The Copy Theory of Movement (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Copy Theory of Movement Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provi...

Author: Norbert Corver | Jairo Nunes

74 downloads 1330 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Copy Theory of Movement

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

General Editors Werner Abraham

University of Vienna / Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Elly van Gelderen

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Cedric Boeckx

Ian Roberts

Guglielmo Cinque

Ken Safir

Günther Grewendorf

Lisa deMena Travis

Liliane Haegeman

Sten Vikner

Hubert Haider

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

Harvard University University of Venice

J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt University of Lille, France University of Salzburg

Cambridge University Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ McGill University

University of Aarhus University of Groningen

Christer Platzack University of Lund

Volume 107 The Copy Theory of Movement Edited by Norbert Corver and Jairo Nunes

The Copy Theory of Movement

Edited by

Norbert Corver Utrecht University

Jairo Nunes University of São Paulo

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The copy theory of movement / edited by Norbert Corver, Jairo Nunes, University of Sao Paulo. p. cm. -- (Linguistik aktuell, issn 0166-0829 ; v. 107) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Generative grammar. I. Corver, Norbert, 1963- II. Nunes, Jairo. 2007 P158.C64 415--dc22 2007010290 isbn 978 90 272 3371 4 (Hb; alk. paper)

© 2007 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents From trace theory to copy theory Norbert Corver and Jairo Nunes Part I The copy theory of movement on the PF side The copy theory of movement: A view from PF Željko Bošković and Jairo Nunes Part II On multiple realization of copies Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation Ana Maria Martins



 

 

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out: The case of verbal repetition Jason Kandybowicz



Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng



Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon Norbert Corver



Part III On lower copy realization



Free word order and copy theory of movement Sandra Stjepanović



Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ Chris H. Reintges



Part IV Further issues: cyclicity, accessibility and unavailability of copying Cyclic chain reduction Tomohiro Fujii

 



Table of contents

Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement Marjo van Koppen



Pronouns in a minimalist setting Norbert Hornstein



Index



From trace theory to copy theory Norbert Corver and Jairo Nunes Utrecht University/Universidade de São Paulo

.

From traces to copies

A fundamental property of human languages is that syntactic constituents are interpreted in positions different from the ones where they are phonetically realized. Within the generative tradition that culminated in the Government and Binding (GB) model (Chomsky 1981), this “displacement property” was standardly analyzed as involving an operation moving a given element from one structural position to another, leaving behind a coindexed trace. A trace was conceived of as a phonetically unrealized category that inherited the relevant interpretation properties of the moved element, forming with it a discontinuous object – a so-called chain. A considerable amount of research within GB was devoted to properly characterizing the properties of movement, traces, and chains. This research led among other things to a typology of traces (and empty categories, more in general), distinguishing three types of traces: (i) wh-traces, i.e. traces resulting from A-bar movement (cf. (1a)), (ii) NP-traces, i.e. traces resulting from A-movement (cf. (1b)), and (iii) traces resulting from head movement operations such as V-to-T movement in French (cf. (1c)). (1)

a. b. c.

I wondered whoi John kissed ti Johni was kissed ti by Mary Jean embrassei souvent ti Marie Jean kisses often Mary ‘John often kisses Mary.’

In the context of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1993, 1995), all the questions about the nature of movement and the properties of traces arise anew, in face of the elimination of much of the rich theoretical apparatus previously available. In particular, only the interface levels LF and PF are assumed, and LF objects are built from the features of the lexical items of the array that feeds a derivation (Chomsky’s 1995 Inclusiveness Condition). Under the standard theory of movement stemming from Chomsky (1973), however, traces and their indices are not



Norbert Corver and Jairo Nunes

part of the initial array, but are introduced in the course of the derivation. As such, trace theory does not meet minimalist requirements. Addressing traditional issues in movement theory, Chomsky (1993) incorporates the “copy theory of movement” into the Minimalist Program. According to the copy theory, a trace is a copy of the moved element that is deleted in the phonological component (in the case of overt movement), but is available for interpretation at LF. Under the copy version of trace theory, then, the patterns in (1) look as in (2) at LF. In the corresponding PF structures of these sentences, only the highest copy is spelled out phonologically. The lower copy is erased in the phonological component and consequently is not realized at PF. (2)

a. b. c.

I wondered [who] John kissed [who] [John] was kissed [John] by Mary Jean [embrasse] souvent [embrasse] Marie

Besides being compatible with the Inclusiveness Condition, the copy theory has the advantage of allowing binding theory to be stated solely in LF terms and dispensing with the operation of reconstruction, i.e. the LF-operation that “puts back” the moved constituent into the position of its trace. The latter advantage is exemplified in (3). Under trace theory, the moved wh-phrase which picture of himself must be reconstructed in its trace position (ti in (3b)) in order for the anaphor himself to be bound by John. Under the copy theory, a full copy of the displaced wh-phrase is available at LF (see (3c)). Consequently, the anaphor himself, being part of the copy in the “trace” position, can be locally bound by John. In short, under a copy version of trace theory there is no need for an operation like reconstruction in the grammar. (3)

a. b. c.

Which picture of himself did John destroy? [Which picture of himself]i did John destroy ti [Which picture of himself] did John destroy [which picture of himself]

A further advantage of the copy theory of “traces” is that they are not discrete theoretical primitives by themselves. They are either lexical items or phrases built from lexical items. By making it possible to promote this overall simplification of the theoretical apparatus in GB theory, the copy theory has thus become a solid pillar of the Minimalist Program. However, it is fair to say that the bulk of the research on the copy theory thus far has mainly focused on interpretation issues at LF (reconstruction, chain binding, quantifier-variable binding, construal, et cetera), leaving issues on the PF side almost untouched. This by no means entails that such issues are uninteresting; the adoption of the copy theory raises many nontrivial questions about the mapping from Spell-Out to PF. A major question obviously concerns the pronunciation of the copies that make up a chain. It appears that it is only heads of

From trace theory to copy theory

chains that are available for phonetic realization. On the LF side, it seems that different chain links or even different pieces of different links are in principle available for interpretation (see Chomsky 1993, for instance). The question therefore arises whether there are cases with “traces” (lower copies) pronounced instead of the head of the chain or cases with more than one chain link or all the links phonetically realized? What, in short, regulates phonetic realization of copies? Some other questions that arise in relation to the PF side of the grammar are the following: (a) What principles of grammar regulate the deletion of copies? (b) Does the principle of the Cycle, which regulates the order of movement rules, also play a role in the order in which copy deletion takes place? (c) How does deletion of phonological features interact with other computations of the phonological component? (d) Must the pronunciation of the “trace” necessarily be identical to that of the highest copy, or can traces also be spelled out differently, e.g. as a resumptive pronoun or a reflexive pronoun? And if a different pronunciation is permitted, what sorts of operations are involved in the conversion of a bona fide copy into a resumptive/reflexive pronoun? (e) To what extent is the internal structure of complex “traces” accessible to operations of the grammar, e.g. Agree? In order to get a better understanding of the PF side of the copy theory (and the copy theory more in general), this volume has congregated recent work that deals with empirical and conceptual consequences of the copy theory of movement for the computations on the PF side of the grammar. We have organized the chapters in four parts. Part I presents an overview of the various theoretical issues the copy theory brought to forth, as well as its empirical advantages. Part II is devoted to pronunciation of multiple copies, i.e. the phenomenon that more than one copy of the movement chain surfaces at PF. Part III focuses on pronunciation of lower copies, i.e. the phonetic realization of chain links other than the head of the chain. Finally, Part IV deals with issues that arise as the copy theory interacts with other grammatical computations in general, and computations on the PF side, in particular. In the next section, we summarize the chapters in each part. . .

A brief tour through this volume The copy theory of movement on the PF side (Part I)

Based on previous work by Bošković (2001, 2002, 2004a,b) and Nunes (1999, 2004), Bošković and Nunes’s chapter discusses a considerable amount of evidence involving A-movement, A’-movement, head movement, and remnant movement that points to the conclusion that “traces” (i.e. copies structurally lower in the syntactic representation) may be phonetically realized. In addition, the issues regarding phonetic realization of copies are shown to be determined by conditions






of the phonological component and not of syntax (movement) per se. As a result, the chapter is able to explain a variety of complex phenomena that cannot be captured by trace theory. The chapter starts by reviewing several pieces of evidence that show that the phonetic realization of copies is similar to the LF interpretive procedure in the sense that it allows activation of lower copies, as well as instances of “scattered deletion”, where different pieces of different chain links are realized. It is argued that convergence requirements related to linearization and morphological fusion interact with economy computations regarding applications of deletion, yielding a complex crosslinguistic pattern whereby chains in the general case have only their highest link phonetically realized, but they may also trigger pronunciation of a lower link or even pronunciation of multiple links if convergence so demands. .

On multiple realization of copies (Part II)

Martins’s chapter discusses European Portuguese sentences where a finite verb occurs twice. Such sentences express emphatic affirmation and are either elliptic structures produced as replies to a yes/no question presupposing a negative answer or full declaratives which contradict a preceding negative statement. The approach to European Portuguese emphatic verb reduplication developed in this chapter views the two phonologically indistinguishable verb forms as copies of the same item from the numeration, i.e. as two links of a nontrivial chain. Martins’s analysis relies on Nunes’s (2001, 2004) idea that the phonetic realization of multiple links of a chain is permitted as far as linearization – understood as the application of Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) – can still operate. In particular, multiple copies may be allowed when morphological reanalysis makes some copy invisible to the LCA. In the case of emphatic affirmation in European Portuguese, it is argued that verb reduplication results from the combination of verb movement to Σ[+aff] and (subsequent) verb movement to C[+emph], followed by morphological reanalysis of C, which renders the adjoined verb copy invisible to the LCA and immune to deletion. Focusing on the case of verbal repetition in Nupe, a Benue-Congo language spoken in central Nigeria, Kandybowicz’s chapter shows that verbal repetition constructions are mono-clausal syntactic objects in which the participating verbs are neither independently base-merged, as in the case of verb serialization for instance, nor are they related through reduplicative copying in the morphology/phonology. Rather, it is argued that these constructions involve chain formation and postsyntactic morphological reanalysis, which allows phonetic realization of multiple links/copies at PF. The chapter also adds some refinements to Nunes’s (1999, 2004) proposal on the interaction of the syntactic component with the PF wing of grammar as far as phonetic realization of multiple copies is concerned.


Cheng’s chapter examines the ambiguity in resultative constructions with verb copying in Mandarin Chinese (resultative de-clauses and resultative compounds) and argues that the ambiguity is the result of two different derivations, which have in common the fact that more than one copy of the verb is phonetically realized. It is argued that both standard movement and sideward movement (in the sense of Nunes 2001, 2004) are used for verb copying in resultative de-clauses, leading to different interpretations. In the case of standard movement, the subject of the resultative clause is raised to the matrix clause, accompanied by verb movement, yielding an object-result reading. In the case of subject-result reading, ergativity shift is involved and the subject of the resultative clause becomes the subject of the matrix clause. In the latter case, the verb is copied to accommodate a thematic noun phrase associated with a verb (via sideward movement). For both readings, due to a modified structure in the lower copy, both copies are allowed to be pronounced, without violating the LCA. Using data from verb copying in resultatives, the chapter further examines how copying is restricted to avoid unwanted copying, lending independent support to Hornstein and Nunes’s (2002) proposal that the copy operation may be triggered by θ-requirements. Corver’s chapter investigates Dutch expressions involving two instances of the bound morpheme –s, which is traditionally analyzed as a genitival case suffix, as in blootshoofds (lit.: bare-s-head-s; ‘bare headed; with the head bare’) or ’s Zondags (lit.: -s Sunday-s; ‘on Sundays’). The first instance of –s in these expressions is traditionally qualified as being proleptic in that it anticipates the occurrence of the final –s that is right-attached to the noun. Corver proposes an analysis of –s-prolepsis in terms of the operations movement/copying. More specifically, it is argued that in expressions like blootshoofds, for instance, –s is not a genitival case suffix but rather a small clause head that establishes a predication relationship between a predicate and a subject (schematically: [XP hoofd [X’ –s [AP bloot]]]. The surface order is derived by movement of the predicate to a position preceding the subject and concomitant head movement of the small clause head –s to the functional head into whose specifier position the displaced predicate has moved (schematically: [FP blootj [F’ –si+F [XP hoofd [X’ –si blootj]]]]). The multiple realization of the two –s copies is accounted for in terms of Nunes’s (1995, 2004) theory about the linearization of movement chains. Cases likes ’s Zondags are subject to the same basic account, with the difference that –s is analyzed as a (weak) demonstrative pronoun (i.e. a reduced variant of the word des) rather than a small clause head. A parallel is then drawn with phenomena of demonstrative-doubling in prepositional structures in German dialects. .

On lower copy realization (Part III)

Stjepanović’s paper discusses the derivation of certain apparent cases of free word order in Serbo-Croatian, in particular those involving new information focus and






neutral intonation patterns. The chapter starts by examining an apparent paradox concerning the position of the subject in Serbo-Croatian. While there are data indicating that the subject must raise to the highest position of the split IP in overt syntax, there are also data indicating that it appears in [Spec,VP] on the surface. Based on work by Franks (1998) and Bošković (2001, 2002), among others, the paper argues that the subject does indeed raise to the highest position of the split IP in overt syntax, but when the subject represents new information focus, a lower copy is pronounced at PF to satisfy requirements on sentential stress assignment (see Zubizaretta 1998). The proposed analysis thus captures the extremely free word order of Serbo-Croatian as well as discourse effects of scrambling, and sheds light on how copy deletion works on the PF side. Examining data from Coptic Egyptian, the last descendant of the Ancient Egyptian language, Reintges’s chapter argues for a new type of wh-in-situ, in which the copy privileged for phonological realization is the lowest member of the wh-chain, while the head of the chain as well as the intermediate copies are left unpronounced. Coptic can be described as a wh-in-situ language in which wh-clefting and wh-fronting are available as marked wh-interrogative strategies. The wh-in-situ pattern is marked morphologically by “relative tenses”, so called because a relative marker appears in front of the tense-aspect-mood inflection. Based on their parallelism in scope and interpretation, Reintges argues that whin-situ and wh-fronting structures in Coptic are both derived by applications of whmovement in the narrow syntax, before Spell-Out. Under this perspective, Coptic relative tenses are interpreted as a morphological instantiation of “wh-agreement”. It is proposed that the simultaneous pronunciation of the topmost wh-copy and the relative marker are prohibited by an economy filter on the morpho-syntactic encoding of wh-dependencies, which is reminiscent of the “Doubly-filled Comp” Filter in English. Deletion of the wh-element or the relative marker is then what yields the apparent distinction between wh-movement and wh-in situ constructions at the surface. Lower copy pronunciation of wh-elements is of particular theoretical interest, since it shows that the PF wing of the grammar permits the same range of realization sites for wh-chains at LF (Bošković and Nunes, this volume). .

Further issues: cyclicity, accessibility and unavailability of copying (Part IV)

Based on new evidence having to do with binding and reconstruction, Fujii argues in his chapter that copy raising constructions in English such as John seems like he is intelligent are to be analyzed as involving A-movement of the subject of the embedded clause, coupled with pronunciation of the copy left in the embedded subject position as a resumptive of sorts. Using Chomsky’s (2001)


phase-based framework, the paper shows that copy raising constructions constitute an argument for taking the PF operation that deletes copies of a chain to allow Linearization (Nunes’s 2004 Chain Reduction) to apply in a cyclic fashion. More specifically, it is proposed that Chain Reduction marks for deletion all the nonhighest copies that are visible to the operation when it applies. The domain that the operation affects is determined by the notion of the cycle, which is in turn characterized by the notion of phase. Thus, when the highest copy among those visible to the operation sits at the edge of a phase, it is not marked for deletion at that phase, but it can be deleted at the next higher cycle. By contrast, when the highest copy is not in the edge but somewhere inside the domain of the phase – as is the case of copy in the embedded subject position of copy raising constructions –, it cannot be deleted even if further movement takes place, because the domain of the phase will have been spelled-out before Chain Reduction applies. Van Koppen’s chapter discusses agreement between complementizers and coordinated subjects in Dutch dialects. In the relevant dialects, the complementizer must display agreement with the first conjunct if the coordinated subject remains in [Spec,TP]. However, if the subject is extracted, this agreement morphology on the complementizer leads to an ungrammatical result. Based on this asymmetry between heads of chains and lower copies, Van Koppen proposes that internal structures of copies left by movement operations are not accessible to the operation Agree. More specifically, she proposes that copies left by movement are reduced in the sense that they only consist of the ϕ-feature set of the maximal projection of the moved item. This view of copies therefore provides an alternative account for why the lower copies in constructions with more than one copy phonetically realized must be “reduced” (Nunes 2004). Hornstein’s chapter examines the theoretical status of pronouns and principle B of the Binding Theory within the Minimalist Program, once it is assumed that reflexives should be formed by movement/copying. If reflexive structures are to be ultimately analyzed in terms of movement/copying, Principle A should be dispensed with. The question then is how to reanalyze Principle B, given that it imposes the opposite requirements of Principle A. Hornstein argues in favour of returning to the earliest approaches to pronominalization phenomena by Lees and Klima (1963), recast in a more contemporary setting in terms of derivational economy. More specifically, he proposes that the complementarity between reflexives and bound pronouns follows if derivations that resort to movement (understood in terms of copying) are more economical than derivations that resort to pronoun use. Under this view, pronouns are last resort items used when more favourable (“economical”) grammatical options cannot be.






.

Conclusion

The chapters summarized above provide reasonable answers for the conceptual questions raised in section 1 and also considerably broaden the empirical coverage of the model. The empirical material comes from a variety of languages and it is argued that most of phenomena discussed here cannot be accounted for in terms of the standard trace theory. Recall that the reintroduction of the copy theory of movement in Chomsky (1993) was motivated mainly by conceptual concerns regarding the architecture of the computational system and interpretation issues on the LF side of the grammar. The fact that the copy theory also receives substantial support from computations of the PF-side of the grammar, as amply shown by the contributions of this volume, renders it a solid pillar of the Minimalist Program.

Acknowledgements The present collection of articles grew out of the workshop The Copy Theory of Movement on the PF Side, which took place at Utrecht University (UiL-OTS) in December 2004. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Netherlands Organization of Pure Scientific Research (NWO) and UiL-OTS. We would also like to thank our anonymous reviewers.

References Bošković, Željko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383. Bošković, Željko. 2004a. On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives. In Balkan syntax and semantics, Olga Mišeska Tomić (ed.), 269–291. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bošković, Željko. 2004b. PF Merger in stylistic fronting and object shift. In Minimality effects in syntax, Arthur Stepanov, Gisbert Fanselow & Ralf Vogel (eds), 37–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 232–286. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in linguistics, Michael Kenstowicz (eds), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

From trace theory to copy theory Franks, Steven. 1998. Clitics in Slavic. Position paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, June 5–7, Bloomington, (downloadable from http://www.indiana. edu/~slavconf/linguistics/index.html) Hornstein, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo. 2002. On asymmetries between parasitic gap and acrossthe-board constructions. Syntax 5: 26–54. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Lees, Robert B. & Klima, Edward. 1963. Rules for English pronominalization. Language 39: 17–28. Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist Program. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Nunes, Jairo. 1999. Linearization of chains and phonetic realization of chain links. In Working Minimalism, Samuel Epstein & Norbert Hornstein, 217–249. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 303–344. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Zubizaretta, Maria-Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.



 

The copy theory of movement on the PF side

The copy theory of movement A view from PF*

Željko Bošković and Jairo Nunes University of Connecticut / Universidade de São Paulo

Based on previous work by Bošković (2001, 2002, 2004a,b) and Nunes (1999, 2004), this chapter discusses a considerable amount of evidence involving A-movement, A’-movement, head movement, and remnant movement that points to the conclusion that “traces” (i.e. copies structurally lower in the syntactic representation) may be phonetically realized. In addition, the issues regarding phonetic realization of copies are shown to be determined by conditions of the phonological component and not of syntax (movement) per se. As a result, the chapter is able to explain a variety of complex phenomena that cannot be captured by trace theory. The chapter starts by reviewing several pieces of evidence that show that the phonetic realization of copies is similar to the LF interpretive procedure in the sense that it allows activation of lower copies, as well as instances of “scattered deletion”, where different pieces of different chain links are realized. It is argued that convergence requirements related to linearization and morphological fusion interact with economy computations regarding applications of deletion, yielding a complex crosslinguistic pattern whereby chains in the general case have only their highest link phonetically realized, but they may also trigger pronunciation of a lower link or even pronunciation of multiple links if convergence so demands.

.

