [ na bibigy-an that will-give-Dat CS man CS flower 'the water buffalo that the teacher said that the man would givea flowerto' ang kalabaw [ na i-pinangako ng gura ANGwater-buffalo that Obi-promised CS teacher ng lalaki ng bulaklak eJ] [ na bibigy-an that will-give-Dat CS man CS flower 'the water buffalo that the teacher promised that the man would give a flower to' ang kalabaw [ na pinaniwala-an ng gura ANGwater-buffalo that believed-Dat CS teacher
[na bibigy-an
ng lalaki ng bulaklak ell
that will-give -Dat CS man CS flower
'the water buffalo that the teacher believed that the man would give a flower to' Note .that the higher verb is demonstrably not agreeing with the extracted wh phrase. This is perhaps clearest in (45), where the extracted operator bears Dative case, but the higher verb takes whatever form is appropriate for agreement with the complement clause (Accusative for sab; say' , Oblique for pangako 'promise', and Dative for paniwala 'believe'). This is not because the first two verbs lack a Dative-agreeing form: •
(46)
Pinangaku-an niyaako promised·Dat CS-he ANG-me bibigy-an niyang. bulaklak ang kalabaw] [na that will-give-Dat CS·he CS flowerANGwater-buffalo "He promi sed � that he will give a flower to the water buffalo . '
32 3
Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study
Extraction out of a complement clause therefore seems to require v to Agree with the complement clause. This, of course, is what the theory developed in the previous section predicted; in order for v to Agree with a wh-phrase in the complement clause, v must first Agree with the complement clause itself. thereby making it transparent and making the embedded wh-phrase accessible to Agree. Next let us consider local extraction. Here there are two cases to consider: OP-extraction, shown in (47), and non-OP-extraction, shown in (48) (49). There are two differences between the OP-extraction case and the non DP-extraction case. One is that OP-extraction involves a cleft construction, while non-OP-extraction does not; we will not discuss this difference in this paper (though see Richards (2004) for some discussion). The other difference is that OP-extraction imposes restrictions on the verb of the clause; it must agree with the extracted OP, as (47) shows:
(47)
B.
Sino lang binigy-an ng lalaki ng bulaklak _ ]? who ANG gave-Dat CS man CS flower 'Who did the man give the flower toT
b.
* Sino [ang i-binigay ng lalakiang bulaklak who ANG Obi-gave CS man ANG flower 'Who did the man give the flower to?'
c.
*Sino lang nagbigay ang lalaki ng bulaklak _ ]? who ANG Nom-gave ANGman CS flower 'Who did the man give the flower to?'
]?
No such restrictions are imposed by extraction ofnon-DPs, as (48)-(49) show; any form of the verb may be used in these cases. This is what we expect; extraction has to take place via the edge of vP, and this verbal agreement is agreement for Case, so Case-bearing extracted phrases ,\\,:il1 necessarily agree with the verb, while non-Case-bearing extracted phrases will not:
(48)
(49)
324
a.
KaHan binigy-an ng lalaki Dg bulaklak aDg kalabaw? when gave-Dat CS man CS flower ANG water-buffalo 'When did the man give a flower to the water buffalo?'
b.
Kailan i-binigay ng lalaki ang bulaklak sa kalabaw? when ObI-gave CS man ANG flower DTwater-buffalo 'When did the man give the flower to the water buffalo?'
c.
Kailan nagbigay ang lalaki ng bulaklak sa kalabaw? when Nom-gave ANG man CS flower DTwater-buffalo 'When did the man give a flower to the water buffalo?'
a.
Sa aling kalabaw i-binigay ng lalakiang bulaklak? to which water-buffalo Obi-gave CS man ANGflower 'To which water buffalo did the man give the flower?'
Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Richards
b.
Sa aling kalabaw nagbigay ang lalaking bulaklak
A related fact that also follows from the theory is exemplified in (50). We saw in section 2 above that use of Nominative agreement on a transitive verb typically requires the direct object to be non-specific (50a). In the theory developed above and in Rackowski (2002), this is because Nominative agreement indicates that the object has not undergone object shift to the edge of vP. As (SOb) indicates, however, Nominative agreement does not have this effect on the object when the 'subject' is extracted (Adams and Manaster-Ramer 1 988, Voskuil I 993): (50)
a.
K-um-ain ang kalabaw ng bulaklak Nom-ate ANG water-buffalo CS flower 'The water buffalo ate a/*the flower'
b.
Sino ang k-um-ain ng bulaklak? who ANG Nom-ate CS flower 'Who ate a/the flower?'