Introduction

Chomsky (1993) revives the copy theory of movement, according to which a moved element leaves behind a copy of itself, rather than a trace. The conceptual

* Previous versions of this paper were presented at the Mayfest 2002: The Minimalist Fact (University of Maryland, 5/16-18/02) and at the Workshop “The Copy Theory of Movement on the PF Side” (Universiteit Utrecht, 12/14-15/04). We are thankful to these audiences and an anonymous reviewer for their comments. Special thanks to Marcel den Dikken for his detailed comments and suggestions. Thanks also to Carol Petersen for her editorial help. During the writing of this paper, the second author received support from CNPq (grants 300897/1996-0 and 200422/04-9).



Željko Bošković and Jairo Nunes

underpinning for the revival of the copy theory is provided by the Inclusiveness Condition (see Chomsky 1995), a conceptually appealing condition that confines the power of syntax to (re-)arrangements of lexical items, banning syntax from creating new objects. Traces are prime examples of creationism in syntax and, as such, violate the Inclusiveness Condition. Chomsky (1993) demonstrates that in addition to conforming to the Inclusiveness Condition, the copy theory considerably simplifies the analysis of reconstruction phenomena. Furthermore, by making it possible to treat reconstruction as an LF phenomenon, the copy theory contributes to the research attempt to eliminate non-interface levels of representation. Another attractive feature of the copy theory is that, by eliminating traces, it reduces the number of theoretical primitives in our inventory. If traces are copies, they are either lexical items or complex objects built from lexical items; they are not new primitives. Replacement of traces by copies thus leads to an overall simplification of the grammar and this by itself explains why the copy theory became one of the pillars of the minimalist framework. As is the case with any rearrangement in the architecture of the model, the reintroduction of the copy theory also brings in its package some new questions. For instance, one must determine which copies reach the interfaces and why this is so. Elements undergoing movement are generally pronounced and interpreted only in one position and the pronunciation and interpretation positions do not have to coincide. To ensure this under the copy theory, it is standardly assumed that all but one copy of an element X undergoing overt movement is deleted in PF and LF, so that only one copy of X remains at the interface levels. The question is then which copy should survive deletion. It is generally assumed that on the LF side, we have at least some choice in deciding where deletion should take place in nontrivial chains, with a preference for deletion in the head of operator-variable chains. Take the ambiguity of the anaphor in (1) below, for instance. Chomsky (1993) argues that the upstairs reading of himself is obtained after the tail of the wh-chain is deleted, as shown in (2a),1 where himself is locally bound by Joe.2 On the other hand, under the downstairs reading, himself is deleted in the head of the wh-chain and remains in its tail, as shown in (2b), where himself is locally bound by Jim.

.

From now on, copies will be annotated with superscripts.

. Chomsky (1993) actually assumes that LF deletion in cases such as (2a) needs to leave a variable (without internal structure) behind, at least for θ-theoretic reasons. This however might become unnecessary under Bošković and Takahashi’s (1998) feature approach to θ-roles (see also Lasnik 1995, Hornstein 1999, 2001, Manzini and Roussou 2000, and Boeckx in press, among others.).

The copy theory of movement

(1) (2)

Joei wondered which picture of himselfi/j Jimj bought a. Joe wondered [CP [which picture of himself]k [IP Jim bought [which picture of himself]k]] b. Joe wondered [CP [which picture of himself ]k [IP Jim bought [which picture of himself]k]]

Chomsky argues that there is actually a preference for minimizing operator restriction in LF, which normally leads to deletion in the head of A’-chains. The preference for the deletion in the operator position is motivated by the impossibility of coreference between he and Tom in sentences such as (3a) below (see its LF representation in (3b)). To exclude (3a) while allowing the upstairs reading of himself in (1), Chomsky suggests that in (2a), himself undergoes LF anaphor movement into the matrix clause from the head of the wh-chain; deletion in the head of the wh-chain along the lines of (2b) is then blocked because it would break the anaphor movement chain. By contrast, in (2b) the lower copy of himself undergoes LF anaphor movement within the lower clause so that the deletion within the head of the wh-chain is permitted.3 (3)

a. b.

*Mary wondered which picture of Tomi hei liked. *Mary wondered [CP [which picture of Tom]k he liked [which picture of Tom]k]

On the LF side we thus have some choice in deciding where deletion should take place in nontrivial chains. By contrast, it is standardly assumed that no such choice is available in PF, the head of a nontrivial chain always being the sole survivor. The following paradigm provides empirical justification for the standard assumption: (4)

a. b. c. d. e.

[[the student]k was arrested [the student]k] *[[the student]k was arrested [the student]k] *[[the student]k was arrested [the student]k] *[[the student]k was arrested [the student]k] *[[the student]k was arrested [the student]k]

Despite its general conceptual appeal and adequate handling of interpretation phenomena, the copy theory thus leaves us with a heavy burden: the stipulation . As pointed out by Ferreira (2000), this analysis tacitly assumes that Principle C should be computed after LF. Given that economy only chooses among convergent derivations (see Chomsky 1995), if Principle C were a convergence condition at LF, its violation in (3b) should license deletion of picture of Tom in the tail of the wh-chain, contrary to fact. In order to ensure a consistent analysis for the Principle A and Principle C cases, it must then be assumed that Principle C applies to the output of LF and is not taken into consideration for the workings of syntactic computation proper (the same must hold for Principle B). See Hornstein, Nunes, and Grohmann 2005: chap. 8 for further discussion.






that lower copies cannot be phonetically realized. The stipulation is particularly unfortunate because it tacitly resuscitates traces by making extraneous distinctions among copies and ends up undermining the whole enterprise of LF-interpretation in terms of copies. This paper brings a more optimistic light to this picture. We will discuss a considerable amount of evidence that points to the conclusion that “traces” may indeed be phonetically realized. In addition, the issues regarding phonetic realization of copies will be shown to be determined by conditions of the phonological component and not of syntax (movement) per se. As a result, we will be able to explain a variety of complex phenomena that cannot be captured by trace theory. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review several pieces of evidence that show that the phonetic realization is similar to the LF interpretive procedure discussed above in the sense that it allows activation of lower copies, as well as instances of “scattered deletion”, where different pieces of different chain links are realized, as in the LF procedure discussed above with respect to (2b). We also show that a system that allows lower copy pronunciation has a number of more general, conceptually and empirically appealing consequences for the operation Move and the overall conception of the grammar, as it provides a completely new look at the interaction among different components of the grammar. In Section 3, we present a general approach to phonetic realization in terms of linearization that is able to incorporate the results reported in Section 2. In Section 4, we provide additional support for this approach by discussing constructions in which multiple copies are phonetically realized. Finally, a brief conclusion is offered in Section 5.

.

PF realization of traces

A number of authors have recently argued that in PF we also have a choice concerning which member of a nontrivial chain survives deletion (see Bobaljik 1995, 2002, Brody 1995, Nunes 1995, 1999, 2004, Wilder 1995, Groat and O’Neil 1996, Hiramatsu 2000, Pesetsky 1997, 1998, Richards 1997, Roberts 1997, Franks 1998, Runner 1998, Stjepanović 1999, 2003, Fanselow and Ćavar 2000, Abels 2001, Bošković 2001, 2002, 2004a, Lambova 2002, 2004, Miyoshi 2002, Landau 2003, and Reglero 2004, among others). There are several instantiations of this proposal. For Groat and O’Neil (1996), for example, phonological features are not copied in “lower copy pronunciation”. Most of the above-mentioned authors, on the other hand, assume that pronunciation of lower copies is possible even when the relevant phonological features are copied under movement, i.e. when they are present in the head as well as the tail of the chain.


Of particular interest to us is the proposal concerning PF deletion of copies made in Franks 1998. Franks argues that just as in LF there is a preference for deletion in the head position of non-trivial chains (at least with operator-variable chains), deletion of lower copies in PF is just a preference, not the only option. More precisely, Franks argues that a chain is pronounced in the head position, with lower members deleted in PF, unless pronunciation in the head position would lead to a PF violation. If and only if the violation can be avoided by pronouncing a lower member of the chain, the lower member is pronounced and the head of the chain is deleted.4 We will refer to the mechanism of pronunciation of lower copies motivated by PF considerations as P(rounounce)L(ower)C(opy). Below we discuss a number of empirical arguments for PLC (for additional arguments, see Pesetsky 1997, 1998, Franks 1998, Hiramatsu 2000, Bošković 2001, Bobaljik 2002, and Lambova 2002, 2004, among others). .

Multiple wh-fronting

Bošković (2002) provides several arguments for PLC regarding multiple wh-fronting (MWF). One such argument is based on Romanian, which is a MWF language, requiring all wh-phrases to front in questions, as shown in (5) below. However, as observed in Bošković (2002), the second wh-phrase does not appear to move if it is homophonous with the first fronted wh-phrase, as illustrated in (6). (5)

(6)

a.

Cine ce precede? who what precedes b. *Cine precede ce? who precedes what ‘Who precedes what?’ a. Ce precede ce? what precedes what b. *Ce ce precede? what what precedes ‘What precedes what?’

(Romanian)

(Romanian)

4. Pesetsky’s (1997, 1998) system, which antecedes Franks (1998), has the same result (see also Bobaljik 1995, Hiramatsu 1999, and Bošković 2001). However, Pesetsky is not quite as explicit in the relevant respect as Franks, who explicitly makes the above claim. Also, Franks is more explicit than Pesetsky regarding what happens in nontrivial chains having more than two members when the highest copy cannot be pronounced, an issue that will be considered below. Notice also that by the head of a chain we mean here the highest member of a sequence of copies created by movement of the same element. We disregard the fact that in some cases two different chains (an A and an A’-chain) are created by movement of the same element, as in whoi ti seems ti to ti know French.






Bošković (2002) proposes that Romanian has a low-level PF constraint against consecutive homophonous wh-phrases, which rules out (6b).5 What about (6a)? Here we seem to find an intricate interplay between phonology and syntax, with phonology apparently overriding syntax, more precisely, the need to satisfy a PF requirement apparently overriding the need to satisfy a syntactic requirement. This kind of phonology-syntax interaction cannot be implemented in a derivational, syntax-feeding-phonology framework like Minimalism, which furthermore does not have violable constraints. Bošković (2002), however, shows that PLC provides us with a straightforward way of resolving this phonology-syntax conflict. Given that Romanian has a syntactic requirement that forces all wh-phrases to move overtly, which Bošković argues involves focalization, the second wh-phrase must move in the syntax. The overt structure underlying (6a) is thus the one in (7), ignoring irrelevant copies. (7)

[ce cei precede cei]

If we pronounce the highest link of the second wh-chain in (7), as we would normally do, a PF violation obtains (we end up with a sequence of homophonous wh-elements). This is precisely the situation where we are allowed to pronounce a lower copy under Franks’s (1988) approach to the pronunciation of non-trivial chains. Deletion of the upper copy of the object wh-chain then yields (8). (8)

[ce cei precede cei]

The PLC analysis thus enables us to derive (6a) from (7) and account for the contrast between (5b) and (6a) without violating the syntactic requirement that forces all wh-phrases to move overtly in Romanian, without look-ahead from the syntax to the phonology, and without any PF movement. The analysis also resolves the problem of the phonology-syntax interaction raised by (6a), without having phonology override syntax. Bošković (2002) gives another MWF argument for PLC, based on Romanian echo wh-phrases. As noted by Comorovski (1996), Romanian obligatorily fronts even echo wh-phrases. Thus, (9a) below is unacceptable even as an echo question.6

. As discussed in Golston 1995, Billings and Rudin 1996, and Bošković 2001, 2002 similar constraints are found in other languages. It is worth noting that we are dealing here with a morphological, rather than a phonetic effect, as clearly shown by the Serbo-Croatian paradigm in (i) (in particular, the contrast between (ic), due to Peter Svenonius (p.c.), and (ib)). (i)

a. ?Ko, koga Marija voli, mrzi Petra. who.NOM who.ACC Mary loves hates Petar ‘Who, whom Mary loves, hates Petar.’

(Serbo-Croatian)


Interestingly, Comorovski observes that exceptionally, echo wh-phrases have to stay in situ in questions that require a question as an answer. (10b), for instance, is only acceptable as an echo question; a true, non-echo question would require movement of CE, as in Cine ce a uitat să deschidă. (9)

(10)

a. *Ion a adus ? Ion has brought what b.  a adus Ion? what has brought Ion ‘Ion has brought WHAT?’ a. Q: Cine a uitat să deschidă paraşuta? who has forgotten to open the-parachute ‘Who forgot to open the parachute?’ b. Echo Q: Cine a uitat să deschidă ? who has forgotten to open what ‘Who forgot to open WHAT?’

(Romanian)

(Romanian)

Comorovski shows that we are dealing here with a PF effect, for it is impossible to assign a proper melodic contour to (10b) if CE is fronted. True questions in Romanian have a melodic peak on the wh-phrase, which is immediately followed by a falling contour. However, the intonation cannot start falling immediately after a true question wh-phrase if it is immediately followed by an echo wh-phrase, because echo wh-phrases are pronounced with a sharp rise in pitch. As Comorovski shows, a proper melodic contour can however be assigned if the echo wh-phrase is pronounced in situ, as in (10b). Bošković (2002) reinterprets the contrast between (9a) and (10b) in terms of PLC. Given that even echo wh-phrases must be fronted overtly, as seen in (9), this should also hold in (10b). In other words, (10b) should be associated with the syntactic representation in (11a) below (ignoring the copy left by fronting the first wh-phrase). As discussed above, if the head of the chain created by the fronting of the echo wh-phrase is pronounced, the construction cannot be assigned a

b. *Koga, koga Marija voli, Petar mrzi. who.ACC who.ACC Mary loves Petar hates ‘Whom, whom Mary loves, Petar hates? c. Gospodina Koga, koga Marija voli, Petar mrzi. Mr. Koga who Mary loves Petar hates ‘Mr. Whom, whom Mary loves, Petar hates.’ . Below, echo wh-phrases are given in capital letters. As noted in Bošković (2002), not all speakers share Comorovski’s judgment. We are focusing here on the dialect in which (9a) is unacceptable as an echo question.






proper melodic contour, resulting in a PF violation. This violation can however be avoided if the tail of the chain is pronounced instead, as shown in (11b).7 (11)

a. b.

[true-wh echo-whi … verb echo-whi] [true-wh echo-whi … verb echo-whi]

There is in fact independent evidence that the second ce in (6a) and the echo CE in (10b) indeed move in the overt syntax. As is well-known, in-situ wh-phrases in multiple questions in languages like English or in single questions in “true” whin-situ languages like Malay (see Bošković 2002) differ from their moved counterparts in being unable to license parasitic gaps, as respectively illustrated in (12) and (13).8 . Bošković (2002) also gives a PLC account of Comorovski’s (1996) observation that Romanian echo wh-phrases can exceptionally remain in situ within islands, as illustrated in (i). Notice that overt wh-movement out of the island in question is disallowed regardless of the reading (echo or non-echo), as shown in (ii). (i)

(ii)

Ion a auzit zvonul că Petru a cumparat ? (Romanian) Ion has heard rumor-the that Peter has bought what ‘Ion heard the rumor that Peter bought WHAT?’ *Ce/* a auzit Ion zvonul că Petru a cumparat? (Romanian) what has heard Ion the-rumor that Peter has bought ‘What did Ion hear the rumor that Peter bought?/‘Ion heard the rumor that Peter bought WHAT?’

Given that Romanian wh-phrases must move overtly even on the echo reading, Bošković (2002) concludes that (i) also has to involve movement of the echo wh-phrase in overt syntax and proposes that the head of the chain created by such movement is deleted in PF, with a lower copy pronounced, as sketched in (iii) below. (iii)

[CE . . . [NP . . . CE]]

Assuming that islandhood is at least to some extent a PF property (for approaches along these lines, see also Perlmutter 1972, Pesetsky 1997, 1998, Lasnik 2001, and Merchant 2001), Bošković (2002) treats CE in (i) as a resumptive of sorts, appealing to the well-known fact that in a number of languages, a locality violation can be saved by phonologically realizing a copy within the island as a resumptive pronoun. Bošković (2002) thus offers a uniform account of the contrast between (i) and (ii) and the contrast in (iv). (iv)

a. *There is one worker who the company fired the employee that had treated___badly. b. There is one worker who the company fired the employee that treated him badly. (Pesetsky 1998:364)

. Following Bošković (2002), we avoid using examples from wh-in-situ languages that allow null objects such as Chinese and Japanese, since it is difficult to tease apart parasitic gaps and null objects in these languages.


(12)

a. b.

What did John read without filing? *Who read what without filing?

(13)

a.

*Kamu aturkan buku yang mana tanpa baca? you filed book that which without reading Buku yang mana kamu aturkan tanpa baca? book that which you filed without reading ‘Which book did you file without reading?’

b.

(Malay)

By contrast, the in-situ wh-phrase in sentences such (6a) and (10b) does license parasitic gaps, as shown in (14) and (15) below. This is exactly what we should expect if these sentences in fact involve overt wh-movement and lower copy pronunciation. As noted in Bošković (2002), in this respect, the wh-in-situ under consideration represents a new type of wh-in-situ, different from in-situ whphrases in non-MWF languages like English and wh-in-situ languages. The latter should not be analyzed in terms of PLC given the contrast between (14)/(15) and (12b)/(13a). (14)

(15)

.

Ce precede  fără să influenţeze? what precedes what without .particle influence.3. ‘What precedes what without influencing?’ Cine a citit  fără să claseze? who has read what without .particle file.3. ‘Who read what without filing?

(Romanian)

(Romanian)

Object shift in Scandinavian

Bobaljik (1995) (see also Bobaljik 2002) provides more evidence for PLC, based on Scandinavian object shift. Holmberg (1986) observed that object shift in Scandinavian can take place in matrix main verb V-2 clauses, but not in auxiliary+participle clauses or embedded clauses, which do not involve main verb movement. This can be seen in (16), where object NPs that precede ekki, which is standardly assumed to be adjoined to VP (but see Bošković 2001, 2004b,c,d), are taken to have undergone object shift. (16)

Í gær máluðu stúdentarnir húsiði [VP ekki ti] yesterday painted the-students the-house not ‘The students didn’t paint the house yesterday.’ b. *at Peter deni [VP læste ti] that Peter it read c. at Peter [VP læste den] that Peter read it ‘that Peter read it.’ a.

(Icelandic)

(Danish)






d. e.

*Hann hefur bókinai [VP lesið ti] he has the-book read Hann hefur [VP lesið bókina] he has read the-book ‘He has read the book.’

(Icelandic)

Bobaljik (1994) proposes a morphological merger account of the dependency of object shift on V-movement. Assuming that object shift in Scandinavian is in principle optional, he argues that in clauses in which V-movement does not take place, the object shift option is ruled out due to a violation of the requirement that an (inflectional) affix that is to be phonetically realized on a given stem must be adjacent to it in PF (in more technical terms, the two must undergo morphological merger, the prerequisite for which is PF adjacency). That amounts to saying that even if a verb does not move to I in Scandinavian, the verb and I must still be adjacent in PF. In (16b), the PF adjacency requirement cannot be satisfied due to the intervening shifted object, as shown in (17a); by contrast, adjacency does obtain in (16c), where the object remains in situ, as shown in (17b). (17)

a. b.

*[at [IP Peter [I’ I [AgroP deni [VP læste ti]]]]] [at [IP Peter [I’ I [AgroP [VP læste den]]]]]

As for (16d–e), Bobaljik posits a participial affix located above the shifted object, which must merge with the participle in PF. As can be seen in (18), his account of (16b–c) then readily extends to (16d–e). (18)

a. b.

*[Hann hefur [PartP Part [AgroP bókinai [VP lesið ti]]]] [Hann hefur [PartP Part [AgroP [VP lesið bókina]]]]

Bobaljik’s (1994) analysis is based on the assumption that Scandinavian object shift is optional. Diesing (1996), however, argues against this assumption. She shows that in V-movement constructions, specific, non-contrastive definite NPs always undergo object shift, as illustrated in (19), in contrast to non-specific indefinite NPs, which never do, as illustrated by (20) under the existential, non-specific reading of bækur (alltaf and ekki are assumed to be left-adjoined to VP). (19)

(20)

Context: Does he know Chomsky’s book Barriers? a. Hann les Barriersi [VP alltaf ti] he reads Barriers always b. *?Hann les [VP alltaf Barriers] he reads always Barriers ‘He always reads Barriers.’ a.

*Hann las bækuri [VP ekki ti] he read books not

(Icelandic)

(Icelandic)


b.

Hann las [VP ekki bækur] he reads not books ‘He did not read books.’

Furthermore, in Scandinavian languages that only allow object shift of pronouns, definite pronouns generally must shift, but indefinite pronouns cannot, as can be seen in (21) (ikke and muligens are assumed to be left-adjoined to ). (21)

Peter læste deni [VP ikke ti] (Danish) Peter read it not b. *Peter læste [VP ikke den] Peter read not it ‘Peter did not read it.’ c. Nei, jag har ingen paraply men jag køper [VP muligens en no I have no umbrella but I buy possibly one i morgen] (Norwegian) tomorrow (Diesing 1996) d. … *men jag køper eni [VP muligens ti i morgen] but I buy one possibly tomorrow ‘No, I don’t have an umbrella, but I’ll probably buy one tomorrow.’ a.

There are then two semantic classes of direct objects: one class always undergoes object shift, whereas the other class never does. The apparent lack of object shift with specific, non-contrastive definite NPs in auxiliary+participle and embedded clauses not involving V-movement is very surprising under this analysis. Given that there is something about the semantics of such NPs that requires object shift, as Diesing shows, the question is how that something is satisfied in (16c) or (16e), for instance. Once PF is responsible for the paradigm in (16), as argued by Bobaljik (1994), we seem to have here an interaction between phonology and semantics, with phonology overriding semantics. This is very difficult to instantiate under the standard model of the grammar, where phonology and semantics have no direct relationship. Bobaljik (1995) however shows that, given PLC, this problem can be resolved without positing phonology-semantics interaction or OT-style violable constraints. He proposes that specific, non-contrastive definite NPs must undergo object shift even in auxiliary+participle and embedded clauses not involving V-movement, which is what one would expect under Diesing’s analysis. If, as is normally the case, the head of the object shift chain is pronounced, we get a PF violation because the shifted object disturbs adjacency between I/Part and the verb. This violation can be avoided, however, if we delete the head of the object shift chain and pronounce its tail, as sketched in (22) and (23), allowing I/Part to be adjacent to the verb.






Under Bobaljik’s analysis, sentences such as (16c) and (16e) thus provide evidence for PLC.9 (22) (23)

.

[at [IP Peter I [AgroP den [VP læste den]]]] [hann hefur [PartP Part [AgroP bókina [vp lesið bókina]]]]

Syllabic contraction with Romanian clitics

Bošković (2001) provides another argument for PLC, based on syllabic contraction with Romanian clitics.10 Romanian clitics must undergo clitic weakening (i.e. syllabic contraction) before an auxiliary beginning with a vowel, which is a procliticization context, as illustrated in (24a–b), but not before a main verb, as shown in (24c). (24)

a. b.

c.

*Îmi au ales articolul. me. have chosen article-the Miau ales articolul. me.DAT have chosen article-the ‘They have chosen my article.’ Îmi au articolul pe masă. me. have article-the on table ‘They have my article on the table.’

(Romanian)

An exception to clitic weakening is the feminine singular accusative clitic o. It cannot occur before an auxiliary with an initial vowel, a context of obligatory clitic . Holmberg (1999) observes that V-topicalization (more precisely, remnant VP topicalization; see Bošković 2001, 2004b) can rescue auxiliary+participle constructions involving object shift, as shown in (i) below. Bošković (2001, 2004b) shows that the rescuing effect of V-topicalization can be captured by Bobaljik’s (1995) analysis under the multiple Spell-Out hypothesis (see Uriagereka 1999, among others), according to which phonology has multiple derivational access to syntax. In particular, Bošković suggests that the verb undergoes successive cyclic movement to [Spec,CP] and that in the course of this movement, it lands in a position that is adjacent to Part, as sketched in (ii). If the structure represented in (ii) can be sent to the phonological component at this point, certainly a possibility in the multiple Spell-Out model, the participle and Part will be adjacent; hence, they can undergo morphological merger and be licensed at this derivational stage, prior to the next movement of the participle to [Spec,CP] (see Bošković 2004d for additional evidence for Bobaljik’s analysis based on object shift within PPs). (i)

(ii)

Kysst har jag henne inte (bara hållit henne i handen). kissed have I her not only held her by the hand ‘Kissed her I haven’t (only held her by the hand).’ [. . . [VP participle] [PartP Part [AgroP object . . .]]]

(Swedish)

. The relevance of PLC to the Romanian clitic data was actually noted by Alexander Grosu (p.c.).


weakening, though it can occur before a main verb beginning with a vowel, which is not an obligatory clitic weakening context, as shown in (25). Instead of (25a), we get (26), where the clitic encliticizes to the participial main verb, something that is not allowed for other pronominal clitics in this context. (25)

a.

b.

(26)

*O am vazut. her have seen ‘I have seen her.’ O am. her have ‘I have her.’

(Romanian)

Am vazut-o. have seen-her ‘I have seen her.’

(Romanian)

Bošković (2001) shows that the PLC approach has a straightforward account for the data involving o, which were traditionally considered to be totally idiosyncratic. Assume that o lacks the ability to take part in the syllabic reduction process when used proclitically. Assume furthermore that like all other pronominal clitics, o undergoes clitic climbing in auxiliary+participle constructions, certainly the null hypothesis. Given these assumptions, we are forced to pronounce the lower copy of o in a structure such as (27) below. This is the only way to derive a legitimate PF output, for o cannot take part in clitic weakening and clitic weakening is obligatory in the context where the upper copy of o in (27) finds itself; hence the contrast between (25a) and (26). (27)

.

[oi am vazut oi]

Greek imperatives

Additional evidence for PLC is provided by Greek imperatives. Like many languages, Greek displays a ban on negative imperatives, as illustrated in (28). Instead of an imperative verb form, Greek uses a subjunctive in the context in question, as illustrated in (29). (28)

a.

b.

(29)

Diavase! read. ‘Read!’ *Den/mi diavase!  read. ‘Don’t read!’

Na mi diavazis! .Mark  read. ‘Don’t read!’

(Greek)

(Greek)






Interestingly, a similar phenomenon exists in English. English also has a verbal form that is not allowed to co-occur with negation. In particular, English disallows negative finite verbs, as shown in (30a–b) below. (We will refer to English finite verbs as indicatives.) As illustrated in (30c), English switches to another verbal form in the environment in question, namely, infinitive. (30)

a. John laughed. b. *John not laughed. c. John did not laugh.

Abstractly, we have the same pattern in both Greek and English. Both languages disallow a particular verbal form to co-occur with negation, switching to another verbal form in the negative context. Miyoshi (2002) (see also Bošković 2004a) provides a uniform account of the ban on negative imperatives in Greek and the ban on negative indicatives in English (see Miyoshi 2002 for references to alternative accounts of the ban on negative imperatives, which however cannot be extended to the ban on negative indicatives). More precisely, he extends the PF merger account of the ban on negative indicatives in English (see Chomsky 1957, Halle and Marantz 1993, Bobaljik 1995, and Lasnik 1999) to the ban on negative imperatives in Greek. Focusing for the moment on the ban on negative indicatives, consider the structures of (30a–c) given in (31) before PF merger and Do-Support apply. (31)

a. b.

[IP Johni I (ed) [VP ti laugh]] [IP Johni I (ed) [NegP not [VP ti laugh]]]

Assuming that English I is a verbal PF affix, it must merge with a verbal element in PF under adjacency. The adjacency requirement is not met in (31b) due to the intervening negative head, which blocks PF merger. Do-Support, a last resort operation, then takes place to save the stranded affix, deriving (30c). In (31a), the merger is not blocked since no phonologically realized element intervenes between I and the verb. I then merges with the verb, deriving (30a). The crux of the analysis is that indicatives cannot co-occur with negation in English because the co-occurrence results in a violation of the Stranded Affix Filter. Miyoshi (2002) puts forward the same explanation for the ban on negative imperatives. He proposes that imperatives in languages like Greek contain a functional head, the precise identity of which is not important for our current purposes (for Miyoshi, it is an imperative C), which is a PF affix that must merge with a verb under adjacency. PF merger can proceed without any problems in (28a), where the verb and the functional head in question, which we will refer to as F, are adjacent. However, the negation in (28b) disrupts the necessary adjacency relation between F and the verb, as illustrated in (32) below. PF merger is then blocked


and the construction is ruled out due to the presence of a stranded affix, just like (30b)/(31b).11 (32)

F[+affix] den/mi diavase

Greek does not have the language specific rule of Do-Support, which English employs in (30c) to save the stranded affix. Instead, Greek uses a different verbal form, namely subjunctive. We can assume either that the affix head F is not present in subjunctive imperatives or that it is supported by the subjunctive marker na. Miyoshi extends this analysis of (28) to the often observed difference in clitic placement in imperative and non-imperative contexts. It is well-known that whereas Greek clitics generally precede the verb in indicatives, they follow it in imperatives, as exemplified in (33). (33)

a.

To diavasa. it read. ‘I read it.’ b. *Diavasa to.

(Greek)

(34)

a.

(Greek)

Diavase to! read. it ‘Read it!’ b. *To diavase!

Miyoshi proposes a uniform account of (28) and (34) based on the PLC mechanism. He proposes that imperatives and indicatives in Greek do not differ with respect to clitic placement in the syntax. They both have the clitic-V order, with a lower copy of the pronominal clitic following the verb. In indicatives, the higher copy of the clitic can – therefore must – be pronounced. In imperatives, on the other hand, pronunciation of the higher copy of the clitic leads to a Stranded Affix Filter violation: the clitic disrupts the adjacency between F and V, necessary for F to merge with the verb, resulting in a PF violation. The violation can be avoided if we pronounce a lower copy of the clitic, which follows the verb, as sketched in (35). (35)

F to diavase to.

Since the verb and F are adjacent in (35), PF merger can take place. Lower pronunciation of the clitic is thus necessary in (35) to avoid a PF violation.12

. See Miyoshi (2002) and Bošković (2004a) for further discussion as well as discussion of languages that do not have the ban on negative imperatives. .

See Miyoshi (2002) and Bošković (2001, 2004a) for further discussion.






Bošković (2004a) shows that the PLC analysis can also explain a peculiar clitic switch in Greek imperatives. As illustrated in (36), the dative clitic must precede the accusative clitic when the clitics precede the verb, as in the following constructions involving an indicative verb. (36)

a.

Mou to diavase. me. it. read.3 ‘S/he is reading it to me.’ b. *To mou diavase.

(Greek)

Interestingly, as observed in Warburton 1977, Joseph and Philippaki-Warburton 1987, and Terzi 1999, in imperatives, where clitics follow the verb (cf. (34)), both the dative-accusative and the accusative-dative orders are possible, as shown in (37).13 (37)

a. b.

Diavase mou to! read me. it. Diavase to mou!

(Greek)

Following Miyoshi’s discussion of the basic paradigm in (33)–(34), Bošković (2004a) argues that with respect to clitic placement in the syntax, Greek imperatives are derived just like indicatives, which means that they have the dativeaccusative-V order. This is the simplest analysis, since nothing special then needs to be said about the syntax of clitics in imperatives. Recall now that in imperatives, clitics cannot be pronounced in the highest position. If they are pronounced in the highest position they block PF merger of the affix head F and the verb. Clitics then must be pronounced in a lower position in imperatives. Bošković (2004a) capitalizes on the lower pronunciation and propose that this is what licenses clitic switch. In particular, Bošković argues that the order of the clitics in the lower positions can be either accusative-dative or dative-accusative. Since in indicatives the highest copy of the pronominal clitics must be pronounced, we still get only the dative-accusative order in indicatives. On the other hand, since in imperatives lower copies of the pronominal clitics are pronounced for reasons discussed above, we can get the accusative-dative order in imperatives, in addition to the dativeaccusative order.14

. Gerunds behave like imperatives in the relevant respect: the clitics are located postverbally and both the accusative-dative and the dative-accusative clitic order are possible (see Bošković 2004a for discussion of gerunds). . See Bošković (2004a) for the precise location of the lower copies of the clitics, as well as explanation for why both orders are possible in the lower positions.


.

Serbo-Croatian je

Another argument for PLC from Bošković (2001) concerns the exceptional behavior of the Serbo-Croatian third person singular auxiliary clitic je. SerboCroatian has both auxiliary and pronominal enclitics, which, with a few exceptions noted below, cluster together. Interestingly, in a clitic cluster, je must follow all pronominal clitics, whereas other auxiliary clitics must precede them, as shown in (38)–(39) below (clitics under discussion will be marked in italics). (38)

a.

Oni su mu ga predstavili. they are him. him. introduced b. *Oni mu ga su predstavili. they him. him. are introduced ‘They introduced him to him.’

(Serbo-Croatian)

(39)

a. *Ona je mu ga predstavila. she is him. him. introduced b. Ona mu ga je predstavila. she him. him. is introduced ‘She introduced him to him.’

(Serbo-Croatian)

Stjepanović (1998) and Bošković (2001) show that auxiliary clitics that precede pronominal clitics are indeed higher in the structure than pronominal clitics. Take (40) below, for instance, which shows that VP ellipsis can affect a pronominal clitic without affecting an auxiliary clitic. Stjepanović (1998) observes that given the standard assumption that ellipsis can only affect constituents, (40) indicates the auxiliary clitic is higher than the pronominal clitic. Also pointing to the same conclusion is the contrast in (41), noted in Bošković (2001), which shows that clitic auxiliaries are compatible with both the sentential and the manner reading for the adverb (cf. (41a)), whereas pronominal clitics are only compatible with the manner reading (cf. (41b)). Bošković (2001) interprets this fact as indicating that auxiliary clitics are higher than sentential adverbs, and pronominal clitics are lower than sentential adverbs. Finally, consider (42). As discussed in Bošković (2001), due to prosodic reasons, clause-mate clitics in Serbo-Croatian can only be separated by elements that can be parsed as separate intonational phrases, like the parenthetical in (42). The fact that the auxiliary clitic in (42a) can be stranded above the parenthetical, contrasting with the pronominal clitic in (42b), then provides conclusive evidence that the former is higher than the latter (see Bošković 2001). (40)

Vi ste ga poljubili, a i mi smo ga poljubili you are him kissed, and also we are him kissed ‘You kissed him, and we did too.’

(Serbo-Croatian)






(41)

Oni su pravilno odgovorili Mariji. they are correctly answered Marija. ‘They did the right thing in answering Marija.’ ‘They gave Marija a correct answer.’ b. Oni su joj pravilno odgovorili they are her correctly answered ‘*They did the right thing in answering her.’ ‘They gave her a correct answer.’

(42)

a. ?Oni su, kao što sam vam rekla, predstavili se Petru. they are as am you said introduced self Petar ‘They, as I told you, introduced themselves to Petar. (Serbo-Croatian) b. *Oni se, kao što sam vam rekla, predstavili su Petru.

’

a.

(Serbo-Croatian)

Significantly, Bošković (2001) shows that the auxiliary clitic je, which, as noted above, in a clitic cluster follows other pronominal clitics, behaves just like other auxiliary clitics with respect to the height tests discussed above. Thus, it may also be stranded under ellipsis, it can occur above sentential adverbs, and it can be separated from other clitics by parentheticals, as respectively shown in (43) and (45). (43)

Ona mu ga je predstavila, a i on je mu ga she him.dat him. is introduced and also he is him. him. predstavio. (Serbo-Croatian) introduced ‘She introduced him to him and he did too.’

(44)

a.

Jovan je pravilno odgovorio Mileni. (Serbo-Croatian) Jovan is correctly answered Milena. ‘Jovan did the right thing in answering Milena.’ ‘Jovan gave Milena a correct answer.’ b. On joj je pravilno odgovorio. he her. is correctly answered ‘*He did the right thing in answering her.’ ‘He gave her a correct answer.’

(45)

a. ?On je, kao što sam vam rekla, predstavio se Petru. he is as am you said introduced self Petar ‘He, as I told you, introduced himself to Petar.’ (Serbo-Croatian) b. *On se, kao što sam vam rekla, predstavio je Petru.

How can we account for this syntax-phonology mismatch, with je being higher than pronominal clitics in the syntactic component but following them in the final PF representation? Bošković (2001) shows that this apparently conflicting behavior of je can be readily captured given PLC. Following den Dikken’s


(1994) proposal for the auxiliary be in English, he proposes that je is generated below object agreement projections, which, as claimed by Stjepanović (1999) and Bošković’s (2001), host pronominal clitics in Serbo-Croatian; from its basegenerated position, je then moves to a position higher than pronominal clitics, as sketched in (46). (46)

[… jei … [AgroP object clitic(s) … [jei …]]]

Bošković (2001) further proposes a low level constraint on the final PF representation requiring that in a clitic cluster, je must follow all other clitics, where a clitic cluster is taken to involve clitics contained in the same intonational phrase or a clitic group.15 Since the pronunciation of the higher copy of je in (46) would violate this requirement in the derivation of sentences such as (39a), pronunciation of the tail of the chain is sanctioned, in fact required (cf. (39b)). By contrast, this requirement is inapplicable to the derivations of (45) or to the second conjunct of (43), for there is no cluster in their final PF representation; hence, we have a standard instance of deletion of the lower copy of je in these cases. Notice that this proposal can also account for the fact that je can precede a subject-oriented adverb only when it does not occur with a pronominal clitic, as illustrated in (44). Recall that pronominal clitics are lower than sentential adverbs (cf. (41b)). Thus, we have pronunciation of the higher copy of je in (44a) (in a position higher than sentential adverbs) and of the lower copy in (44b) (in a position lower than sentential adverbs). The dual behavior of je with respect to pronominal clitics – je is structurally higher than pronominal clitics in the syntactic component, but follows them in the final PF representation – thus receives a principled account. It is another case where PLC enables us to resolve an otherwise puzzling syntax-phonology mismatch. .

Some optional movements become obligatory

Bošković (2001) shows that PLC also enables us to turn a number of movements that were previously assumed to apply optionally into obligatory movements. This is a desirable result for the Minimalist Program, which has no natural place for

. Bošković (2001) provides independent motivation for the PF constraint in question, associating it to the fact that je is in the process of losing its clitichood (see Browne 1975, Schütze 1994, Tomić 1996, and Bošković 2001, for discussion). Assuming, as suggested by Klaus Abels (p.c.), that je does not allow cliticization across it as a result of being in the process of losing its clitichood but is not strong enough to serve as a clitic host itself, it must be pronounced following all other clitics. (Recall that Serbo-Croatian clitics are enclitics. See Bošković 2001 for additional motivation for the PF constraint on je.)






optional movement. Consider the data in (47) (from Bošković 1995, 1997a), for instance, which show that Serbo-Croatian auxiliary clitics must occur below sentential adverbs when they are preceded by a participle, as indicated by the loss of the sentential adverb reading in (47b), although otherwise they can occupy a position higher than sentential adverbs, as shown in (47a). (47)

a.

Oni su pravilno odgovorili Mileni. they are correctly answered Milena. ‘They did the right thing in answering Milena.’ ‘They gave Milena a correct answer.’ b. Odgovorili su pravilno Mileni. ‘They gave Milena a correct answer.’ ‘*They did the right thing in answering Milena.’

(Serbo-Croatian)

Bošković (1995, 1997a) interpreted these data as indicating that Serbo-Croatian auxiliary clitics are base-generated below sentential adverbs and optionally move to a position above sentential adverbs, after the participle-auxiliary clitic order is established.16 That is, auxiliary movement was taken to occur in (47a), but not in (47b). However, Bošković (2001) observes that PLC makes possible a new way of analyzing these facts. Suppose that the auxiliary movement that follows the establishment of the participle-auxiliary order is actually obligatory. Auxiliary+participle constructions would then always have the abstract structure in (48a) (disregarding the lower copy of the participle). The configuration in (48b) adds adverbials to the structure in question. (48)

a. b.

aux-clitici participle aux-clitici aux-clitici [ sentential adverb [ participle aux-clitici [ manner adverb

Note now that the auxiliary clitic is an enclitic, in fact, a second position enclitic. If there is phonologically realized material in front of the auxiliary that can host it, the head of the chain created by the movement of the auxiliary can be pronounced without violating the enclitic requirement, which Bošković (2001) argues is a PF requirement. This is illustrated in (49a) below. However, if there is no phonologically realized material in front of the auxiliary clitic, pronouncing the head of the chain would lead to a PF violation since the auxiliary clitic would remain stranded in sentence-initial position without being able to encliticize. This is precisely the kind of situation where we are allowed to pronounce a lower copy, as sketched in (49b). Pronouncing a lower copy of the auxiliary movement chain, which follows the participle, thus makes it possible to avoid the PF violation.

. See Bošković (1995, 1997a) for discussion of how the order participle-auxiliary is established and for arguments that the movement in question is obligatory.


(49)

a. b.