Again, this is what we expect. If the 'subject' is to be extracted, it must be on the edge of vP. and hence object shift of the object is impossible. As we know from other domains, when movement of this kind is ruled out by the syntax, the semantic consequences that it would have had are suspended (Adger 1 994, Chomsky 2001 ). The Danish facts in (5 1 ) are another instance of this. Object shift of pronouns is normally obligatory in Danish, as (S I a-b) show; being by nature specific, they must move into the domain where they can receive a specific interpretation. However, when Holmberg's Generalization makes object shift impossible, as in (5 I c), it can simply fail to occur, with no semantic consequences for the unshifted pronoun: (5 1 )
a.
Peter kebte den ikke Peter bought it not
b.
* Peter kabte ikke den Peter bought not it
c.
Peter harikke kebe den Peter hasnot bought it
Something similar seems to be happening in the Tagalog example in (50b); the direct object can receive a specific interpretation even without object shift, since object shift is ruled out by the syntactic conditions imposed by whMextraction.
325
Phase edge and
extraction: A Tagal og case study
5. Conclusion In this paper we have shown that Tagalog provides unique evi,dence for the phase-based theory of movement. In partic u l ar. Tagalog voice morphology indicates that some element has moved to the edge of the phase, and this in tum offers support for the hypothesis that clauses from which some element is extracted must themselves move to the edg e of a ph ase in order to allow extraction. In addition, the theory presented here, in conjuncti on with some fairly basic assumptions, accounts straightforwardly for the Tagalog morphological and speci fic i ty requirements on extraction, and also offers a new way of deriving Huang's ( 1 982) Using general principles of locality, along with previously established generalizations about the nature of syntactic relations between a single Probe and multiple Goals, we are led to a new expectation about the nature of successive-cyclic wh-movement: Probes along the path of movement ought to Agree, not just with the moving wh-phrase, but with the clauses out of which extraction takes place. We have seen two types of evidence for this conclusion. First, only those clauses with which v might be expected to be able to Agree are transparent for extraction; this is Huang's ( 1 982) CED. Second, in languages like Tagalog, we have argued that Agree with v has overt morphological consequences, and we have seen that in cases of long-distance wh-extraction, the morphology signalling this Agree relation must be controlled by the clause from which wh-extraction takes place.
CEO.
Bibliography Adams. K., and A. Manaster-Ramer ( 1 988). Some questions of topic/focus choice in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 27.79- 1 02. Adger, D. (I 994}. Functional heads and inlerprelalion. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
- Aldridge. E. (2002). Wh-movement in Seediq and Tagalog" In A. Rackowski and N. Richards (eds.), MITWPL 44: Proceedings ofAFLA 8. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA. 1 -1 6. Bruening, B. (2001). QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233-273. Ceplova, M. (200 1 ). Minimalist islands-restricting P-features. Ms., MIT. Chomsky, N. ( 1 964). Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: essays on Minimalist syntax in honor ofHoward Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 89- 156. Chomsky, N. (2001 ). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. I -52. Collins. C .• and H. Thrainsson. ( 1 996). VP-Intemal Structure and Object Shift in Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 391 -444.
Dayal, V. ( 1 994). Scope marking as indirect wh-dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2. 1 37- 1 70. Dayal, V. (2000). Scope marking: cross-linguistic variation in indirect dependency. In U. Lutz et al (eds.) Wh-scope marking, pp. 1 57- 1 93. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Diesing, M. ( 1 992) . Indefinites. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
326
Andrea Rackowski
and Norvin Richards
Diesing, M. ( J 996). Semantic Variables and Object Shift. In H. Thrainsson. S. D. Epstein, S. Peter (eds.), Comparative Germanic Syntax. ll. Dordrecht, Kluwer: 66-84.
Fitzpatrick, J. (2002). On Minimalist approaches to the locality of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33.443-464.
Guilfoyle, E., H. Hung. and L. Travis. ( J 992). Spec of IP and Spec of VP: two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1 0.3754 14.
Hiraiwa, K. (200 1 ). Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese. MITWPL 40 : the proceedings of HUMIT 2000. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA. 67-80. Huang, C.-T. J. ( 1 982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Kayne, R. (1 994). The antisymmetry ofsyntax. MIT Pres s, Cambridge, MA. Kroeger, P. ( 1 993). Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Maclachlan, A. E. (1 992). Morphosyntax of Tagalog Verbs: The Inflectional System and Its Interaction with Derivational Morphology. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 65-84.
Maclachlan, A. E. ( 1 996). Aspects of ergativity in Tagalog. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University, Montreal. McDaniel, D. ( 1 989). Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7. 565-604.