X aux-clitici participle aux-clitici aux-clitici participle aux-clitici

Under this analysis, auxiliary movement is always obligatory in Serbo-Croatian. In constructions where the auxiliary clitic appears to occur low, as in (47b), the tail of the chain is pronounced to avoid a PF violation. Where the auxiliary appears to occur high, as in (47a), the head of the chain is pronounced (regarding the position of the adverb, see (48b)). Bošković (2001) observes that this analysis makes a very interesting prediction. Suppose that the auxiliary in (48) is not a clitic. Then, there would never be any need to pronounce a lower copy of the auxiliary. In other words, with non-clitic auxiliaries, the auxiliary-participle should be the only available order. The prediction is borne out, as illustrated by the contrast between (50a), with a clitic auxiliary, and (50b), with a strong, non-clitic form of the auxiliary. (50)

a.

Poljubio sam nju. kissed am her ‘I kissed her.’ b. *Poljubio nisam/jesam nju. kissed not+am/AM her ‘I did not/did kiss her.’

(Serbo-Croatian)

Recall that the auxiliary obligatorily moves to a position above the participle. In (50a), the auxiliary is pronounced in the tail of the chain created by the movement to avoid a PF violation, as sketched in (51a) below. In (50b), on the other hand, there is no need for pronunciation in the tail of the chain, since no PF violation occurs if the head of the auxiliary movement chain is pronounced, the auxiliary not being a clitic; hence the lower copy is deleted, as illustrated in (51b). (51)

a. b.

[sami poljubio sami nju] i [nisam/jesam poljubio nisam/jesami nju]

In addition to auxiliary movement, several other movements that Bošković (1995, 1997a) tacitly assumed to be optional can be analyzed as being obligatory with the adoption of PLC. Consider, for instance, the following Serbo-Croatian data (see Bošković 1995, 1997a). (52)

a.

b.

Oni su zaspali. (Serbo-Croatian) they are fallen-asleep ‘They fell asleep.’ Petar tvrdi da su oni zaspali. Petar claims that are they fallen-asleep ‘Petar claims that they fell asleep.’






c.

Juče su oni zaspali. yesterday are they fallen-asleep ‘Yesterday they fell asleep.’

(52) can be accounted for if we assume either that auxiliary movement across a pre-verbal subject is optional or that subject movement from the pre-verbal position to the pre-auxiliary position is optional. However, Bošković (2001) shows that the PLC enables us to account for (52) without positing any optional movements. That is, given the PLC, the auxiliary can always be higher than the immediately pre-verbal subject position and the subject can always move from that position to the pre-auxiliary position. Given that su is a second position clitic and that, as argued in Bošković (2001), the second position requirement is a PF requirement, deletion of copies proceeds as in (53). (53)

a. b. c.

[onii su onii zaspali] [Petar tvrdi da onii su onii zaspali] [juče onii su onii zaspali]

As opposed to what happens in (53a), pronouncing the head of the subject chain in (53b) and (53c) would violate the second position requirement on the auxiliary clitic. Deletion of the head of the chain in the latter cases is then sanctioned to satisfy a PF requirement.17 Bošković (2001) shows that the PLC approach can also account for some interesting facts concerning V-2 in Northern Norwegian. Rice and Svenonius (1998) observe that the V-2 requirement in Northern Norwegian is stricter than in other Germanic V-2 languages. In particular, what precedes the verb must be a phonological phrase, which Rice and Svenonius assume minimally contains one foot (i.e. two syllables). This requirement is satisfied in (54a), but not in (54b). (54)

a.

Korsen kom ho hit? how came she here ‘How did she get here?’ b. *Kor kom du fra? where came you from ‘Where did you come from?’

(Northern Norwegian)

Rice and Svenonius further note that (54b) can be saved by using the wh-subject-V order, as shown in (55).

. See Bošković 2001 for additional cases and further discussion of pronunciation of lower copies in contexts involving Serbo-Croatian clitics.


(55)

Kor du kom fra? where you came from ‘Where did you come from?’

(Northern Norwegian)

Under the PLC analysis proposed by Bošković (2001), the verb moves to C in (55) as it does in (54). However, to satisfy the second position requirement, which given its statement is clearly a PF requirement in Northern Norwegian, the upper copy of verb is deleted and the lower one is pronounced, as shown in (56) (irrelevant details, such as additional IP-internal copies of the verb, are omitted18). (56)

[CP kor komi [IP du komi fra]]

Recall that lower pronunciation is possible only when a PF condition requires it. As a result, (57a), where the verb is needlessly pronounced in a lower position, is ruled out. (57)

a. *Korsen ho kom hit? how she came here b. *[CP korsen komi [IP ho komi hit]]

Yet another example of the usefulness of PLC in turning optional movements into obligatory movements is provided by Stjepanović’s (1999, 2003, this volume) analysis of scrambling in Serbo-Croatian. Take double object constructions not involving clitics, for instance. In such constructions, all orders among , , , and  are in principle possible. However, in an answer to a question like To whom did Ivan give a book?, the focalized element, , must come last.19 Stjepanović offers a variety of arguments showing that , , , and  all move out of  overtly in SerboCroatian. However, in the context in question, the copy of the focalized  within the  is pronounced to satisfy a requirement on sentential stress assignment. More precisely, the focused element has to end up as the most embedded element of the sentence in order to receive stress by a default stress assigning mechanism. This means that in the context in question, the lower copy of the focalized  within the  must be pronounced, as sketched in (58).20 (58)

[    [VP    ]]

. See Bošković 2001, in press: sec. 2.1 for a discussion of PLC in chains with more than two members. .

In fact, this quite generally holds for elements bearing simple new information focus.

. Notice also that Stjepanović’s (1999) analysis is extendable to the data that prompted Zubizarreta (1998) to argue for prosodically motivated movement, if we replace prosodically motivated movement by PLC.






.

Scattered deletion: cliticization in Bulgarian and Macedonian

Let us now consider cliticization in Bulgarian and Macedonian, which provides evidence for scattered deletion, where different pieces of different chain links are realized, in a way similar to the interpretative procedure discussed in Section 1. The discussion in this section will thus strengthen the parallelism between PF and LF copy deletion. Consider the following data, which illustrate the basic cliticization pattern in Bulgarian and Macedonian, verbal clitic languages. (59) a.

b. c. d. e.

Petko mi go dade včera. Petko me.DAT it.ACC gave yesterday ‘Petko gave me it yesterday.’ Včera mi go dade Petko. Mi go dade Petko včera. Dade mi go Petko včera. čera dade mi go Petko

Bulgarian OK

Macedonian OK

OK * OK *

OK OK * *

The contrasts between Bulgarian and Macedonian in (59c) and (59d) indicate that Bulgarian clitics must encliticize, whereas Macedonian clitics can procliticize. Macedonian clitics always precede the verb in the context in question. Bulgarian clitics precede the verb unless preceding it would result in a violation of their enclitic requirement, a PF requirement. In that case they follow the verb. As discussed in Bošković (2001), this state of affairs can be straightforwardly accounted for under PLC, given that a copy of pronominal clitics is present both above and below the verb (see Bošković 2001 for discussion of the precise positions of these copies). Recall that under PLC, the tail of a chain is pronounced instead of the head iff the pronunciation of the tail is necessary to satisfy a PF requirement. This approach straightforwardly captures the generalization that the verb can precede a clitic in Bulgarian only when no other lexical material is located in front of the clitic (cf. (59d) vs. (59e)). Only in this situation will we be able to pronounce the lower copy of the clitic, which is located below the verb. If there is lexical material preceding the clitic in its raised position, the head of the clitic movement chain has to be pronounced, as sketched in (60). Since in Macedonian nothing goes wrong in PF if we pronounce the head of the clitic chain, we always have to pronounce it. As a result, the V-clitic order is underivable in Macedonian (cf. (59d)), as shown in (61). The opposite pattern of acceptability for (59c) and (59d) in Bulgarian and Macedonian, as well as the role of phonology in the possibility of the V-cl order in Bulgarian, are thus straightforwardly captured under the PLC analysis.


(60)

Bulgarian: a. [X clitici V clitici] b. [clitici V clitici]

(61)

Macedonian: [(X) clitici V clitici]

We now turn to an argument for scattered deletion from Bošković (2001). As discussed in Bošković (2001), main verbs and auxiliary and pronominal clitics form a complex head (an extended clitic cluster) in Bulgarian and Macedonian, so that the verb carries the clitics along when undergoing head-movement. This is transparent in Macedonian questions such as (62a) below, which Bošković (2001) argues involves leftward adjunction of V to the interrogative complementizer li. Of particular interest to us is the Bulgarian counterpart of (62a) given in (62b), which is unacceptable; instead, we get (63b), whose counterpart is in turn unacceptable in Macedonian, as shown in (63a). (62)

(63)

a.

Si mu gi dal li parite? are him.. them given Q the-money b. *Si mu (gi) dal li parite? are him.. them given Q the-money ‘Have you given him the money?’

(Macedonian)

a. *Dal li si mu gi parite? given Q are him.. them the-money b. Dal li si mu (gi) parite? given Q are him.. them the-money ‘Have you given him the money?’

(Macedonian)

(Bulgarian)

(Bulgarian)

Bošković (2001) argues that the Bulgarian and the Macedonian constructions above have the same syntactic derivation: they both involve left adjunction of the extended clitic cluster to li, leaving a copy behind.21 The two languages however differ with respect to the properties of their clitics in the constructions under consideration: they are proclitics in Macedonian, but enclitics in Bulgarian. Therefore, nothing goes wrong in Macedonian if all the elements forming the extended clitic cluster are pronounced in the highest position, as shown in (64a) below; hence, they must be pronounced there. (62a) is thus ruled in and the sentence in (63a) is ruled out (see Section 3 below for further discussion). Turning now to Bulgarian, the

. We are simplifying the discussion here by ignoring lower copies created during the formation of the extended clitic cluster, since they do not affect our central point. For relevant discussion, including the exact location of all the copies, see Bošković 2001.






interesting property of Bulgarian shown in (64b) is that the pronunciation of either the upper or the lower copy of the extended clitic cluster would lead to an illicit result, for the enclitics li si mu gi cannot be licensed. The phonological system then resorts to “scattered deletion”, with parts of the complex head undergoing movement pronounced in the higher position, and parts in the lower position (cf. (63b)). (64)

a. b.

[[si mu gi dal] li [si mu gi dal] parite] [[si mu gi dal] li [si mu gi dal] parite]

(Macedonian) (Bulgarian)

Constructions such as (63b) thus provide particularly strong evidence for the copy theory of movement.22 Scattered deletion structures show that what is left behind by movement has internal structure, which is straightforwardly captured under the copy theory, but not under the trace theory. While it might be possible to handle the cases involving pronunciation of lower members of chains from the previous sections under the trace theory with additional assumptions, it is very difficult to see how the scattered deletion case discussed above can be handled under the trace theory, for it cannot be ensured that the element left behind by movement to li has the necessary internal structure. It is also worth pointing out that the scattered deletion discussed here mimics the one proposed in Chomsky 1993 on the LF side in the sense that parts of a chain are interpreted in one position and other parts in a different position (recall the discussion of (2b) and (3b)). That we find such a case also on the PF side of the grammar is in fact a welcome result from a conceptual point of view. Given that scattered deletion is admitted on the LF side, it should in principle be also available on the PF side while syntactic structure is still available to the computational system (see Section 3 below for further discussion). .

PF affecting word order

A number of constructions have been argued in the literature to involve PF movement, in particular, scrambling and traditional rightward movement constructions (heavy NP shift, right node raising, and extraposition). In most cases this is not because such constructions are particularly amenable to a PF movement analysis, but because they do not fit well in the syntax, given the syntactic apparatus available. The argument for PF movement from these constructions is thus essentially negative.23

. See Wilder 1995, Fanselow and Ćavar 2000, Bošković 2001, and Ticio 2001 for additional arguments for scattered deletion and Nunes 2004 for general discussion. . See, however, McCloskey (1999) and Truckenbrodt (1995), who argue for a PF treatment of certain rightward movements, and Kayne (2000) and Taraldsen (1981) for some problems for their positions.


There are, however, some instances where the case for PF movement is stronger. Among these, Prosodic Inversion (PI) stands out. PI is a last resort operation that applies when a phonologically weak element is found in the output of the syntax in a position where it cannot be properly supported. The element then moves in PF looking for an appropriate host. Thus, in case of enclitics, PI applies when an enclitic X is found in sentence initial position, and moves X the minimal distance necessary (after the first stressed word) for it to get proper prosodic support. PI seems to us to be the strongest case ever made for PF movement. The reason for this is that in this instance of putative PF movement, we are dealing with a clearly defined last resort movement operation, with a precise phonological motivation and explicitly defined locality restrictions sensitive to phonological information, which is generally not a characteristic of other putative cases of PF movement. Some of the strongest arguments for PI in the literature come from South Slavic cliticization. Bošković (2001) however argues that not only does South Slavic cliticization not provide evidence for PI (or any kind of PF movement for that matter), but it in fact provides strong evidence against it. To illustrate, Bulgarian (59d) was previously assumed to involve PI, under the assumption that the clitics precede the verb in the output of the syntax. PI then applies, moving the clitics in PF after the first stressed word, namely the verb. Accordingly, Bulgarian (63b) was analyzed as involving rightward adjunction of the extended clitic cluster to li, followed by PI placing the enclitics li si mu gi after the verb dal (see Rudin, Kramer, Billings, and Baerman 1999), as sketched in (65). (65)

a. b.

Syntax output: [[C0 li [si mu (gi) dal]] parite] Prosodic inversion: [[C0 li [si mu (gi) dal ]] parite] → [ dal li si mu (gi) parite]

However, we have seen above that there is no need to appeal to PI to account for the data in question. The role of PF and the last-resort flavor of the V-clitic order in Bulgarian can be readily captured given PLC. Furthermore, as shown in Bošković 2001, the PLC analysis is also empirically superior to the PI analysis. Consider, for example, the following Bulgarian data involving Topicalization (the topicalized element is given the subscript T). (66)

a.

b.

c.

(Iskam da znam) [taja žena]T koga šte (ja) vidiš want to know this woman when will her see ‘I want to know when you will see this woman.’ šte (ja) vidiš. (Iskam da znam) [taja žena]T dali want to know this woman whether will her see ‘I want to know whether you will see this woman.’ PetkoT si (go) vidjal. Petko are him seen ‘Petko, you have seen.’

(Bulgarian)






d.

KolataT mi (ja) dade. car-the me. it.acc gave ‘The car, he/she/you gave to me.’

(66a–b) show that Bulgarian topics occur pretty high in the structure (Rudin 1993 argues that they are adjoined to CP; another possibility is that they occupy an (additional) [Spec, CP]), and (66c–d) show that they can serve as hosts for encliticization of elements following them. Significantly, constructions like (67), where a topic immediately precedes li, are unacceptable. (67) *KolataT li prodade (Petko včera)? car-the Q sold Petko yesterday ‘Did Petko sell the car yesterday?’

(Bulgarian)

As observed in Bošković 2001, the unacceptability of (67) is unexpected under Rudin et al.’s PI analysis, in fact under any analysis that places the host of li in acceptable neutral yes-no questions after (i.e. below) li in the syntax. Under Rudin et al.’s analysis, (67) would be associated with the syntactic structure given in (68) below, which should pass through PF without any violations, with li encliticizing to the topic. Since PI is a last resort operation, it would be prevented from taking place, in contrast to (65). (68)

[kolataT [C0 li [prodade]] (Petko včera)]

(Bulgarian)

By contrast, the ungrammaticality of (67) is straightforwardly captured under the PLC analysis, as Bošković (2001) notes, for the (complex) verbal head left-adjoins to li instead of right-adjoining to it (cf. (64b)). Under this analysis, there is simply no way of deriving in the syntax a structure in which a topic immediately precedes li, since the head moving to li will always precede it. We therefore correctly get (69) instead of (67). (69)

KolataT prodade li (Petko včera)?

(Bulgarian)

Bošković (2001) shows that other South Slavic constructions that were previously argued to provide evidence for PI are also amenable to a PLC analysis and furthermore provides evidence that the PLC analyses are empirically superior to the PI analyses. Given that PI was the strongest argument for PF movement, this suggests that PF movement in general should actually be eliminated from the grammar, which is what Bošković (2001) concludes.24

. Recall also that Zubizarreta’s (1998) prosodically motivated movement is analyzable along the lines of Stjepanović’s (1999, 2003, this volume) analysis of scrambling, which replaces Zubizarreta’s prosodically motivated movement by PLC. The general theoretical picture Bošković (2001) paints is that PF operations and mechanisms can affect word order, but not through actual PF movement. PLC is one mechanism through which PF affects word order without actual PF movement (see Bošković 2001 for other cases of this type).


.

Summary

To sum up the discussion so far, we have seen that PLC enables us to resolve a number of otherwise mysterious phonology-syntax and phonology-semantics interactions where phonology appears to override syntax and semantics, as well as phonologysyntax mismatches where phonology and syntax give conflicting evidence for the structural position of an element. Furthermore, under the PLC analysis, this is accomplished in a principled way without departing from the standard derivational picture of the grammar in which syntax feeds phonology and phonology and semantics do not interact, and without the need to adopt violable constraints. PLC has also proved to be a very useful tool in reanalyzing optional movements as obligatory movements and opens the door for eliminating PF movement. Given the strength of the empirical and conceptual arguments for the mechanism of pronunciation of lower copies motivated by PF considerations given above, we may now move to the more general discussion of why copies must be deleted. .

Deletion of copies as optimal linearization of chains

The first question we will address arises in any version of the copy theory of movement: how does the computational system distinguish copies from elements that accidentally have the same set of features? Consider the structure in (70) below, for example. The two occurrences of Mary in (70) may have two different derivational histories. The computation may have accessed a numeration with one instance of Mary and created a copy of it, as illustrated in (71), or it may have accessed a numeration with two instances of Mary and plugged each of them in a different position, as illustrated in (72). (70)

[Mary [was [hired Mary]]]

(71)

a. b. c. d.

N1 = {Mary1, was1, hired1, . . .} N1’ = {Mary0, was0, hired0, . . .} [was [hired Mary]] Copy + Merge: [Maryi [was [hired Maryi]]]

(72)

a. b. c. d. e.

N2 = {Mary2, was1, hired1, . . .} N2’ = {Mary1, was0, hired0, . . .} [was [hired Mary]] N2’’ = {Mary0, was0, hired0, . . .} [Mary [was [hired Mary]]]

Chomsky (1995:227) suggests a technical way to distinguish these two possibilities. He proposes that two lexical items l and l’ should be marked as distinct if they enter the derivation via different applications of Select. According to this proposal, the computational system should assign different indices to each selection of Mary






in (72) and the information of whether two given elements are distinct or not (i.e. whether or not they are copies) would be available throughout the syntactic computation. Slightly modifying Chomsky’s suggestion, we will assume, following Nunes (1995, 2004), that it is the copy operation that assigns a nondistinctiveness index; in other words, all elements will be taken to be distinct for purposes of the computational system, unless they are specified as nondistinct by the copy operation. In the cases discussed above, for instance, the copy operation in (71d) marks the two instances of Mary as nondistinct, and the two instances in (72e) are interpreted as distinct by default.25 Once the computational system is provided with means to identify copies, we may now consider some tougher issues. Take for example the proposal that traces may indeed be phonetically realized. If so, one should in principle expect all the links of a chain to be phonetically realized. Given a structure such as (73) below, for example, there arises the question of why it cannot surface as in (74a). Furthermore, it is also unclear why there is a preference for deleting traces rather than heads of chains, in absence of additional constraints in the phonological component. In other words, why must (73) surface as (74c) and not as (74b)? Finally, once scattered deletion is available in the system (see Section 2.7), why isn’t it employed more often? Why can’t (73) surface as (74d), for instance? (73)

[[the book]i [was [found [the book]i]]]

(74)

a. b. c. d.

*The book was found the book. *Was found the book. The book was found. *The was found book.

Nunes (1995, 1999, 2004) provides an answer to these questions that, on the one hand, is able to correctly exclude the derivations of (74a), (74b), and (74d), and on the other, is also compatible with the facts documented in the previous sections. His approach involves a combination of a convergence requirement with economy considerations. The convergence aspect of the proposal is related to linearization at PF. The intuition underlying Nunes’s proposal is that a syntactic structure containing a chain cannot be linearized if we assume Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), according to which the linear order of terminals is contingent on asymmetric c-command. The reasoning goes as follows. A (nontrivial) chain is by definition a discontinuous object that simultaneously occupies different structural positions in the syntactic structure. Thus, on the one

. See Nunes (2004:165, n. 15) for a suggestion as to how this indexation mechanism can be dispensed with, in conformity with Chomsky’s (1995) Inclusiveness Condition.


hand, a chain cannot be assigned a single slot in the PF linear sequence resulting from the LCA; on the other hand, the assignment of multiple slots should create contradictory requirements, preventing the whole structure from being linearized. Take the structure in (73), for example. Given that the higher occurrence of [the book] asymmetrically c-commands was, the LCA dictates that both the and book should precede was.26 Likewise, given that was asymmetrically c-commands the lower occurrence of [the book], it should precede the and book in compliance with the LCA. Given that these occurrences of [the book] are nondistinct (they relate to the same lexical resources present in the numeration), we reach a contradiction: was should precede and be preceded by the and book. Similarly, given that the higher occurrence of [the book] asymmetrically c-commands the lower one, we obtain the undesirable result that the should be required to precede itself. Thus, if nondistinct elements (copies) count as the same for purposes of linearization in virtue of referring to the same items of the numeration, we have an answer for why a structure such as (73) cannot surface as (74a), with the two chain links phonetically realized: it simply cannot be linearized. Nunes (1995, 1999, 2004) argues that deletion comes into play in this scenario as a rescuing strategy to permit the linearization of structures containing chains. More specifically, deletion of the “repeated” material within chains before linearization circumvents the problem of linearizing was with respect to the and book in (73) discussed above. If the material of chain CH = ([the book]i, [the book]i) is deleted in any of the ways depicted in (75) below, the structure in (73) can be linearized without any problems. Following Nunes (1995), let us refer to the computations of the phonological component that “prepare” chains for linearization by deleting syntactic constituents that may induce contradictory requirements as Chain Reduction. (75)

a. b. c.

[[the book]i [was [found [the book]i]]] [[the book]i [was [found [the book]i]]] [[the book]i [was [found [the book]i]]]

If all the structures in (75) can be properly linearized, the question now is why only the deletion sketched in (75b) yields an acceptable sentence (cf. (74b,d)). Nunes (1995, 1999, 2004) proposes that this is where economy plays a big role. More specifically, economy considerations should ensure that deletion applies as few times as possible. Applied to the DP chain in (73), Chain Reduction may yield the output in (75c), with two applications of deletion, or the outputs in (75a) and

. We will address the issue of how to linearize lexical heads in a mutual c-command relation in Section 4 below.






(75b), with a single application targeting the whole DP node. Since there is no convergence problem resulting from these reductions, the three derivations are eligible for economy comparison and the derivation yielding (75c) is excluded for employing more operations of deletion than necessary. Thus, the reason why scattered deletion within chains is disallowed in most cases is that it is a costly option. It will be employed just in case competing derivations that employ fewer applications of deletion violate additional requirements of the phonological component so that they do not converge. Recall that this was the case with the splitting of the extended clitic cluster (which includes the verb) in Bulgarian, repeated below in (76a). As we saw in Section 2.7, if the computational system employed just a single instance of deletion, eliminating the higher or the lower copy of the complex head, the clitics li, si, mu, and gi would not all have their enclitic requirements satisfied; hence, scattered deletion has to be employed (cf. (76b)). By contrast, in the case of Macedonian, scattered deletion is blocked by the more economical option of eliminating the lower link of the chain with a single application of deletion, as shown in (77), which allows the phonological requirements of the clitics to be satisfied (Recall that in Macedonian, li is an enclitic and si, mu, and gi are proclitics). (76)

a.

b. (77)

a.

b.

Dal li si mu (gi) parite? given Q are him.. them the-money ‘Have you given him the money?’ [[Si mu gi dal] li [si mu gi dal] parite]

(Bulgarian)

Si mu gi dal li parite? are him.. them given Q the-money ‘Have you given him the money?’ [[Si mu gi dal] li [si mu gi dal] parite]

(Macedonian)

The combination of a convergence requirement in terms of linearization and economy considerations on the number of applications of deletion therefore provides an account for why a chain does not surface with all of its links phonetically realized (the structure containing such a chain cannot be linearized)27 and why scattered deletion constructions are uncommon (they are disfavored on economy grounds and must be triggered by additional convergence requirements in order to be licensed). What is now missing is an explanation for why the actual reduction of the DP chain in (73) must involve the deletion of the lower copy, rather than the head of the chain (cf. (74b) vs. (74c)), despite the fact that both reductions in (75a) and (75b) may employ a single operation of deletion targeting the whole

.

See Section 4 below for further discussion and refinements.


DP node. Obviously, we can’t simply say that lower copies must delete. Conceptually, that would amount to reintroducing traces and, empirically, it would be just wrong, as we have argued extensively in Section 2 with many instances of traces being phonetically realized. The most plausible answer should again be formulated in economy terms. There should be some factor that makes the pronunciation of the highest copy more economical in the general case. But like in any economy approach, if the most economical option does not lead to convergence, a less economical option is chosen instead. One possibility is that such independent factor is feature checking (see Nunes 1995, 1999, 2004). Assuming that every movement operation must be licensed by feature checking (see Chomsky 1995), the higher the position a given element moves to, the greater the number of checking relations it will have participated in; hence, higher copies will always have more features checked than lower copies. In the derivation of (73), for instance, [the book] only checks its Case-feature after it moves to [Spec, TP], as illustrated in (78), where subscript annotates checking. (78)

a. b. c.

[was [found [the book]-CASE]] Copying: [the book]i-CASE Merger + Feature Checking: [[the book]i-CASE [was [found [the book]iCASE]]]

Nunes (1995, 1999, 2004) uses this independent asymmetry between different copies to formulate a specific economy metric that favors deletion of lower copies. Assuming that all formal features are uninterpretable at PF, Nunes first extends Chomsky’s (1995) proposal that feature checking renders uninterpretable features invisible at LF to invisibility at PF, as well. This means that after the Case-feature of the upper copy of [the book] in (78c) is checked, it becomes invisible at both LF and PF. That being so, the preference for deleting lower copies may be derived from general economy computations with respect to elimination of formal features in the phonological component. Consider, for instance, the optimal outputs of Chain Reduction in (74a) and (74b), repeated below in (79) with the checking information indicated. (79)

a. b.

[[the book]i-CASE [was [found [the book]i-CASE]]] [[the book]i-CASE [was [found [the book]i-CASE]]]

Although formal features feed the phonological component and are computed by morphology, they are not interpretable at the PF level itself. Thus, as Chomsky (1995:230–231) notes, there must be an operation in the phonological component applying after morphology that deletes formal features. Such required feature deletion in later computations of the phonological component now renders the derivations of (79a) and (79b) different in terms of derivational cost, despite the






fact that both reductions in (79) are equally costly as they can be implemented with a single application of deletion, as mentioned earlier. The Case-feature of the higher copy of the book in (79b) has already been rendered invisible for PF (and LF) purposes upon checking and therefore need not be deleted by later computations of the phonological component; in other words, (79b) can converge at PF as is, so to speak. By contrast, (79a) can only converge at PF after the unchecked Case-feature of the lower copy of the book gets deleted. Hence, the derivation of (79b) is more economical in that it employs fewer applications of deletion in later computations of the phonological component. To put it in general terms, unless it is motivated by additional convergence constraints of the phonological component such as the ones discussed in Section 2, the pronunciation of a higher copy will always be favored over the pronunciation of a lower copy.28 Interestingly, certain MWF data discussed by Bošković (2002) provide evidence that Chain Reduction proceeds in a top-down fashion, targeting first the highest chain (that is, the chain whose head asymmetrically c-commands the other chains in its domain), then targeting the second highest, and so on.29 Consider the following data from Bulgarian, another MWF language that is also subject to the ban on homophonous sequences of wh-phrases discussed in Section 2.1, as seen in (80).30 (80)

a. *Koj na kogo kogo e pokazal? who to whom whom is pointed-out b. Koj kogo na kogo e pokazal? who whom to whom is pointed-out ‘Who pointed out whom to whom?’

(Bulgarian)

In principle, (80a) could be rescued by pronouncing either of the homophonous wh-phrases in a lower position. However, Bošković (2002) observes that it is the

. This proposal is also compatible with Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) Agree-based system, where feature checking/valuation may take place in the absence of movement, if we assume that the EPP involves PF-feature checking on the element that undergoes movement, along the lines discussed above. For further discussion on multiple EPP-checking, see Nunes 1999, 2004. . Here we are reinterpreting in structural (LCA) terms Bošković’s (2002) original proposal that chains are scanned in a left-to-right fashion when the system is determining which copy to pronounce. . It is worth noting that although Superiority affects the order of wh-phrases in Bulgarian (see Rudin 1988, Bošković 1999, 2002, Richards 1997, 1998, and Pesetsky 2000, among others), only the first fronted wh-phrase is subject to this condition, as observed by Bošković (1997b) (see Richards 1997 and Bošković 1999 for alternative explanations of the selectivity of Superiority effects in Bulgarian). Hence, the unacceptability of (80a) is not due to a Superiority violation.


accusative rather than the dative wh-phrase that has to be pronounced lower, as shown in (81). (81)

a.

Koj na kogo e pokazal kogo? who to whom is pointed-out whom b. ??Koj kogo e pokazal na kogo? who whom is pointed-out to whom ‘Who pointed out whom to whom?’

(Bulgarian)

The structures underlying the sentences in (80) are given in (82) below (irrelevant details omitted). As standardly assumed, the order of wh-phrases reflects the order of their movement to [Spec, CP]. Given the selectivity of Superiority effects in Bulgarian (see fn. 30), koj, the highest wh-phrase prior to wh-movement must move first, the order of movement of the objects being free (the order of the objects in the base position is irrelevant for our current concerns). (82)

a. b.

[CP koji [na kogo]j kogok e [IP koji pokazal [na kogo]j kogok]] [CP koji kogok [na kogo]j e [IP koji pokazal [na kogo]j kogok]]

Let us now examine how the wh-chains in (82a) are to be reduced. The highest chain is the one headed by koj. Since nothing goes wrong if the chain is pronounced in the head position, economy considerations regarding deletion of formal features discussed above then trigger deletion of the lower copy, as shown in (83a) below. Next, the system moves to the second highest chain, the chain involving na kogo. Again, no PF violation occurs if we pronounce its head (nothing rules out the koj na kogo sequence) and the lower copy is deleted, as shown in (83b) (Recall that the deletion of the higher copy of na kogo is excluded by economy considerations regulating deletion of unchecked features of the lower copy). At this point, then, we have the sequence koj na kogo sentence initially and may proceed to the reduction of the chain involving kogo. If we pronounce kogo in the head position, we violate the PF constraint against homophonous sequences of wh-words. In order not to do that, we pronounce the tail of the chain, as shown in (83c), deriving (81a). (83)

a. b. c.

[CP koji [na kogo]j kogok e [IP koji pokazal [na kogo]j kogok]] [CP koji kogoj [na kogo]k e [IP koji pokazal [na kogo]j kogok]] [CP koji [na kogo]j kogok e [IP koji pokazal [na kogo]j kogok]]

Crucially, if the system could consider the linearization of all chains at once or if reduction of a given chain CH1 were allowed to take into account later decisions regarding the reduction of another chain CH2, reduction of the chain involving na kogo in (82a) should also allow the pronunciation of its lower copy in order to circumvent the adjacency problem with kogo. The fact that this is not the case (cf. (81b)) shows that the decision of whether to pronounce the head or the tail of a given chain is made based on the material already linearized, without look-ahead.






Consider now (82b). It is easy to verify that under the assumption that Chain Reduction proceeds from the highest to the lowest chains, no PF violation occurs if we pronounce the heads of all three chains. We must then pronounce the initial wh-phrases, which gives us (80b). To sum up, lack of phonetic realization is not an intrinsic property that characterizes traces as grammatical primitives. Traces or parts of traces may be phonetically realized if the pronunciation of the head of the chain causes the derivation to crash at PF. The fact that traces in the general case are not phonetically realized results from the interaction among convergence and economy factors. On the one hand, linearization requirements trigger deletion of “repeated” material within a chain and legibility at PF triggers deletion of (visible) formal features in the phonological component. On the other hand, economy considerations ensure that deletion is employed in an optimal way, affecting as few elements as possible. If the phonological component imposes no additional convergence condition that can affect these optimality computations, the head of a chain will always be the optimal option for phonetic realization.

.

Pronunciation of multiple copies

Thus far, we have witnessed two kinds of situations: one link of a given chain is pronounced or different chain links are phonetically realized, but with different material (scattered deletion). In no case have we seen instances where a chain has more than one full link pronounced and this is exactly what we should expect, given that a structure containing more than one full chain link cannot be linearized. However, the facts appear to be a bit more complicated than this. There are actually several kinds of constructions that seem to involve phonetic realization of more than one copy. “Wh-copying” constructions such as (84) in German (from McDaniel 1986), where an intermediate wh-trace is pronounced in addition to the head of the chain, are the most familiar examples of this state of affairs (see du Plessis 1977, Hiemstra 1986, McDaniel 1986, Höhle 2000, and the collection of papers in Lutz, Muller, and von Stechow 2000, among others). (84)

Wen glaubt Hans wen Jakob gesehen hat? whom thinks Hans whom Jakob seen has ‘Who does Hans think Jakob saw?’

(German)

Given the discussion so far, there are two logical paths one could take. The first one is to attempt to show that appearances are misleading and that the identical wh-elements in (84) are not copies resulting from movement (see Nunes 1995). However, the fact that wh-copying constructions are subject to island effects, as


illustrated by the German sentence in (85) (from Fanselow and Mahajan 2000) with a factive island, indicates that this is not a promising line of investigation. (85) *Wen bewies sie, wen Fritz liebt? (German) Who proved she who Fritz loves ‘Who did she prove that Fritzs loves/’

The other approach is to assume that wh-copying constructions do involve movement – and, therefore, copies – but that (some of) their copies are somehow invisible to the LCA. The obvious question then is how to give substance to this idea without undermining the whole approach discussed in Section 3. One possible avenue to explore is to see whether there are other cases of syntactic objects that are invisible to the LCA. One such possibility is explicitly discussed by Chomsky (1995) when dealing with the issue of how to linearize two heads in a mutual c-command relation within the bare phrase structure system. Take the structure in (86), for instance, where r, m, and p are lexical items and r and m determine the label of K and L, respectively. (86)

K = {r, {r, {m, {m, p}}}} r

L = {m, {m, p}} m

p

Since the bare phrase structure system does not allow for vacuous projections, neither m nor p in (86) asymmetrically c-commands the other, and no linear order between them can be established in consonance with the LCA. A derivation containing a structure such as L in (86) should therefore be canceled, unless, as Chomsky (1995:337) suggests, “the structure N = [L m p] has changed by the time the LCA applies so that its internal structure is irrelevant; perhaps N is converted by Morphology to a ‘phonological word’ not subject internally to the LCA, assuming that the LCA is an operation that applies after Morphology”.

Nunes (2004) implements the morphological reanalysis suggested by Chomsky in terms of the operation fusion of Distributed Morphology (see Halle and Marantz 1993), which takes two terminal heads that are sisters under a single category node and fuses them into a single terminal node, reducing the number of independent morphemes in a structure. Applied to the two independent terminals m and p in (86), fusion (represented by # #) yields an atomic blended terminal mp, as shown in (87), with no internal structure accessible to further morphological or syntactic computations. That is, the order internal to the output of fusion (whether #mp# or #pm# , for instance) is determined exclusively by morphology






and is of no concern to the LCA. In fact, the output will involve a subset of the morphosyntactic features of the input terminal nodes. (87)

K = {r, {r, {m, {#mp#}}}} r

L = {m, {#mp#}} #mp#

Thus, although the LCA will determine the linearization of the blended item #mp# with respect to r in (87) (r asymmetrically c-commands #mp# and should therefore precede it), the content of #mp# will ony be indirectly linearized with respect to r, in virtue of being an integral part of #mp# . In this regard, it is linearized in the same way the phoneme /l/ is indirectly linearized in John loves Mary due to its being part of the lexical item loves. Before we proceed, two points should be clear. We are not claiming that fusion is necessarily triggered by linearization considerations, neither are we claiming that fusion is the only rescuing strategy that allows linearization of heads in a mutual c-command relation (see Hornstein, Nunes and Grohmann 2005:sec. 7.3 for discussion of two other possibilities). All we are saying is that fusion, an independent operation of the morphological component, may allow the problem of linearizing two heads in a mutual c-command relation to be circumvented if such heads are specified to undergo fusion in the environment under consideration. Now comes the punch line. Suppose that m in (86), for instance, moves and the copy left behind gets fused with p in the morphological component, as illustrated in (88) below. Given that #mp# is an atomic element not subject internally to the LCA, the only copy of m the LCA “sees” in (88) is the higher one and this creates no contradictory linearization requirements of the type discussed in Section 3, for the lower copy blended within #mp# is simply not recognized by the LCA. Thus, the relevant asymmetric c-command relations are only established among m, r, and #mp# , yielding the linear order <m, r, #mp# >, which contains two copies of m. (88)

[mi … [K r [L #mip# ]]]

To make the point more generally, a chain may have more than one full link phonetically realized just in case some of these links have undergone fusion, falling outside the eyesight of the LCA. Furthermore, given that morphological fusion plays a key role in the licensing of multiple copies, we should in principle expect to find a close-knit relationship between phonetic realization of multiple copies and morphological restrictions. After all, it is simply not the case that any two random items can undergo fusion. Thus, we should expect all cases of multiple copies to be tied to morphological specifications such as sensitivity to specific lexical items, morphemes, or features; changes in the output (morpheme deletion, changes in


the order of morphemes, tone changes, reduction, suppletion, etc.); and sensitivity to morphological complexity (especially syntactic complexity), given that these are hallmarks of fusion. In the following sections, we will see in some detail how this prediction is fulfilled by examining phonetic realization of multiple copies in A’movement, A-movement, head movement, and remnant movement constructions. .

Cases involving wh-movement

Let’s start our discussion with wh-copying constructions in German such as (84) (from McDaniel 1986), repeated here in (89).31 (89)

Wen glaubt Hans wen Jakob gesehen hat? whom thinks Hans whom Jakob seen has ‘Who does Hans think Jakob saw?’

(German)

The wh-copying construction is subject to two intriguing constraints. First, although more than one trace may be phonetically realized (cf. (89)), only intermediate traces can be pronounced. Take the contrast between (90) (from Fanselow and Mahajan 2000) and (91) below, for example. In each sentence, three wh-copies are phonetically realized; however, only (90) is acceptable. The relevant difference between them is that in (90), only the intermediate wh-traces are realized, whereas in (91), the tail of the wh-chain is realized, as well. That being so, the question then is what is special about intermediate traces and how this can be accommodated under the copy theory. (90)

Wen denkst Du wen sie meint wen Harald liebt? who think you who she believes who Harald loves ‘Who do you think that she believes that Harald loves?’

(91) *Wen glaubt Hans wen Jakob wen gesehen hat? whom thinks Hans whom Jakob whom seen has ‘Who does Hans think Jakob saw?’

(German)

(German)

The second pervasive characteristic of wh-copying constructions is that, roughly speaking, they can only involve simplex, not complex wh-phrases, as illustrated by the contrast between (89) and the ones in (92) (see McDaniel 1986). (92)

a. *Wessen Buch glaubst du wessen Buch Hans liest? whose book think you whose book Hans reads ‘Whose book do you think Hans is reading?’

(German)

. Wh-copying is also found in Afrikaans (du Plessis 1977), Romani (McDaniel 1986), Frisian (Hiemstra 1986), and Child English (Thornton 1990), for example.






b. *Welche Bücher glaubst du welche Bücher Hans liest? which book think you which book Hans reads ‘Which book do you think Hans is reading?

Nunes (1999, 2004) argues that this paradigm can be accounted for, if long distance wh-movement in languages that allow for wh-copying constructions may proceed via head adjunction to C, as illustrated in (93a),32 and if a [–wh] C fuses with the adjoined wh-element in the morphological component, as represented in (93b). (93)

a. b.

[CP [C0 WHi [C0 Q]] . . . . [CP [C0 WHi [C0 C[–wh]]] [TP . . . WHi . . .]]] [CP [C0 WHi [C0 Q]] . . . . [CP #[C0 WHi [C0 C[–wh]]#] [TP . . . WHi . . .]]]