Nakamura, M. ( 1 996). Economy 0/ chain formation. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University, Montreal. Ortiz de Urbina, J. ( 1 990). Operator feature percolation and clausal pied-piping. In L. Cheng and H. Demirdash (cds.). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 1 3 , 1 93208. Cambridge. MA: MITWPL. Py lkkanen, L. (200 1 ). What applicativc heads apply to. In M. Fox, A. Williams & E. Kaiser (eds.), Proceedings of Ihe 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics. 7 . 1 . Department of Linguistics . University of Pennsylvania. Pylkklinen, L. (2002). Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Rackowski. A. (2002). The Structure o/ Tagalog: Specificity. Voice. andthe Distribution ofArguments. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT. Cambridge, MA. Richards, N. ( 1 993). Tagalog and the typology of scrambling. Honor.; thesis. Cornell University. Richards, N. ( 1 997). Whal moves where when in which language? Ph.D. dissertation. MIT, C ambridge, MA. Richards. N. ( 1 998). The Principle of Minimal Compliance. LinguistiC Inquiry 29.599629.
Richards, N. (2000). Another look at Tagalog subjects. In I. Paul. V. Phillips, and L. Travis (cds.). Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Richards, N. (2004). Zazaki wh -movement. In M. Kenstowicz (ed .), MIT Working Papers on Endangerd and Less-Familiar Languages. volume 6: Studies in Zazaki Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Paper.; in Linguistics.
van Riemsdijk. H. ( 1 983). Correspondence effects and the empty category principle. In Y. Otsu et al. (eds.) Studies in Generative Grammar and Language Acquisition, pp. 5- J 6. Tokyo, JP. Schachter, P. ( 1 976). The subject in Philippine languages: topic. actor. actor-topic, or none of the above. In C. Li (ed.) Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.
Schachter, P. ( 1 996). The subject in Tagalog: still none o/the above. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1 5. Los Angeles: UCLA Department of Linguistics.
327
Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study
Thrainsson, H. (2000). Object Shift and Scrambling. In M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds.). A Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Blackwell. Voskuil. J. ( 1 993). Verbal affixation in Tagalog (and Malay). McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 8.75-106. Department of Linguistics. McGill University. Montreal.
Department of Linguistics and Philosophy 32-0808 MIT Cambridge. MA 02 1 39
[email protected],
[email protected] 328
Asymmetries in Prosodic Domain Formation* Michael Wagner Massachussetts Institute o/Technology
This paper presenrs an asymmetry in the prosody of Dutch. English, and German: if a functor precedes its complement. it is phrased sep
arately; jf it follows its complement or part of it, the two are phrased
together and the functor is prosodically subordinated and 'affixed'to
the preceding prosodic constituent The prosodic asymmetry is first shown for the relation between predicates and their complements. and is then generalized to modification. A recursive algorithm is pre sented that derives the correct prosodic structure and nuclear stress in the three languages. exploiting only the syntactic asymmetry of projection and the left-right asymmetry of linear order.
1.
Modifiers vs. Arguments
The prosody of a sentence is influenced by semantic, syntactic, and phono logical factors, a fact that a fact that poses a challenge for modular theories of grammar. Data concerning relative prominence (stress), the distribution of accents, and facts about prosodic phrasing have shaped the development of generative theories ever since the outline of the transformational cycle in the grammar of English in Chomsky et al. ( 1 957) and Chomsky and Halle (1 968) (SPE). The key issue is the question of what type of syntactic or semantic information is necessary to assign the correct prosody. One crucial factor that has been proposed to play a role is the distinc tion between modifiers and arguments (Gussenhoven. 1984; Kritka. 1984; Selkirk, 1 984; Jacobs , 1992; Truckenbi-odt, 1 993; Zubizarret a. 1998). This paper presents prosodic asymmetries that a show a close parallel between -This paper is a development of some ideas presented at the workshop on phases. The current version benefited from a stay at the Department of Linguistics at Stanford University in 2003. I ewe much to discussions with David Adger. Karlos Arregi. Asaf Bachrach. Corrien Blom, Lev Blumenfeld,
Edward Flemming,
Morris Halle, Brent Henderson. Irene Heim. Florian Jaeger.
Lahiri. Winnie Lechner. Alec Marantz, Shigeru Miya Neeleman. Jon Nissenbaum, David Pesetsky. Chris Potts. Norvin Richards. Andres Salanova. Lisa Selkirk, Michal Starke, Donca Steriade. Huben Truckenbrodt. Roben Truswell. Susi Wunnbnmd. Also. I wish to thank the audiences at the phase work-shop at MIT. at Trend Paul Kipamcy. Angelika Kratzer. Aditi
gawa.
Ad
2003 in Santa Cruz. and at the Phonology- and Syntax Reading Group in Stanford in June 2003.
Also thanks to Iris Mulder for help with the typesetting. All errors are my responsibility.