Consider now how the structure in (93b) is to be linearized. The wh-element undergoing movement adjoins to both the intermediate and the matrix Comp in overt syntax. In the morphological component, the intermediate [–wh] Comp triggers fusion with the adjoined copy of the moved wh-element. Hence, the whchain in (93b) has only two links visible to the LCA, as the intermediate wh-copy becomes invisible after it undergoes fusion. The two visible copies should then prevent the structure from being linearized unless Chain Reduction is employed. Thus, the derivation of (91), for instance, which has more than one chain link visible to the LCA, cannot converge because the relevant structure cannot be linearized.33 Just to be clear, the claim here is not that every instance of head movement renders the adjoined element invisible to the LCA, but rather that fused elements are not computed by the LCA.34 Under the assumption that the highest copy in (93b) has . For arguments that head adjunction should in general be preferred over movement to specifiers, all things being equal, see Nunes 1998 and Bošković 2001. . Incidentally, notice that if fusion could also affect the matrix complementizer of (91), for instance, repeated below in (i), this sentence would be incorrectly ruled in, for the two higher copies of wen would become invisible to the LCA and should create no problems for linearization with respect to the lowest copy. This indicates that fusion is restricted to [–wh] complementizers, as stated in the text. Alternatively, it could be the case that the relevant fusion is not so restricted, but the [+wh] specification of the interrogative complementizer renders it too complex in the relevant sense for fusion to apply (see Nunes 2004). Whether these are true alternatives or notational variants remains to be determined. Below, we discuss languages where the morphological restriction in question does not hold and we indeed find fusion with an interrogative complementizer. (i)

*Wen glaubt Hans wen Jakob wen gesehen hat? whom thinks Hans whom Jakob whom seen has ‘Who does Hans think Jakob saw?’

(German)

. Contrary to what may seem at first glance, movement of the wh-element from the head-adjoined position to adjoin to the matrix interrogative complementizer Q in (93a) is


more features checked, it should be kept and the lowest copy should be deleted, as discussed in Section 3, yielding (94). (94)

[CP [C0 WHi [C0 Q]] . . . . [CP #[C0 WHi [C0 C[-wh]]# ] [TP . . . WHi . . . ]]]

We now have an answer for why the tail of the wh-chain contrasts with intermediate traces with respect to phonetic realization. There is nothing intrinsic to intermediate traces themselves that allows them to be phonetically realized. Rather, morphological requirements of the intermediate C0 may trigger fusion with the adjoined wh-copy, making it invisible for the LCA and, consequently, for deletion. Once the system only “sees” the highest and the lowest wh-copies in (93b), its linearization as in (94) is no different from the linearization of a standard whmovement construction such as (95) below, where economy considerations on the applications of deletion by later computations of the phonological component trigger the deletion of the lower wh-copy (see Section 3). (95)

a. b.

What did John see? [CP whati did [IP John see whati]]

Suggestive evidence that wh-movement in wh-copying does indeed involve head adjunction is provided by the fact the wh-copying is more restricted than regular wh-movement. In particular, it is subject to negative islands even when arguments are moved, as illustrated in (96). (96)

a.

Wen glaubst du nicht dass sie liebt? whom believe you not that she loves b. *Wen glaubst du nicht, wen sie liebt? whom believe you not whom she loves ‘Who don’t you think that she loves?’

(German)

The fact wh-copying is always subject to negative islands, as shown in (96b) (from Reis 2000), can be accounted for if it involves head-adjunction to Comp, as claimed above, and if an intervening Neg head blocks such head movement (see Bošković 1998 and Rivero 1991, for relevant discussion). By contrast, once standard wh-movement such as the one in (96a) involves movement to [Spec, CP], the intervening Neg head does not count as a blocker.

not incompatible with Baker’s (1988) account of the general ban on excorporation (if the ban indeed holds). According to Baker, given the head adjunction structure [Y0 X0 Y0], if X0 moves, the morphological component will receive a head with an adjoined trace, which was taken to be an illicit morphological object. Under the copy theory, Baker’s proposal can be interpreted as saying that deletion of copies cannot take place under an X0 element. Notice that it is a crucial feature of the analysis reviewed above that the wh-copy adjoined to the intermediate C0 does not delete.






Finally, by having wh-copying be dependent on morphological fusion, we reach a natural explanation for why complex wh-phrases do not license wh-copying (cf. (92)). The more morphologically complex a given element is, the harder it is for it to be fused and be reanalyzed as part of a word. Thus, the unacceptability of sentences such as the ones in (92) is arguably due to the fact that the wh-phrases cannot undergo fusion with the intermediate C0 due to their morphological complexity. This in turn entails that all the copies of the moved wh-phrase are visible to the LCA and failure to delete all but one link prevents their structures from being linearized. It should be noted that one finds considerable dialectal and idiolectal variation among speakers who accept wh-copying constructions. According to Fanselow and Mahajan 2000, for instance, the dialect of German spoken in the Berlin-Brandenburg area distinguishes multiple copies of regular PPs, as in (97a), from multiple copies of PPs that involve incorporation and independently function as simple morphological words, as in (97b); however, other dialects do not make such a distinction and allow both of these constructions.35 (97)

a. *An wen glaubst Du, an wen sie denkt? of whom believe you of whom she thinks ‘Who do you believe that she thinks of?’ b. Wovon glaubst Du, wovon sie träumt? what-of believe you what-of she dreams ‘What do you believe that she dreams of?’

(German)

From the perspective reviewed here, variation in this regard is not due to syntactic computations proper, but to the degree of morphological complexity a given dialect or idiolect tolerates under fusion. As a rule, the more complex a constituent, the less likely it is for it to undergo fusion and become invisible to the LCA. And this holds not only for wh-copying constructions, but for all constructions that display multiple copies, as we will see below. Nunes’s (2004) account of wh-copying reviewed above can provide an alternative analysis for constructions in North Eastern Italian dialects like the ones illustrated in (98) and (99), which Poletto and Pollock (2004) have analyzed in terms of “wh-clitic doubling”.36

. The dialects that allow (97a) must then allow for fusion between the preposition and the wh-word, followed by fusion with the intermediate C0. . We are thankful to Mary Kato (p.c.), who suggested that Nunes’s (1999, 2004) analysis of wh-copying could be extended to wh-doubling.


(98)

a.

b.

c.

(99)

a.

b.

S’a-lo fat che? what-has-he done what ‘What has he done?’ Ndo e-lo ndat endoe? where is-he gone where ‘Where has he gone?’ Ci halo visto ci? whom has-he seen whom ‘Who has he seen?’

(Illasi)

Ch’et fat què? what-have-you done what ‘What have you done?’ Ngo fet majà ngont? where do-you eat where ‘Where do you eat?’

(Monno)

According to Poletto and Pollock’s analysis, the higher wh-element in (98) and (99) is a wh-clitic that is doubled by the lower wh-element, in much the same way pronominal clitics may double arguments in some languages. Among the interesting properties constructions such as (98) and (99) display, Poletto and Pollock mention that doubling is only licit with a subset of wh-words; complex wh-phrases, PPs containing wh-elements and parché ‘why’ cannot appear in doubling constructions, as illustrated in (100). (100)

a. *Parché e-lo partio parché? (Illasi) why is-he left why ‘Why has he left?’ b. *S’ alo magnà che torta? what has-he eaten what cake ‘What cake has he eaten?’

Another interesting property pointed out by the authors is that in case the whelements are not identical, the short form must be the one on the left, as shown by the contrast between (98a) and (98b), on the one hand, and (101a) and (101b), on the other. (101)

a. *Che a-lo fato sa? what has-he done what ‘What has he done?’ b. *Ngont fet andà ngo? where do-you go where ‘Where do you go?’

(Illasi)

(Monno)

Poletto and Pollock interpret the reduced form of the left wh-element as a reflex of its clitic properties and the lack of doubling involving complex wh-phrases as






an example of the restrictions generally found in standard clitic doubling constructions (such as the restriction that French clitics may double pronouns, but not DPs, for example). However, given that the complexity restrictions found in wh-doubling constructions to a certain extent mimic the ones found in wh-copying constructions discussed above, it would be desirable to subject them to the same analysis. It should be noted that, besides exhibiting sensitivity with respect to morphological complexity, wh-doubling also patterns with wh-copying (cf. (96b)) in being blocked by negation, as shown in (102) (see Poletto and Pollock 2004:fn. 27), and it even mirrors wh-copying in exhibiting variation among speakers with respect to the specific wh-elements that allow doubling (see Poletto and Pollock 2004:fn. 14). (102) *Ci no te ha visto ci who not you have seen who ‘Who haven’t you seen?’

(Illasi)

Based on these similarities, we thus propose that wh-doubling and wh-copying are indeed derived in a similar way. More specifically, we propose that in the relevant dialects, a moved wh-element may adjoin to the interrogative complementizer Q and then be fused in the morphological component, as sketched in (103). (103)

a. b. c.

[CP Q [IP . . . wh . . . ]] [CP [C0 whi [C0 Q]] [IP . . . whi . . .]] [CP #[C0 whi [C0 Q]]# [IP . . . whi . . .]]

Once the moved wh-element fuses with Q, as seen in (103c), it is no longer visible for purposes of linearization and economy considerations prevent its deletion, yielding a structure with two copies of the wh-element (cf. (98) and (99)). We can now provide a straightforward account for why complex wh-phrases, PPs containing wh-elements or the bimorphemic wh-element parchè ‘why’, which arguably involves a preposition and a wh-word, cannot be doubled. The morphological complexity of these elements prevents them from fusing with the interrogative complementizer; hence all of their copies are visible to the LCA and only one can surface.37 In turn, the intervention of negation is attributed to the proposed . Morphological complexity may also provide an account for Poletto and Pollock’s (2004) observation that wh-doubling in embedded clauses is possible only when the complementizer is null, as illustrated in (i) below. If in these dialects, the overt interrogative complementizer (that is, the complex wh+overt C) is morphologically heavy in the relevant sense, it should prevent fusion and, consequently, multiple copies of the moved wh-element. (i)

a.

So mia ‘ngo (*che) l’é ndà (ngont) (I) know not where (*that) he is gone (where) ‘I don’t know where he has gone.’

(Monno)


head adjunction sketched in (103b), as discussed above (cf. (96b)).38 Finally, since fusion is a morphological operation that conflates features of multiple terminals into a single one, it shouldn’t surprise us to find cases of suppletion or, more transparently, shortened forms. That is, once it is the leftmost copy that undergoes fusion, it should thus be the one to display signs of this morphological reanalysis; hence the contrast between (98a) and (99b), on the one hand, and (101a) and (101b), on the other. The proposal that multiple copies are a by-product of morphological fusion can therefore provide a uniform account of both wh-copying and wh-doubling constructions. ..

Cases involving head movement

The analysis of the constructions involving multiple copies of wh-elements discussed above crucially relied on (somewhat uncommon) instances of head adjunction. Recall however that it is not the case that every instance of head adjunction leads to pronunciation of multiple copies. It just happens that syntactic head adjunction provides a configuration in which morphological fusion – the relevant operation in cases of pronunciation of more than one copy – may apply. Actual application of fusion to a head adjunction structure will depend on the morphological properties of the language and the lexical items in question. That said, we should in principle expect to also find multiple copies in more standard cases of head movement. This is what we show below, with clitic placement, postposition incorporation, and verb movement. Take, for instance, clitic duplication in (some dialects of) Argentinean Spanish, illustrated in (104a), which contrasts with the duplication of the clitic cluster in (104b) (see Nunes 2004).39 (104)

a.

Yo lo iba a I itCL went to ‘I was going to do it’

hacerlo. do-itCL

(Argentinean Spanish)

b.

Dime ci (*che) l’a tolto (ci), el quadro tell me who (*that) he has taken (who) the picture ‘The picture, tell me who has taken it.’

(Illasi)

. The fact that wh-doubling triggers subject clitic inversion (see Poletto and Pollock 2004) should perhaps be interpreted along the same lines, that is, as due to the head adjunction involved. . Despite being stigmatized as nonstandard, clitic duplication such as (104a) is not uncommon in South American Spanish. See Oroz 1966 and Silva-Corvalán 1989 for documentation of clitic duplication in Chilean Spanish, for instance.






b. *Yo se lo iba a decirselo. I himCL itCL was-going to say-himCL-itCL ‘I was going to say it to him’

The duplication exemplified in (104a) can be accounted for if, after adjoining to a given functional head F, the moved clitic gets fused with F in the morphological component, as sketched in (105). F’

(105) #F0# CLi

XP F0

…CLi…

After fusion, the highest copy of the clitic in (105) becomes invisible to the LCA and should therefore be ignored by Chain Reduction, which should then keep the second highest copy and delete the remaining ones (if the clitic has already moved before adjoining to F), yielding a sentence with two copies of the clitic, as in (104a). Under this analysis, the unacceptability of (104b) is to be attributed to the morphological complexity induced by the cluster. If it is morphologically heavy enough to prevent fusion, all the copies of the clitic cluster are visible to the LCA and all but one copy of the clitic cluster chain must be deleted; in other words, the structure underlying (104b) cannot surface as is, because it cannot be linearized. Interesting evidence for the proposed morphological reanalysis in this case of clitic duplication is found in other dialects of Argentinean Spanish, where duplication necessarily correlates with an enclisis pattern that is otherwise not allowed in the language. Take (106), for example (see Nunes 2004). (106)

a. b. c. d. e.

Nos vamos acostumbrando a este pais poco a poco. (Argentinean usCL go-1 getting-accustomed to this country little by little Spanish) Vamos acostumbrándonos a este pais poco a poco go-1 getting-accustomed/usCL to this country little by little *Vámonos acostumbrándo a este pais poco a poco. go-1 /usCL getting-accustomed to this country little by little Vámonos acostumbrándonos a este pais poco a poco. go-1 /usCL getting-accustomed/usCL to this country little by little *Nos vamos acostumbrándonos a este pais poco a poco. usCL go-1 getting-accustomed/usCL to this country little by little ‘We are getting accustomed to this country little by little.’

(106a) and (106b) exhibit the standard pattern of clitic placement in Spanish when finite auxiliaries are involved: clitic climbing and proclisis to the finite auxiliary or enclisis to the nonfinite main verb, respectively. Crucially, enclisis to the finite auxiliary is not permitted, as shown in (106c). The contrast between (106d) and (106e) in turn shows that clitic duplication is also possible in these other dialects, but only


if the highest copy is enclitic to the finite auxiliary, which, as we have just seen, is not a pattern that is independently found in the language. The exceptional enclisis in (106d) can therefore be analyzed as the overt manifestation of the morphological fusion affecting the higher copy of the clitic chain and the finite auxiliary. In other words, the exceptional pattern seen in (106d) is not to be treated as an additional option for syntactic clitic placement. Otherwise, we would incorrectly rule (106c) in and fail to capture the correlation between exceptional enclisis and clitic duplication. The exceptional enclisis in (106d) should rather be analyzed as a by-product of the morphological reanalysis that renders the highest copy of the clitic invisible to the LCA (see Nunes 1999, 2004 for further data and discussion). Accordingly, (106e) is ungrammatical because the higher copy of the clitic has not undergone fusion with the finite auxiliary and once both copies are visible to the LCA, the structure cannot be linearized (see Section 3). Morphological exceptionality when duplication is involved is also found in postposition incorporation constructions in Panara, a Brazilian indigenous language. As shown in Dourado 2002, postpositions in Panara may be duplicated just in case they can also undergo standard incorporation. Assuming Nunes’s (1999, 2004) analysis of multiple copies, Dourado argues that this restriction follows if the moved postposition may optionally be fused with the head it has adjoined to, as sketched in (107), becoming invisible to the LCA. (107)

VP #V0# Pi

PP V0 DP

Pi

Supporting evidence for this proposal is provided by the fact that when duplication takes place, an additional morphological process is activated, as illustrated in (108) (from Dourado 2002). (108)

a. b. c.

kamra yi=ra=ria-te ĩkye hw kri tã (Panara) you.. .=1.=2.=go I with tribe to ĩkye kri tã kamra yi=ra=hw=ria-te you.. .=1.=with=2.=go I tribe to ĩkye how kri tã kamra yɨ=ra=hw=te you.. .=1.=with=go I with tribe to ‘You will go with me to the tribe.’

The structure without incorporation in (108a) shows that the verb exhibits overt agreement with both the absolutive subject and the argument of the postposition. (108b), in turn, shows that when the postposition is incorporated, verbal agreement with both arguments remains the same; the only relevant difference is that the incorporated postposition intervenes between the two agreement morphemes.



 Željko Bošković and Jairo Nunes

By contrast, the corresponding construction with postposition duplication in (108c) requires deletion of the agreement morpheme adjacent to the verbal root. Dourado interprets such deletion as a reflex of the morphological reanalysis that renders the incorporated postposition invisible to the LCA. Another illustration that morphology is indeed involved in indirectly allowing multiple copies is presented by verb movement to Foc and Top heads. Take, for instance, verb clefting in Vata (from Koopman 1984) and verb topicalization in Brazilian Portuguese (from Bastos 2001), as shown in (109) and (110). (109)

li à li-da zué saká eat we eat- yesterday rice ‘We ATE rice yesterday.’

(Vata)

(110)

Lavar, o João lavou o carro wash- the João washed the car. ‘As for washing (something), João washed the car’.

(Brazilian Portuguese)

Koopman (1984) and Bastos (2001) respectively show that the two verbal occurrences in (109) and (110) cannot be separated by islands, which indicates that they should be related by movement. Nunes (2004) analyzes verb clefting in Vata as involving verb movement to a Focus head, followed by morphological fusion between the moved verb and the Foc head, as illustrated in (111) below. Based on this analysis, Bastos (2001) treats sentences such as (110) in a similar fashion, with verb adjunction to a Top head followed by morphological fusion, as sketched in (112). (111) (112)

[FocP #[Foc0 Vi [Foc0 Foc0]]# [TP . . . [T0 Vi [T0 T0]] [VP . . . Vi . . .]]] [TopP #[Top0 Vi [Top0 Top0]]# [TP . . . [T0 Vi [T0 T0]] [VP . . . Vi . . .]]]

Once the highest copies of the verb in (111) and (112) are fused, becoming invisible to the LCA, Chain Reduction will only consider the two lower copies and delete the lowest one, yielding sentences with a verbal copy in the left periphery and another one in T.40 It should be observed that the copies in the left periphery in (109) and (110) are not exactly identical to the lower copies. In Vata, “the focused verb merely consists of the segmental specification of the verb, without its

. If the verb moves directly to the left periphery, without stopping in T0, the lower copy will, accordingly, surface within VP. That is arguably the case in the Vata cleft construction in (i) (from Koopman 1984). See Nunes 2004 for further discussion. (i)

li O da saka li eat s/he - rice eat ‘S/he has EATEN rice.’

(Vata)


tonal specification. Since the elements with no associated tone surface carrying mid tone (. . .), the focused verb invariably surfaces with mid tone” (Koopman 1984:155). As for Brazilian Portuguese, the topicalized verb surfaces with default infinitival morphology (see Bastos 2001 for discussion). From the current perspective, these changes can be seen as resulting from the morphological fusion between the moved verb and the left periphery head. Confirming evidence for such morphological reanalysis in Vata comes from certain morphological complexity restrictions. According to Koopman (1984:156), none of the particles that occur in Infl may appear with the fronted verb, as illustrated in (113) (from Koopman 1984), which suggests that these particles render the complex head too heavy, preventing fusion.41 (113)

a.

b.

(*na`) le wa ná`-le-ka (*) eat they -eat-FT ‘They will not EAT.’ li (*wa) wà li-wa zué eat(*) they eat(*) yesterday ‘They ATE yesterday.’

(Vata)

Even more telling is Koopman’s (1984:158) observation that the restricted set of verbs that cannot undergo clefting (auxiliaries, the defective verb na/la/lO ‘to say’, and the verbs lè ‘to be’ and kà ‘to have’) have in common the property that they cannot serve as input for morphological processes that apply to other verbs. If these verbs cannot participate in any morphological process, they certainly should not be able to undergo the morphological fusion with Foc0 depicted in (111) and therefore should not be allowed in predicate clefting constructions. Verb topicalization in Brazilian Portuguese also displays morphological sensitivity. For instance, it cannot target verbs that involve suppletion such as ir ‘go’, as illustrated by the contrast in (114) (see Bastos 2001 for further discussion). (114)

Viajar, o João viajou pro Brasil. travel-INF the João traveled to-the Brazil ‘As for traveling, João traveled to Brazil.’ b. ??Ir, o João foi pro Brasil. go- the João went to-the Brazil ‘As for going (somewhere), João went to Brazil.’ a.

(Brazilian Portuguese)

. Sentences such as (113a) and (113b) thus involve excorporation of the verbal head adjoined to Infl. Again, this is in fact in consonance with our reinterpretation of Baker’s (1988) ban on excorporation under the copy theory mentioned in fn. 34. As in the cases of wh-excorporation involved in wh-copying constructions, the copy of the excorporated verb in (113a) and (113b) does not get deleted in the phonological component.