MIT Working Papers in linguistics 49. Perspectives on Phases
329-367
© 2005 Michael Wagner
.
Asymmetries in Prosodic Domain FormatioD_
predicates and modifiers that has gone unnoticed in earlier studies. Two sim· pie
principles. 'Sister�Matching' and 'Subordination' are proposed. They prosody between sister constituents, and thus recursively map
negotiate the
syntactic tree structures to prosodic structures. The local decisions based on sister�constituents account for the
global distribution of accents in general and the
location of nuclear stress
in particular.
1.1. The Modifier-Argument Contrast Modifiers in Germanic differ from arguments with respect to their prosody relative to
1 984;
a following predicate (Gussenhoven. 1 984; Krifka. 1 984; Selkirk , 1992; Truckenbrodt, 1 993). Consid er first the case of ar
Jacobs .
guments (the relevant predicates are in italics, the relevant arguments are
underlined). I
(1)
Arguments a.
[ Sie hat ] [ einen Tango getanzt.] she has
a.acc Tango danced
'She danced b.
a tango.'
[ Sie ist ] [ in den Garten she is
getanzt.]
in the.acc garden danced
'She danced into the garden.'
( I a) and PP arguments (1 b) are subordi S ubordin ation means that they are realized with a reduced pitch range
Predicates following DP-arguments nated.
-
.
if not altogether deaccented. They are prosodically 'affixed' to the preced
I put the functor I underline the argument of the n:todifier, i.e. the modified
ing domain.2. Consider now the case of modifiers (again, in italics, and constituent):
(2) Modifiers
a. [ Sie hat J [ den ganzen Abend ] [ getanzt. ] she has the.acc entir� evening danced 'She danced the entire evening.'
IThe onbogmphic accent marks the location of high tone accents-non-final accents are not always realized, due to rhythmic effects. as will be discussed later. 20ne could say that the arguments 'incorporate' into the prosodic domain of the verb that
selects them; or converseJy, that the verb becomes affixed to the prosodic domain of the argument.
Indeed, structures that involve actual incorporation or affixation in German show similar prosodic patterns. I will not explore this point further in this paper.
330
Michael Wagner b. [ Sie hat J [ im Gtinen
she has
in.dat garden
J [ getan zt] . danced
'She danced in the garden '. Modifiers in (2) are mapped to their own accentual domain, separate from the accentual domain of the verb.3 The difference between modifiers and arguments outlined so far is only one half of the pattern, however. 1.2.
Linear Order Effects in Predication
Compl ements do not always induce the subordination of the predicate that selects them: When the predicate precedes the complement, two separate accentual phrases are derived. Consider the cases below in (3) that minimally differ from ( 1 ) in that the pred icate has raised to second position and thus preced es their argum ents. a. [ Sie tdnzte ] [ einen Tango ] . she danced a tango
(3)
b. [ Sie tdnzte ] [ in den Garten ]. into the garden he danced The examples contrast with ( 1 ) in that the predicate can have an accen t in this environment, without requiring narrow focus on the verb. Consider also arguments that follow the final verb in German. Complement clauses usually follow the selecting verb, in constructions often described as 'extraposition' (4a); but they can also precede them (4b).4 a. [ Er hat versprochen ] [ zu schweigen ] . he has promised to be silent
(4)
3The following examples were presented in Cinque ( 1 993 , 250. 254) with nuclear stress on the adjunct-this. however, is not the appropriate prosody in neutral contexts. Unless the modifier is rocused, nuclear stress in these examples falls on the verb. as was pointed o ut already in Truckenbrodt (1993). Jacobs ( 1999), and Ishihara (2001). (l)
a.
...[dass Karl] rein Bllch) (mit Muehe] [l�en leann]. Karl a book with problems read
that
b. ...[class Fritz] [gut) [k6chen kannJ. that Fritz wen cook can.
The word order in (I) actually seems to require marked focus on the predicate. The more neutral order is: 'dass Karl mit Muehe ein Buch lesen kann' . The example may then actually not be relevant for establishing the neutral stress pattern, since both word order and focus slrUcture are not neutral. 4lt is hard to test whether both (4a. b) are possible with neuual focus. In section 2 I will discuss ample examples iIIusuating the same asymmetry. with cross-linguistic data involving only all-new sentences with wide focus.
33 1
Asymmetries in Prosodic Domain Formation b. [ Er hat zu schweigen versprochen. ] he has to be silent promised 'He promised to be silent.'
Whi Ie the selecting predicate is subordinated and accentless in
( 1 ) and (4b), it is accented in (3) and (4a), where it precedes its argument. The following generalization captures this asymmetry descriptively5 (5) Prosodic Asymmetry •
•
When a functor A precedes complement B, a sequence of two prosodic domains that are on a par: A B. The last domain counts as the nuclear domain. When a functor A/ollows (an element from) complement B, A is subordinated: 13 A (unless A is focused or B is old information)
This generalization points in a similar direction as the approach in Steedman . (200 1 ) , who relates prosodic structure to the direction of composition in a categorial grammar framework. Note that it is sufficient if a part of the complement precedes a pred icate, in order for the predicate to subordinate. Some complements can op tionally follow a final predicate. In those cases, the predicate (here: gewarlel 'waited') fails to subordinate (a), as expected; the predicate subordinates even when only part of the argument precedes (b). a case of partial extraposition: (6)
a.
[ Hrer habe ich oft gewdrtel ]. [ auf den Zug ] [ der mich nach Hause bringt. ] Here have I often waited on the train that me to home takes
b. [ H{er habe ich oft [ [ auf den Zag 1 gewartel ) ]. [ der mich nach Hause bringt. on the train waited that me to home takes Here have I often 'I
waited here often for the train that would take me home. '
The generalization in (5) captures the data outlined so far. The subordina tion of predicates following their complement has the effect that both in the predicate -< argument order and in argument -< predicate order, the nuclear stress resides on the argument. This is because-as observed in Newman ( 1 946)-the last accent is perceived as the nuclear stress. I will assume here that 'Nuclear stress' simply refers to the last of a sequence of accents within a given domain, which is perceived by native speakers as the main prominence.6 SCompare observations about complement prominence in Schmerling (1976). Hayes and Lahiri ( 1991). Zubizarreta (1998). I can not review Iheir respective proposals in detail here. I may also related to cases of cyclic subordination in wh-movement discussed in Ishihara (2003). t7rbe generalization about the asymmetry recalls incisive observations on semence stress in Bierwisch (1968) and Bresnan (197 1 ) . which will be discussed later on.
332
Michael Wagner 1.3.
Linear Order EtTects in Modification
A closer look at the prosody of modifiers again reveals an asymmetric pattern depending on linear order-in fact, a pattern that is exactly parallel to the asymmetry observed between predicates and arguments. When a modifier precedes the modified constituent. two separate prosodic constituents are derived, as was illustrated in (2); however. when it follows the modified constituent. the modifier is subordinated. Consider as a first example the case of postposed sentential modifiers: (7) Postposed Adjuncts a. [ Sie hat ] [ getanzt, den ganzenAbend ]. she has danced the. ace entire evening 'Sie hat danced the entire evening. ' b. [ Sie hat ] [ getanzt . im Ganen ] . she has danced in.dat garden 'She danced in the garden' . Constituents following the final verb such a s those i n (7) are often called 'afterthoughts' , as if they were simply added after a sentence as some external addendum. However, they are modifiers integrated into the phrase structure of the sentence, as cases of VP coordination illustrate: (8)
[ Sie hat getanzt, ] den ganzen Abend, [ und Cocktails getrunken ] . she has danced the entire evening and cocktails drunk 'She danced and drank cocktails the entire evening.'
Example (8) also illustrates that it is sufficient if part of the argument of the modifier precedes it in order to trigger its prosodic subordination. analogous to the case of the arguments of predicates (6). The prosodic relation between modifiers and modified constituent is similar to that between predicates and arguments. Earlier treatments (e.g. Krifka . 1 984; Gussenhoven, 1984; Jacobs , 1992) focused on the contrast between modifiers and arguments, and thus missed out on the parallel between modi fiers and predicates.7 71l is not obvious whelher it is legitimate to call a phrase like 'the entire evening' a modifier. and group it with complement taking predicates, since maximal projections are not usually laken
to be able to take complementS and project (but see Starke (200 1) for a different view, discussed further in section 4). We can make sense of this if we adopt the analysis of adverbials proposed in Alexiadou ( 1997) and Cinque (1999). who view adverbials as specifiers of functional projections. It is not 'the entire evening' itself then, which is Ihe modifier, but a functional head that takes the OP as itS specifier.
333
Asymmetries in Prosodic
Domain Formation
1.4. A Complication: Rhythmic Effects Rythmic effects sometimes blur the generalization about the
asymmetry. in to be omitted. The accent is then effec tively 'switched-off ' . This hap pen s in situations where an accen t falls too close to a followi ng accent. The notion 'close' seems to depend also on speech rate. Consider the fo llowin g example. where both a rendition with two accents (a) or only one accent on the direct object (b) seem possible in a wide-focus, all-new context: that they allow pre-nuclear accents
(9)
a.