To sum up, in Section 4.1 we saw that wh-movement in some languages may exceptionally proceed via adjunction to a complementizer. The complex head in turn may undergo fusion in the morphological component, rendering the adjoined wh-copy invisible to the LCA. Once morphology was invoked in the analysis of wh-copying and wh-doubling, we should expect to detect some reflexes of the proposed morphological operation and we did, in fact, detect a general lack of tolerance for multiple copies of morphologically complex wh-elements. When we moved to the domain of head movement, the reflexes of the morphological reanalysis involving multiple copies got much more diversified, coming in all kinds of forms in addition to the ban on morphological complexity. This is exactly what we should expect to find. Given that standard head movement already yields outputs that can be directly manipulated by morphology, such outputs should be more amenable to undergo fusion.42 .

Cases involving A-movement

Let us now consider the sentences in (115) from San Lucas Quiavinì Zapotec (henceforth SLQZ; all SLQZ data are from Lee 2003) and (116) from Hmong (all Hmong data are from Mortensen 2003). (115)

a.

b.

(116)

a.

b.

R-yu’lààa’z Gye’eihllyi HAB-like Mike ‘Mike likes himself.’ R-yu’lààa’z-ëngi HAB-like-.3. ‘S/he likes her/him-self.’

Gye’eihllyi. Mike

(SLQZ)

la’anngi. .3.

(Hmong) Povi yeej qhuas Povi. Pao always praise Pao ‘Pao always praises himself.’ yeej qhuas nwgi. Nwgi .3 always praise .3 ‘He always praises himself.’

Given that the object R-expression in (115a) and (116a) and the object pronoun in (115b) and (116b) are locally A-bound, one would in principle expect Principles C and B of binding theory to be violated here and these sentences to be unacceptable, contrary to fact. These data become even more puzzling if we also take into consideration the observation by Lee (2003) for SLQZ and Mortensen (2003) for Hmong that apparent violations of Principles B and C are only licensed if they . For further data and discussion, see Nunes 2004, Cheng this volume, Corver this volume, Kandybowicz this volume, and Martins this volume.


involve identical elements. When this is not the case, we do find standard Principle C and Principle B effects, as illustrated in (117) and (118). (117)

a.

b.

(118)

a.

b.

R-yu’lààa’z Gye’eihlly me’s. HAB-like Mike teacher ‘Mikei likes [the teacher]k/*i’ R-yu’lààa’z Gye’eihlly la’anng. HAB-like Mike .3. ‘Mike likes him/*himself ’

(SLQZ)

Pov yeej qhuas tug xibfwb. Pao always praise  teacher ‘Paoi always praised [the teacher]k/*i’ Pov yeej qhuas nwg. Pao always praise .3 ‘Pao always praises him/*himself ’

(Hmong)

This seems to indicate that the sentences in (115) and (116) in fact involve some kind of reflexivization. Additional evidence to this effect is provided by the fact that the apparently bound expressions pattern like standard anaphors in ellipsis contexts such as (119) in yielding sloppy readings, as illustrated in (120) and (121). (119)

Mary loves herself and John does, too. (‘. . . and John loves himself, too’)

(120)

a.

b.

(121)

a.

b.

B-gwi’ih Gye’eihlly lohoh Gye’eihlly zë’cy cahgza’ Li’eb. (SLQZ) -look Mike at Mike likewise Felipe ‘Mike looked at himself and Felipe did too (look at himself/*Mike)’ R-yu’lààa’z-ëng la’anng chiru’ zë’cy cahgza’ Gye’eihlly. HAB-like-.3. .. also likewise Mike ‘S/he likes her/him-self, and Mike does too (like himself/*her/*him)’ Pov yeej qhuas Pov; Maiv los kuj ua le hab. (Hmong) Pao always praise Pao May  also do as too ‘Pao always praises himself and so does May (praise herself).’ Koj yeej qhuas koj; nwg los kuj ua le hab. .2 always praise . .3  also do as too ‘You always praise yourself and so does he (praise himself).’

Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes (2007; BHN) analyze this complex paradigm in terms of Hornstein’s (2001) analysis of reflexivization and Nunes’s (1999, 2004) proposal regarding the phonetic realization of multiple copies. For Hornstein (2001), the derivation of a sentence such as (122) below proceeds along the lines of (123), where John merges with self and then moves to [Spec, VP] (stranding self) to get the external θ-role, before reaching its final position in [Spec, TP]. In the phonological component, the intermediate copy of John is deleted for purposes of linearization,






but deletion of the lower one would not license the morphological requirements of -self; the morphological component then converts John into him, allowing the structure to be linearized and the requirements of -self to be met.43 (122)

John shaved himself

(123)

a. b.

[TP John [VP John [V’ shaved John-self ] [TP John [VP John [V’ shaved him-self ]

BHN propose that “reflexive copying” constructions in SLQZ and Hmong such as (115) and (116) are also derived along the lines of (123a), but their ‘self ’ morpheme is a phonologically null element which must morphologically fuse with the element it has merged with. Once the object copy gets fused with the null ‘self ’, it becomes invisible to the LCA and is not subject to deletion for purposes of linearization. (115) and (116) then surface with two copies phonetically realized. As evidence for this proposal, BHN present Lee’s (2003) and Mortensen’s (2003) documentation of impossible cases of reflexive copying constructions, all of which arguably involve an increase in morphological complexity, as illustrated in (124) and (125). (124) *R-yu’lààa’z Li’eb cuann Gye’eihlly Li’eb cuann HAB-like Felipe and Mike Felipe and ‘Felipe and Mike like themselves.’ (125)

Gye’eihlly. (SLQZ) Mike

Txhua tug dlev pum txhua tug dlev. every  dog see two  dog ‘Every dog sees every (other) dog.’/*‘All the dogs see themselves.’

(Hmong)

Since complex material such as the NPs above cannot undergo fusion, all the copies are visible to the LCA. As a result, the structures underlying (124) and (125) under the reflexive reading cannot be linearized. BHN also reanalyze Lee’s (2003) SLQZ control data such as (126) as involving phonetic realization of multiple copies. Assuming Hornstein’s (1999, 2001) theory of control, according to which obligatorily controlled PRO is in fact a copy left by Amovement to a θ-position, BHN propose that the data in (126) involve morphological fusion of the lower copy of the element undergoing A-movement with the null ‘self’ morpheme available in this language (see BHN for details and further discussion).44

.

See Hornstein 2001 for alternative technical implementations and further discussion.

. As observed by Lee (2003), like “copying reflexive” constructions, control structures involving multiple copies also give rise to sloppy readings under ellipsis, as shown in (i). (i)

R-cààa’z Gye’eihlly g-ahcnèe Gye’eihlly Lia Paamm zë’cy cahgza’ Li’eb. (SLQZ) -want Mike -help Mike  Pam, likewise Felipe ‘Mike wants to help Pam, and so does Felipe (want to help Pam/*want Mike to help Pam)’


(126)

a.

b.

R-cààa’z Gye’eihlly g-auh Gye’eihlly bxaady. (SLQZ) HAB-want Mike -eat Mike grasshopper ‘Mike wants to eat grasshopper.’ B-quíi’lly bxuuhahz Gye’eihlly ch-iia Gye’eihlly scweel. -persuade priest Mike IRR-go Mike school ‘The priest persuaded Mike to go to school.’

As we should expect by now, if a control chain involves a complex element, all the links will be visible to the LCA so that all the links but the head of the chain will have to delete, as illustrated in (127) (see BHN for further discussion). (127)

a. *Yra’ta’ zhyàa’p r-cààa’z g-ahcnèe’ yra’ta’ zhyàa’p Lia Paamm. every girl -want -help every girl  Pam ‘Every girl wants to help Pam.’ (SLQZ) b. *R-e’ihpy Gye’eihlly behts-ni’ g-a’uh behts-ni’ bx:àady. -tell Mike brother-. -eat brother-. grasshopper ‘Mike told his brother to eat grasshoppers.’

To summarize, if movement into θ-positions is possible, we should in principle expect such movement to also yield constructions with multiple copies, provided that we have evidence that one of the copies is morphologically reanalyzed. BHN’s analysis of “copying-reflexive” and “copying-control” constructions shows that this prediction is indeed fulfilled. . Cases involving remnant movement We will finally examine remnant movement constructions involving multiple copies. Before doing so, let us consider how deletion of copies proceeds in standard remnant movement constructions. Take the derivation of (128), as sketched in (129), where John moves to [Spec, TP], leaving a copy behind, and VP then moves to a higher position. (128)

. . . and elected, John was.

(129)

a. b. c.

[TP was [VP elected John]] [TP Johni [T’ was [VP elected Johni]]] [XP [VP elected Johni]k [X’ X [TP Johni [T’ was [VP elected Johni]k]]]]

Remnant constructions present a very interesting puzzle for the linearization approach to copy deletion reviewed in Section 3 (see Gärtner 1998). In (129c), the leftmost copy of John arguably doesn’t form a chain with either of the other copies (it neither c-commands nor is c-commanded by the other copies); thus, there are only two chains to be reduced: the DP chain formed by movement of John to [Spec, TP] and the VP chain. However, if Chain Reduction just deletes the lower






link of each of these chains, as shown in (130) below, the resulting structure cannot be linearized due to the presence of more than one copy of John. So, the question is how to delete the leftmost copy of John in (129c) in a principled fashion. (130)

a. b.

[XP [VP elected Johni]k [X’ X [TP Johni [T’ was [VP elected Johni]k]]]] [XP [VP elected Johni]k [X’ X [TP Johni [T’ was [VP elected Johni]k]]]]

There are two possible answers to this question. A more representational answer is offered in Nunes (2003, 2004), building on Chomsky’s (1995:300) observation that the representation of a chain such as CH = (α, α) should be seen as a notational abbreviation of CH = ((α, K), (α, L)), where K and L are each the sister of one occurrence of α. In other words, a chain can be conceived of as multiple occurrences of the same constituent occupying different structural positions; the individual links of a chain must then be identified not only in terms of their content, but also in terms of their local structural configuration. Hence, movement of John in (129b) forms the chain CH1 = ((Johni, T’), (Johni, elected)) and movement of the remnant VP in (129c) forms the chain CH2 = ((VPk, X’), (VPk, was)). Under the assumption that Spell-Out ships the whole structure in (129c) to the phonological component, Chain Reduction inspects CH1 and instructs the phonological component to delete the occurrence of John that is the sister of elected. Interestingly, there are two elements in (129c) that satisfy this description, namely, the leftmost and the rightmost copies of John. In fact, these two copies are technically identical: they are nondistinct in terms of the initial numeration, they have participated in no checking relations, and their sisters are nondistinct. Assuming that the phonological component blindly scans the structure to carry out the deletion instructed by Chain Reduction, it ends up deleting the two copies that satisfy the instruction, as represented in (131a); Chain Reduction of CH2 then deletes the lower copy of VP, as illustrated in (131b), and the sentence in (128) is derived. (131)

a. b.

[XP [VP elected Johni]k [X’ X [TP Johni [T’ was [VP elected Johni]k]]]] [XP [VP elected Johni]k [X’ X [TP Johni [T’ was [VP elected Johni]k]]]]

Under a more derivational approach, we may assume multiple Spell-Out and take linearization/Chain Reduction to apply as the phonological component is fed with spell-out units. Under this view, the system spells out TP after the structure in (132a) below is built and Chain Reduction deletes the lower copy of John. From this point on, the copy of John in the object position will be unavailable to any operation of the phonological component. Hence, movement of VP later on in the derivation, as shown in (132b), will be oblivious of this copy. After the whole structure in (132c) is spelled out, deletion of the lower VP copy then yields the sentence in (128).


(132)

a. b. c.

[XP X [TP Johni [T’ was [VP elected Johni]k]]] [XP [VP elected Johni]k [X’ X [TP Johni [T’ was [VP elected Johni]k]]]] [XP [VP elected Johni]k [X’ X [TP Johni [T’ was [VP elected Johni]k]]]]

We will not attempt to decide between these alternatives here. For our purposes, it suffices that both of them correctly enforce deletion of traces displaced by remnant movement and can also handle the constructions involving multiple copies to be analyzed below. Due to space limitations, however, we will only entertain the multiple Spell-Out approach in the discussion that follows.45 Consider the focus duplication construction from Brazilian Sign Language (LSB), illustrated in (133) (see Quadros 1999, Nunes 2004), where the doubled element is focused. (133)

a. b. c. d. e.

I LOSE BOOK LOSE ‘I LOST the book.’ I CAN GO PARTY CAN ‘I CAN go to the party.’ I HAVE TWO CAR TWO ‘I have TWO cars.’ YESTERDAY I BUY CAR YESTERDAY ‘I bought a car YESTERDAY’ WHO LIKE BANANA WHO ‘WHO likes bananas?’

(LSB)

Despite being optional, focus duplication at the right edge of a sentence is a very pervasive phenomenon in LSB, being able to affect several kinds of constituents, as seen in (133). However, there is a major restriction on this construction: the duplicated material cannot be morphologically complex, as shown in (134).46 (134)

a.

*NEXT MONTH I WILL-GO ESTRELA NEXT MONTH ‘I will go to Estrela NEXT MONTH.’ b. *WHAT MAN OF-THEM YOU LIKE WHAT MAN OF-THEM ‘WHICH OF THOSE MEN did you like?’ c. *JOHN BUY CAR YESTERDAY BUY CAR ‘Yesterday, John BOUGHT A CAR.’

(LSB)

. For an analysis of remnant movement constructions with multiple copies under the “representational” approach alluded to above, see Nunes 2003, 2004. . This contrast mimics the restriction originally noted by Petronio (1993) (see also Petronio and Lillo-Martin 1997) with respect to American Sign Language (ASL). Independent differences aside, the analysis of duplication of focus in LSB to be reviewed below can also be extended to the ASL data (see Nunes 2004, Nunes and Quadros 2006, forthcoming).






d. *JOHN BUY BIG CAR YESTERDAY BIG CAR ‘Yesterday, John bought A BIG CAR.’

By now, the morphological complexity restriction illustrated by the contrast between (133) and (134) should look very familiar. Nunes (2003, 2004) and Nunes and Quadros (2006, forthcoming) argue that this is the same restriction that prevents morphological fusion. More precisely, they argue that focus duplication in LSB results from an interaction of remnant movement and morphological fusion. A sentence such as (133a), for example, is to be derived schematically along the lines of (135). (135)

a. b. c. d.

e.

[FocP Foc [TP I LOSE BOOK]] (LSB) head movement +merger of X: [XP X [FocP [Foc0 LOSEi [Foc0 Foc0]] [TP I LOSEi BOOK]]] Spell-Out of FocP + morphological fusion (Chain Reduction inapplicable): [FocP #[Foc0 LOSEi [Foc0 Foc0]]# [TP I LOSEi BOOK]] remnant movement of TP: [YP [TP I LOSEi BOOK]k [XP X [FocP #[Foc0 LOSEi [Foc0 Foc0]]# [TP I LOSEi BOOK]k]]] Spell-Out of the whole structure + reduction of the TP chain: [YP [TP I LOSEi BOOK]k [XP X [FocP #[Foc0 LOSEi [Foc0 Foc0]]# [TP I LOSEi BOOK]k]]]

After the verb adjoins to the Focus head in (135b), FocP is spelled out and sent to the phonological component where the complex head LOSE+Foc undergoes fusion (cf. (135c)). Once the adjoined copy of the verb becomes invisible to the LCA, Chain Reduction is inapplicable, as only the lower link of the verb chain is visible to the LCA; in other words, for purposes of linearization, the verb chain behaves as if it were a trivial single-link chain and no deletion is triggered. By contrast, further movement of TP does trigger deletion of the lower link, as shown in (135e), yielding a sentence with a double of the focalized verb at the right edge. Once the phonetic realization of multiple copies is dependent on morphological fusion and fusion is sensitive to morphological complexity, the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (134) can be attributed to the impossibility of fusion involving the moved elements. The presence of multiple copies that are visible to the LCA then prevents the structures underlying these constructions from being linearized. In this regard, the contrast between (133a) and (136) below is very illustrative. Quadros (1999) has shown that inflected verbs such as aLOOKb in LSB have very different syntactic properties from bare verbs such as LOSE and attributes these differences to the morphological agreement represented in (136) by the indices. The unacceptability of (136) indicates that agreement morphology in LSB renders the verb too complex, preventing morphological reanalysis and, consequently, phonetic realization of more than one copy of an inflected verb (see


Nunes 2003, 2004, Nunes and Quadros 2006, forthcoming for additional data and further discussion).47 (136) *JOHN aLOOKb MARY aLOOKb ‘John LOOKED at Mary’

(LSB)

To conclude, remnant movement constructions provide further empirical support for the copy theory in that they can also allow more than one chain link to be phonetically realized, provided that linearization and morphological requirements are satisfied.

.

Conclusion

The original evidence Chomsky (1993) provided in favor of the copy theory of movement involved interpretation of lower copies, i.e., it came from the LF interface. Now we also have evidence for the copy theory of movement concerning the pronunciation of lower members of chains, i.e. the PF interface. It seems to us that the pronunciation evidence for the copy theory of movement is even stronger than the interpretation evidence. Alternative accounts can be readily devised for the interpretation evidence. It is much more difficult to devise a principled comprehensive alternative to the copy theory account of the pronunciation evidence. We have also shown that rethinking movement operations in terms of the copy theory, which was driven by the minimalist search for conceptual elegance, has led to a considerable enlargement of the empirical coverage previously handled. It is also worth noting that the approach reviewed here can shed light on the internal structure of PF. More precisely, examining what kind of PF processes can cause lower copy pronunciation or render a copy invisible to the LCA can help us determine exactly when copy deletion takes place. We have seen that morphological restrictions on identical elements, the second position requirement providing support for a prosodically weak element, intonational requirements, and even clitic weakening and stress assignment processes can all trigger lower copy pronunciation, which indicates that copies survive for quite some time into the PF derivation.

. For additional examples and further discussion of remnant movement constructions with multiple copies under the approach reviewed here, see Bastos’s (2001) analysis of vP topicalization in Brazilian Portuguese, Nunes’s (2003, 2004) analysis of verb clefting in Korean and Japanese, and Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes’s (2007) analysis of adjunct control in SLQZ.






References Abels, Klaus. 2001. The predicate cleft construction in Russian. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 10: The Indiana meeting 2000, Steven Franks, Tracy King & Michael Yadroff (eds), 1-19. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Bastos, Ana. 2001. Fazer, eu faço! Topicalização de constituintes verbais em português brasileiro. MA thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Billings, Loren & Rudin, Catherine. 1996. Optimality and superiority: A new approach to multiple wh-ordering. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The College Park meeting, 1994, Jindrich Toman (ed.), 35–60. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1994. What does adjacency do? In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22, 1–32. MIT, Cambridge MA. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2002. A-Chains at the PF-interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20.2: 197–267. Boeckx, Cédric. In press. Traces of argument structure. Proceedings of the Texas Linguistic Society Meeting 1999. Boeckx, Cédric, Hornstein, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo. 2007. Overt copies in reflexive and control structures: A movement analysis. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 1–45. Bošković, Željko. 1995. Participle movement and second position cliticization in Serbo-Croatian. Lingua 96: 245–266. Bošković, Željko. 1997a. The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Bošković, Željko. 1997b. On certain violations of the Superiority Condition, AgrO, and economy of derivation. Journal of Linguistics 33: 227–254. Boškovic, Željko. 1998. LF movement and the Minimalist Program. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 28, 43–57. Amherst MA: GLSA. Bošković, Željko. 1999. On multiple feature-checking: Multiple wh-fronting and multiple headmovement. In Working minimalism, Samuel D. Epstein & Norbert Hornstein, 159–187. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Bošković, Željko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383. Bošković, Željko. 2004a. On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives. In Balkan syntax and semantics, Olga Mišeska Tomić (ed.), 269–291. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bošković, Željko. 2004b. PF Merger in stylistic fronting and object shift. In Minimality effects in syntax, Arthur Stepanov, Gisbert Fanselow & Ralf Vogel (eds), 37–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bošković, Željko. 2004c. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 681–742. Bošković, Željko. 2004d. Object shift and the clause/PP parallelism hypothesis. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 23, 99–112.