[ Sie tanzte ] [ Tango ] . she danced tango
b. [ Sie tanzte
Tango
].
she danced tango
Modifiers are again similar to predictes. In ( l Oa), it is possible to omit the accent on the manner adverb • gut' in ( l Oa) without changing the information
structure of the sentence. This seems harder in the case of a longer adverb, that places more unstressed material between its main stress and the following verb ( l Ob). ( 1 0)
Sie glaubt, dass er she believes that he a.
[ gut k6chen kannl well cook can.
.
h. [ ausgezeichnet ] [ k6chen kann. ] excellent
cook
can.
The extreme case of rhythmiC deaccenting is to drop all but the last accent. It is the rhythmi c component then
that the present approach holds responsible
for the pattern discussed in Chomsky ( 197 1 , 200): There is a rendition of the question in ( 1 1a) that only places an accent on 'shirt' with
wide focus on the
Dp'8
(1 1 )
a.
Was it an ex convic t with a red shirt that he was warned to look out for?
b.
No, it was an Automobile salesman.
-
Following ideas going back to Gussenhoven( 1 99 1 ) , Hayes
and Lahiri ( 199 1) , In
Ghini ( 1 993) , I view rhythmic effects as a phonological restr uc turin g . Bne idea is mat at least in fast
speech this is poss ible wimout presupposing any of me
deaccented material as being 'given'.
334
Michael Wagner
particular, rhythmic clash removal can erase prosodic boundaries and thus impoverish the prosodic structure. The rhythm principles have to be stated such that they never erase the domain that provides the last accent, but always the pre-nuclear domain. In the course of the paper, I will pOint to the effects of rhythm where necessary, but I will not discuss its grammar in any detail.9
1.5.
Summary and Outlook
Predicates and Modifiers, jointly referred to as 'functors', are mapped to a prosodic domain independent of their complement when they precede it; they are prosodically subordinated and 'affixed' to their complement when they follow the entire complement or part of it. Assuming the analysis of adverbs and adjectives proposed in Cinque ( 1 999) , functors are generally the pro jecting element, be they predicates or modifiers. This close match between prosody and syntax breaks down when looking at cases of secondary predi cation and modification, as we will see. I will argue that the generalization about subordination has to be stated based on the asymmetry of syntactic projection. The basic idea is that material that is higher in the structure but follows material that is lower in the structure is subject to prosodic subor dination. When looking at two sister constituents, the sister that projects syntactically counts as 'higher' . If it precedes the non-projector, the two are mapped to their own prosodic domain and are on a par. If it follows the non-projector, it is prosodicaUy subordinated. It is effectively affixed to the preceding prosodic domain. For the representation of prosody, I use the bracketed grid notation introduced in Idsardi (l992) , where unmatched brackets are used to delimit prosodic constituents. In the syntactic representation, I indicate which sister . is the non-projecting element in the tree structures by interrupting the link to the spine of the tree. Branches that are subject to prosodic subordination are drawn with thinner lines than branches that are not. Two principles, sister matching and subordination, negotiate the relative prosody between sisters:
( 1 2) Two Basic Cases a.
Head Intial Structure: Sister Matching
b.
Head Final Structure: Subordination
90ther reasons for lacking accents, apart from rhythm. relate to the backgrounding oflinguistic
material
as 'given' (Schwarzschild . 1999). I will not discuss these issues in this paper.
335
Asymmetries in Prosodic Domain Formation
(x(X (x(x a f3
/�
f3
a
(x (x(x f3 a
We can relate grid-sturcture with accent placement by stipulating that each and only top-line grid marks are realized as pitch accents. Newman ( 1 946) observes that the last accent in a sequence of accents is perceived as the most prominent. The subordination principle has therefore the effect that the complement is more prominent than the functor even when it follows IO Whether or not functors bear an accent when they precede their comple it ment does not change prominence relations and is decided based on rhythmic considerations. The proposed system maps trees to prosodic grid structures. The Nuclear stress is determined indirectly: The last element that is not subordi nated is perceived as the nuclear stress within any given domain. We return to the details of the prosodic mapping in section 5 , after confirming the basic asymmetry witha wider range of facts. I I -
2.
Prosodic Asymmetry: Predication
This section presents evidence confirming the generalization about prosodic asymmetry in (5) with respect to predicates and their complements. I present data from different dialects of West-Germanic (Dutch, English, German), involving infinitival or nominal complements. 2.1.
Predicates and Infinitival Complements
West Germanic languages differ in their prosody; However, once linear or der is taken into account, most of the apparent prosodic differences actually reduce to syntactic differences. This section looks closely at sequences of predicates. 1 2 Consider first the case of Dutch: l&rhis could just be stated as a telelogica1 constraint on the syntax-phonology mapping (e.g. Truckenbrodt ( 1 995). Schwanschild (1999)). requiring complements to be more prominent than functors. l iThe generalizations about the asymmelry of prosody outlined in this paper may ultimately relate directly to the asymmetry of syntax (cf. Haider (1993) and Kayne (1994» . It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the consequences of the prosodic facts for syntactic theory and vice versa. 121n presenting the cluster data I am tacitly assuming that they form constituents. These may have been derived via head movement-if we allow for head-movement in the first place. I will not explore the possibilities in detail. The numbers in the examples indicate Ihe path of selection
336
Michael Wagner
( 1 3) Dutch Predicate Cluster: Final Stress
... r dat hij ] [ wilde that he
wanted.to
] [ helpen ] [ verven}. help.to paint
The predicates are ordered according to their embedding, starting with the highest predicate. The actual output for ( 1 3) contains less accents than given here: The accent on 'helpen' is dropped, as indicated in (l4a). This seems to be due to rhythmic restructuring, which gets rid of clashes. One indication that this is the correct characterization of the data is example ( 14b). If a preposition separates the last two predicates, they are separated enough to both maintain their accents.
( 1 4)
a. . ..[ dat hij ) [ wilde helpen ] [ verven] b. ...[ dat hij ] [ wilde helpen ] [ met verven]
( 14a,b) suggest that nuclear stress in the Dutch predicate clusters is final, pre final predicates may also bear an accent. Predicate 2 in ( 1 4a) is in an accented position as indicated in ( 1 3), but gets rhythmically deaccented. The sentence in ( 1 3) can also be pronounced with only one accent on the last predicate. The rhythmic nature of accent-placement in the pre-nuclear domain is further evidenced by (15a vs. b) and ( l 5c vs. d) respectively. (15) Hij zei dat hij .. . he said that he ... . a . .. .wilde verven. wanted.to paint
b. .,.wilde helpen verven. wanted.to help.to paint
c . ...wflde kUnnen helpen verven. wanted.to be.able.to help.to paint d. . .. wilde mogen kUnnen helpen verven. ... wilde mogen kunnen helpen verven.
, ... wants to be allowed to be able to help to paint. '
The following example illustrates that rhythm is evaluated rather globally. In a matrix sentence in Dutch. the first predicate is considered for the computation between the
predicates. starting from the highest predicate • J '. to the one selected by it ·2'
an d so forth. Th e tree-representation encodes projecting constituents b y uninterrupted lines.
Predicates that receive an accent are indicated by a bold-faced branch. All sentences presented
involve sentence wide focus.
337
Asymmetries in Prosodic Domain Formation
of rhythm on the predicate sequence, and is not part of the cluster:
al though it has risen to first position
( 1 6) Hij wflde mogen he
wants
kunnen helpen verven. to be allowed to be able to h elp to paint.
"He wants to be allowed to be able to help to pain t
.'
One way
to make sense of this pattern is to say that the mapping to prosody p lac es accents on each predicate, which are then rhythmically organized in the later eurythmic component resulting in the omission of certain accents. Consider now the German counterparts of the Dutch predicate clusters: ( 1 7)
German Predicate Cluster:
...dass er malen helfen .. .that he
Initial Stress
wallte. paint help want.
3
2
1
Main stress in German falls on the first p redica te. No accents can occur in the
post�nuclear domain unless one of the predicates is contrastively focused-in
which case it would receive main prominence. There are secondary stresses after the nuclear one, but these cannot be realiz ed as pitch accents. This is true independent of the number of predicates that follow: ( 1 8) [ Er sagte dass er ] [ malen helfen kOennen dUrfen wal lte ] he said that he paint help can be.allowed wanted
.
The two languages also differ in the linear order of predicates, apart from the linear location of main word stress: while the p redicates in Dutch are ordered according to embedding, the order in German is the exact inverse. The two d iffe rences initial vs. final stress. embedding vs. inverse order. conspire to keep main stress on the most deeply embedded predicate according to the path oj selection. The following paradigm shows three of the possible orders of a par� licular predicate sequence in German. When predicates are ordered according to embedding as in (a), this order is often taken to involve 'extraposition· . Different orders are possible. however. in s o�call ed 'restructuring' environ� ments (e.g. in b.c).13 ,
IJ-rhere are many syntactic differences between 'exuaposition' an d 'restructuring' thal l will nOl address in this paper-restructuring derives what appear to be monoclausal constructions
338
Michael Wagner
' ... weil er ihr. . . , . . .because he...