The copy theory of movement Bošković, Željko. In press. Agree, phases, and intervention effects. Linguistic Analysis. Bošković, Željko & Takahashi, Daiko. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 347–366. Brody, Michael. 1995. Lexico-logical form: A radically minimalist theory. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Browne, Wayles. 1975. Serbo-Croatian enclitics for English-speaking learners. In Contrastive analysis of English and Serbo-Croatian, Vol. 1, Rudolf Filipovic (ed.), 105–134. Zagreb: Institute of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures, The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20, Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge MA: The MIT press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Comorovski, I. 1996. Interrogative phrases and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. den Dikken, Marcel. 1994. Auxiliaries and participles. In Proceedings of NELS 24, 65–79. Diesing, Molly. 1996. Semantic variables and object shift. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, Höskuldur Thráinsson, Samuel D. Epstein & Steve Peter (eds), 66–84. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Dourado, Luciana. 2002. Construções aplicativas em Panará. D.E.L.T.A. 18(1): 67–86. du Plessis, Hans. 1977. Wh-movement in Afrikaans. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 723–726. Fanselow, Gisbert & Ćavar, Damir. 2000. Distributed deletion. Ms., University of Postdam. Fanselow, Gisbert & Mahajan, Anoop. 2000. Towards a minimalist theory of wh-expletives, whcopying, and successive cyclicity. In Wh-scope marking, Uli Lutz & Gereon Müller & Armin von Stechow, 195–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ferreira, Marcelo. 2000. Uma observação sobre a lugar da teoria da ligação e do critério temático dentro do programa minimalista. D.E.L.T.A. 16(1): 139–148. Franks, Steven. 1998. Clitics in Slavic. Presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Spencer Creek, Indiana. Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 1998. Review of The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalist program. GLOT International 8(3): 16–20. Golston, Chris. 1995. Syntax outranks phonology: Evidence from Ancient Greek. Phonology 12: 343–368. Groat, Erich & O’Neil, John. 1996. Spell-out at the LF interface. In Minimal ideas, Werner Abraham, Samuel D. Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson & C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds), 113–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Hiemstra, Inge. 1986. Some aspects of wh-questions in Frisian. NOWELE 8: 97–110. Hiramatsu, Kazuko. 1999. What Move didn’t delete? In UConn Working Papers in Linguistics 10, David Braze, Kazulo Hiramatsu & Yutaka Kudo (eds), 75–110. Storrs CT: Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut.





Željko Bošković and Jairo Nunes Hiramatsu, Kazuko. 2000. Accessing linguistic competence: Evidence from children’s and adults’ acceptability judgments. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Höhle, Tilman. 2000. The w-. . . w-construction: Apositive or Scope Indicating? In Wh-scope marking, Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller & Armin von Stechow, 249–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English. PhD Dissertation, University of Stockholm. Holmberg, Anders. 1999. The true nature of Holmberg’s generalization. Studia Linguistica 53: 1–39. Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96. Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell. Hornstein, Norbert, Nunes, Jairo & Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2005. Understanding minimalism. Cambridge: CUP. Joseph, Brian & Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1987. Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 2000. On the left edge in UG: A reply to McCloskey. Syntax 3: 44–51. Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht: Foris. Lambova, Mariana. 2002. On A’-movements in Bulgarian and their interaction. The Linguistic Review 18: 327–374. Lambova, Mariana. 2004. On information structure and clausal architecture: Evidence from Bulgarian. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Landau, Idan. 2003. Modular recoverability: Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P)-fronting. Ms, Beer-Sheva, Israel. Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Last resort and attract F. In Proceedings of FLSM 6: 62–81. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Lasnik, Howard. 2001. Derivation and representation in modern transformational syntax. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds), 62–88. Oxford: Blackwell. Lee, Felicia. 2003. Anaphoric R-expressions as bound variables. Syntax 6: 84–114. Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller & Armin von Stechow. 2000. Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McCloskey, James. 1999. On the right edge in Irish. Syntax 2: 189–209. McDaniel, Dana. 1986. Conditions on wh-chains. PhD Dissertation, CUNY. Manzini, Rita & Roussou, Anna. 2000. A minimalist approach to A-movement and control. Lingua 110: 409–447. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford: OUP. Miyoshi, Nobuhiro. 2002. Negative imperatives and PF Merger. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. Mortensen, David. 2003. Two kinds of variable elements in Hmong anaphora. Ms., UC Berkeley. Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist Program. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Nunes, Jairo. 1998. Bare X’-theory and structures formed by movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 160–168. Nunes, Jairo. 1999. Linearization of chains and phonetic realization of chain links. In Working Minimalism, Samuel D. Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 217-249. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Nunes, Jairo. 2003. Head movement, remnant movement, and phonetic realization of chains. Syntax at sunset 3: Head movement and syntactic theory, 161–177, UCLA/Potsdam Working Papers in Linguistics.

The copy theory of movement Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Nunes, Jairo & Quadros, Ronice. 2006. Duplication of wh-elements in Brazilian Sign Language. In Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Leah Batenab & Cherlon Ussery (eds). BookSurge. Nunes, Jairo & Quadros, Ronice. Forthcoming. Phonetically realized traces in American Sign Language and Brazilian language. In Signs of the Time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004, Josep Quer. Signum. Oroz, Rodolfo. 1966. La lengua castellana en Chile. Facultad de Filosofia y Educacion, Universidad de Chile, Santiago. Perlmutter, David. 1972. Evidence for shadow pronouns in French relativization. In The Chicago witch hunt: Papers from the relative clause festival, Paul Peranteau, Judith Levi & Gloria Phares, 73–105. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Pesetsky, David. 1997. Optimality theory and syntax: Movement and pronunciation. In Optimality theory: An overview, Diana Archangeli & D. Terence Langendoen (eds), 134–170. Malden MA: Blackwell. Pesetsky, David. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the best good enough, Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis & David Pesetsky (eds), 337–383. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press and MIT WPL. Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Petronio, Karen. 1993. Clause structure in American Sign Language. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. Petronio, Karen & Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1997. Wh-movement and the position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language 73: 18–57. Poletto, Cecilia & Pollock, Jean-Yves. 2004. On wh-clitics and wh-doubling in French and some North Eastern Italian Dialects. Probus 16: 241–272. Quadros, Ronice. 1999. Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. PhD Dissertation, Pontifìcia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Reis, Marga. 2000. On the parenthetical features of German was . . . w-constructions and how to account for them. In Wh-scope marking, Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller & Armin von Stechow, 249–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reglero, Lara. 2004. On A’ dependencies in Spanish and Basque. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where when in which language? PhD Dissertation, MIT. Richards, Norvin. 1998. The principle of minimal compliance. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 599–619. Rice, Curt & Svenonius, Peter. 1998. Prosodic V2 in Northern Norwegian. Paper presented at the Seventeenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, February 1998. Rivero, Marìa Luisa. 1991. Long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech. The Linguistic Review 8: 319–351. Roberts, Ian. 1997. Restructuring, head movement, and locality. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 423–460. Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 445-–501. Rudin, Catherine. 1993. On focus position and focus marking in Bulgarian questions. In Proceedings of FLSM 4, 252–265. Rudin, Catherine, Kramer, Christina, Billings, Loren & Baerman, Matthew. 1999. Macedonian and Bulgarian li questions: Beyond syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 541–586.





Željko Bošković and Jairo Nunes Runner, Jeffrey. 1998. Noun phrase licensing and interpretation. New York NY: Garland. Schütze, Carson. 1994. Serbo-Croatian clitic placement: An argument for prosodic movement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 373–473. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 1989. Sociolingüística: teoría e análisis. Alhambra, Madrid. Stjepanović, Sandra. 1998. On the placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics: Evidence from VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 527–537. Stjepanović, Sandra. 1999. What do second position cliticization, scrambling, and multiple whfronting have in common? PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Stjepanović, Sandra. 2003. A word-order paradox resolved by copy deletion at PF. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3: 139–177. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1981. The theoretical interpretation of a class of marked extractions. In Theory of markedness in generative grammar, Adriana Belletti, Luciana Brandi & Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 475–516. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. Terzi, Arhonto. 1999. Clitic combinations, their hosts, and their ordering. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory 17: 85–121. Thornton, Rosalind. 1990. Adventures in long-distance moving: The acquisition of complex wh-questions. PhD Dssertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Ticio, Emma. 2001. On result clauses. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. Tomić, Olga Mišeska. 1996. The Balkan Slavic clausal clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 811–872. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Extraposition form NP and prosodic structure. In Proceedings of NELS 25: 503–517. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple Spell-Out. In Working minimalism, Samuel D. Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 251–282. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Warburton, Irene. 1977. Modern Greek clitic pronouns and the ‘Surface Structure Constraint’ hypothesis. Journal of Linguistics 13: 259–181. Wilder, Chris. 1995. Rightward movement as leftward deletion. In On extraction and extraposition in German, Uli Lutz & Jürgen Pafel (eds), 273–309. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

 

On multiple realization of copies

Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation* Ana Maria Martins University of Lisbon

This chapter discusses European Portuguese sentences where a finite verb occurs twice. Such sentences express emphatic affirmation and are either elliptic structures produced as replies to a yes/no question presupposing a negative answer or full declaratives which contradict a preceding negative statement. The approach to European Portuguese emphatic verb reduplication developed in this chapter views the two phonologically indistinguishable verb forms as copies of the same item from the numeration, i.e. as two links of a nontrivial chain. Martins’ analysis relies on Nunes’s (2001, 2004) idea that the phonetic realization of multiple links of a chain is permitted as far as linearization – understood as the application of Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) – can still operate. In particular, multiple copies may be allowed when morphological reanalysis makes some copy invisible to the LCA. In the case of emphatic affirmation in European Portuguese, it is argued that verb reduplication results from the combination of verb movement to Σ[+aff] and (subsequent) verb movement to C[+emph], followed by morphological reanalysis of C, which renders the adjoined verb copy invisible to the LCA and immune to deletion.

.

Introduction

This paper discusses European Portuguese sentences where a finite verb occurs twice. Such sentences express emphatic affirmation and are either elliptic structures produced as replies to a yes/no question presupposing a negative answer or full

* I am most grateful to all the people who in different important ways contributed to this paper, namely, two anonymous reviewers, Ana Lúcia Santos, Jairo Nunes, Mary Kato, Montserrat Batllori, Ricardo Etxeparre, Rosario Alvarez, the audience of the workshop The Copy Theory of Movement on the PF Side (Utrecht, December 2004), the audience of Going Romance 2004 (Leiden, December 2004), the audience of the workshop Syntactic Doubling in European Dialects (Amsterdam, March 2006), and last but not least my students at a postgraduate seminar in the University of São Paulo (USP) in the (European) autumn of 2005.



Ana Maria Martins

declaratives which contradict a preceding negative statement. EP emphatic declaratives with repetition of the verb were first observed and studied by Hagemeijer and Santos (2004). These authors analyse sentences like Ele ofereceu-me um gato, ofereceu (lit.: he offered me a cat, offered – ‘he did give me a cat’) as involving right adjunction of the final constituent (overtly expressed by a single verb).1 Under the analysis proposed by Hagemeijer and Santos (2004) the initial array feeding the derivation (i.e. Chomky’s numeration) includes two distinct verbal items which happen to be associated with the same phonological content. The alternative approach taken in this paper views the two phonologically indistinguishable verb forms as copies of the same item from the numeration, that is, as two links of a non trivial chain. This other analysis strongly relies on the work of Nunes (2001, 2004) on chain linearization under the copy theory of movement (Chomsky 1995). The facts discussed in the paper show that the copy theory of movement has an impact on the PF side as it allows for the realization of more than one copy of a chain, in particular circumstances. What these particular circumstances are and why they are made available in a restricted way cross-linguistically are open questions in current debate. The next sections are intended to be a contribution to such debate. Before I present the general architecture of the paper, a few theoretical assumptions I will be making should be clarified. As I said, I adopt the proposals of Nunes (2001, 2004) on the linearization of chains. In particular I follow Nunes’ idea that the phonetic realization of multiple links of a chain is permitted as far as linearization, understood as the application of the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) of Kayne 1994,2 can still operate. This is what happens when morphological reanalysis makes some copy invisible to the LCA, in a sense to be made precise further on. As I will be dealing with sentences expressing emphatic affirmation, I must say that I take the view that there is an overall parallel between affirmative and negative sentences, meaning that every clause includes a polarity encoding functional head, say Σ or Pol (the former label is adopted here), where aff/neg features are located (cf. Laka 1990, Zanuttini 1994, 1997). Furthermore I take this functional head to display a different behaviour across languages in relation to verb movement (see Martins 1994). I will propose in this paper that the sentences with verb reduplication3 found in European Portuguese (EP) can only be derived in languages which have both . Hagemeijer and Santos (2004) describe this constituent as an elliptic sentence where the head T-V licences VP deletion. .

Or the Chomskyan version of it given in Chomsky 1995.

. I use here the term verb reduplication to describe the overt manifestation of two copies of the verbal chain in a sentence. Thus verb reduplication stands in this paper for syntactic

Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation

verb movement to Σ and verb movement to C. In this way the contrast between EP and the Romance languages that cannot express emphatic affirmation by means of verb reduplication is straightforwardly derived. Why there is crosslinguistic variation with respect to verb movement (in relation to the different positions within the functional space) is an unsettled matter. I will adopt here the view that the distinction between strong and weak functional heads has place in grammar (departing from Chomsky 2000, 2001). Following Costa and Martins (2003, 2004) I assume that the distinctive property of strong functional heads is the fact that they require visibility at PF. Thus a strong functional head is licensed if and only if it is given phonological content, or in the terms of Costa and Martins (2003, 2004) if it is lexicalized. Lexicalization may arise under syntactic merger, under head or XPmovement, or under morphological merger. The paper is organized in five sections. In Section 2 I introduce the EP data to be discussed and put forth an analysis for them. I will propose that verb reduplication in EP emphatic affirmation results from the combination of verb movement to Σ and (subsequent) verb movement to C, with those two verbal copies ending up phonetically realized. In Section 2 I will also clarify how morphological reanalysis works in order to allow both copies to be phonetically expressed. Specifically, I will concentrate my attention on fusion, the morphological operation that turns two syntactic terminal nodes into one only terminal, as established by Halle and Marantz (1993). Section 3 offers some comparative evidence that supports the analysis introduced in Section 2. I will show that the Romance languages that lack

verb reduplication, which is distinct from morphological verb reduplication (see Harris & Halle (2005) and references therein). I prefer the term reduplication to the term doubling because the latter is used to describe syntactic structures where two elements share the same grammatical relation/function but are distinct items, not copies of a single item that underwent syntactic movement (e.g. clitic doubling). The term reduplication, on the other hand, has over the term copying the advantage of suggesting that no more than two copies of the relevant item get phonetically realized. In fact EP verb reduplication structures do not allow that the verb be spelledout but twice: (i)

[A] a.

O João não vem almoçar. the J. not comes lunch-INF ‘John is not coming for lunch.’ [B] b. O João vem almoçar, vem. the J. comes lunch-INF comes ‘Of course John is coming for lunch.’ c. *O João vem almoçar, vem, vem. the J. comes lunch-INF, comes, comes. ‘Of course John is coming for lunch.’





Ana Maria Martins

verb movement to C (like Brazilian Portuguese) or lack verb movement to Σ (like Spanish) do not allow emphatic affirmative sentences with verb reduplication. This is exactly what is predicted if verb reduplication is derived by verb movement to Σ followed by verb movement to C. The alternative strategies to express emphatic affirmation displayed by Brazilian Portuguese and Spanish will be briefly considered in order to show how they can be handled in a way coherent with the analysis proposed to account for the EP verb reduplication structures. In Section 4, some morphological restrictions on the availability of verb reduplication in EP will be identified. In view of the fact that it is a morphological operation (namely, fusion) that makes the realization of multiple copies of a chain possible, it is expected that constraints on such possibility are morphological in nature (see Nunes 2001, 2004). The data presented in Section 4 show that morphological complexity (brought up by compounding, future and conditional formation, or encliticization) hampers or eventually blocks verb reduplication. Section 5 concludes the paper.

.

Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese

This section includes a description of the EP emphatic verb reduplication structures (see 2.1), an analysis of such structures as a case of double realization of links of the verb chain (see 2.2), and some considerations on the nature of fusion, the morphological operation that allows more than one link per chain to be phonologically expressed (see 2.3). .

Initial empirical observation

Emphatic affirmative answers to yes/no questions appear in the context of a tag question presupposing a negative answer. Emphatic affirmative declaratives, on the other hand, assert the untruth of a preceding negative statement. Both types of sentences are thus means to express disagreement through (reinforced) affirmative polarity (cf. Pope 1976). In European Portuguese, emphatic affirmation can be syntactically expressed through verb reduplication. This is illustrated by sentences (1b) and (2b) below, which contradict a negative presupposition and a negative statement respectively.4 Sentences (1a) and (2a) establish the relevant discourse context for (1b) and (2b).

. The availability of emphatic verb reduplication in European Portuguese is not constrained by verb typology or by dialectal or idiolectal variation (as far as I am aware of). In order to clarify the methodology and answer a question by one reviewer, I shall acknowledge that the European


(1)

[A] a.

[B] b.

(2)

[A] a.

[B] b.

O João não comprou o carro, pois não? the J. not bought the car, pois [= CONFIRMATIVE WORD] NEG ‘John didn’t buy the car, did he?’ Comprou, comprou. bought, bought ‘Yes, he DID.’ O João não comprou o carro. the J. not bought the car ‘John did not buy the car.’ O João comprou o carro, comprou. the J. bought the car, bought ‘John did buy the car.’

The prosodic pattern exhibited by the (phonetic) sequences in (1b) and (2b) shows that we are not dealing with bi-sentential structures, that is, with instances of sentence repetition (in a reiterative manner). While sentence repetition would usually

Portuguese data in this paper are self-constructed and judgments on the data are my own. Examples of emphatic verb reduplication with a ditransitive verb (dar ‘give’), an unaccusative verb (chegar ‘arrive’), an unergative verb (sorrir ‘smile’), a restructuring control verb (querer ‘want’), a non-restructuring control verb (ousar ‘dare’), an existential verb (haver ‘be’), and a copular verb (ser ‘be’) are given below. The discourse context for each of the examples will not be set, so as to keep this footnote at a reasonable length. (i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

(vi)

Eu dei ontem esse livro ao João, dei. I gave yesterday this book to John gave ‘I did give John this book yesterday.’ O mau-tempo chegou (cá), chegou. the bad-weather arrived here arrived ‘The bad weather did arrive (here).’ Tu sorriste, sorriste. you smiled, smiled ‘You did smile.’ Ela quer-te beijar, quer. she wants you-ACC kiss-INF wants ‘She does want to kiss you.’ Ela ousou beijar-te, ousou. she dared kiss-INF-you-ACC dared ‘She did dare to kiss you.’ Há demasiadas pessoas nesta sala, há. is too-many people in-this room is ‘Of course there are too many people in this room.’ Dormir 8 horas é saudável, é. sleep-INF 8 hours is healthy is ‘Of course to sleep 8 hours is healthy.’





Ana Maria Martins

imply a prosodic break separating the two sentences and a falling intonation at the end of each sentence, in (1b) and (2b) there is no prosodic break (the comma being a conventional orthographic artifice) and the sequences are associated with an overall rising intonation. The inexistence of a prosodic break before the repeated verb in emphatic affirmative sentences can be tested on the basis of the behaviour of the dental fricative /s/ in EP. In EP the dental fricative /s/ is phonologically realized as [∫], [] or [z] when it occurs in coda positions. The voiceless palatal [∫] appears word-internally before a voiceless consonant and in word-final position before a pause (e.g. cestas [se∫t∫] ‘baskets’). The voiced palatal [] emerges before a voiced consonant, both word-internally or in word-final position sentence-internally, showing that the voice-assimilation process that turns [∫] into [] takes place across word boundaries as far as there is no prosodic break intervening between the two words (e.g. osgas grandes [ggr~ d∫], lit.: geckos big, ‘big geckos’). The voiced dental realization [z] shows up when the fricative coda is followed by a word-initial vowel and no pause breaks the fricative+vowel sequence (e.g. três amigos [trezmigu∫] ‘three friends’; see Mateus and Andrade 2000). The phonological realization of the dental fricative in coda position thus gives us the means to test whether there is a prosodic break before the second occurrence of the verb in the EP verb reduplication structures or not. As the emphatic affirmative sentence in (3) below shows the fricative coda is realized as [z] before the word initial vowel of the repeated verb. This clearly shows that there is no prosodic break there. If a pause would intervene at the relevant position, a voiceless palatal realization of the fricative would emerge, as exemplified by the bi-sentential sequence in (4) below.5 Note that it is not impossible that repetitions of short (discrete) sentences are produced without the typical intonational phrase breaks associated with separate utterances, in which case the contrast we are describing will be bleached. But the crucial point here is that verb reduplication sentences like (3b) are necessarily mapped into one single intonational phrase. Hence the ungrammaticality of (5b) below, where the palatal realization of the coda fricative in V1 signals the existence of a break separating it from V2. (Sentence (5b) is to be contrasted with (4b)). (3)

[A] a.

[B] b.

Eu não ando a fazer nada de mal. I not go to do nothing of wrong ‘I’m not doing anything wrong.’ Anda[z] anda[∫]. [with overall rising intonation] go go ‘Of course you are.’

. Parallel examples can be constructed to illustrate the alternation between [] in emphatic verb reduplication structures and [