( 1 9)
b. [versprach] [zu schweigen zu versuchen].
f ...::2 - d j - d �2
c. [zu schweigen zu versuchen versprach.]
j�2� 1
a. [verspnich] [zu versuchen] [zu schweigen].
be silent try promise , ...promised her to try to be silent.' The example ( 1 9a) is similar to predicate clusters in Dutch ( 1 5), in that main stress is rightmost and secondary accents precede the main one. The fact that the median predicate does not necessarily lose its accent rhythmically as in the Dutch example ( 1 3) (although it may in fast speech), maybe due to the fact that there is unstressed phonological material-the prepoSition-intervening, preventing a clash. Remember the similar pattern in the Dutch example in ( 1 4). where also a preposition separated two predicates. The prosody in Dutch extraposition constructions is generally equal to that of the German cases. Note also that the facts are equivalent in the relevant constructions in Englishl4 :
(20) He wanted to be able to help to succeed. That Dutch and German indeed do not differ in their prosodic systems be
comes apparent in predicate clusters that are attested in both languages: 15 (2 1 )
• facilitate scrambling between clauses, and allow pronouns that are arguments in lite lower clause to be affixed on the matrix verb in second position. etc. (d. Wurmbrand. 2003). Restructuring does not always result in a different word order between me predicates (Haider.
that, e.g.
1994).
14Since English does not allow cluster formation and has a rather fixed word order between predicates. only the evidence from OP's preceding predicates discussed in the next subsection serves to show subordination in this language. A look at complex nominals, however, shows further evidence for the asymmetry at work: (1)
a
[ a trainer ] [ of shiyers ] [ of vampires ]
b. [ a trainer ] [ of vampire slayers c. [ a vampire slayer trainer. ]
1
Each predicate preceded by its complement is subordinated. a... expected. ISHere, the OP argument preceding the cluster is made 'given' (old information). in order to prevent subordination of the cluster.
339
Asymmetries in Prosodic Domain Formation
a. . ..dat Jan M anegiven kan ) gezfen3 hebben 2. that Jan Mary could seen have
b. ...weil
sie ihn hat) malen 3 wollen2.
because she him has paint
wanted
In this example, the second predicate 'hebben ' is preceded by its comple ment 'gezien ' , which effects its subordination. The modal is unstressed, which is unsurprising since it in a position that loses stress via the rhythmic principles
that disallow clashes. The next example illustrates again that it is in fact sufficient if a subconstituent from the complement precedes (this word order is not accepted by all native speakers of Dutch): (22)
a. . . .dat Jan Marie gezfen3 kanl hebben2.
'that Jan could have seen Mary. '
b. ...weil er es kaufen3 wirdl konnen2' because he it buy will can
3
»"" 1
2
The distribution of accents so far follows the generalization in (5) plus rhyth mic deaccenting. Consider the following cases of particle climbing, which
further illustrates that each predicate preceded by part of its complement (the particle) is subordinated. Pre-nuclear predicates may lose the accent to avoid clashes:
(23) Climbing up the Cluster (cf. Evers , 2001 , and ref. therein) Het labyrinth waar we hem niet over... a.
WIllen hoeven laten
ii81 denken.
b. WIllen hoeven iiaJ laten denkeo. c.
iii] zullen hoeven laten denken.
1 - > x ( x (
x
(x
(
x
(x
x (
x x x (x
( x (
x
versprach x x
x
x
(
x
(
x
x
versprachzuvers u ch e nz u schweig e n
The representation derived has a crucial property: Three accents. i.e. top level grid marks. are derived, which are essentially on a par. They coun t as the heads of three accentual domains. There are several lines in the grids that would seem superfluous. Why would the simpler version not suffice? (74) versprach zu versuchen zu schweigen 'promised to try to be silent' (
x
(x
x (
x
x x (x
x
x
(
x
(
x x
versprachzuvers u ch e nz u schweig e n
When two complex right-branching structures are put together e.g. in co ordination, the need for further structure becomes apparent. Otherwise. the expectation would be a sequence of accents on a par. ,
(75) Two complex Right-Branching Structures 'promised to try to be silent
and asked to allow to whisper'
(
x
x
x
x
x
(
x
x
x
(x
x
x
(
x
(x
x
(x
x
x
(
x
(x
( x ( x x x( x
x x (x
x (
x x x (x
( x
x
(
x x
(x
(x
x
x x
versprachzuvers u ch e nZ !l schweigenundbatzuerlaub e n z uft ii stern
The additional grouping in (75) is ne�essary. since the pitch level i.s reset at the break between the two predicate sequences. Within each predicate sequence downstep (or declination) between the three accents can be observed. The relative pitch level of the six accents in the structure can be approximated by looking at the left brackets: the highest left bracket in the column represents the relative pitch level. The grouping arises through the brackets that delimit feet at the relevant grid line. For discussion of the phonetic realization of
360
:
'
Michael Wagner hierarchical structures see Ladd ( 1 986, 1 988). linearizations: (76)
1
-
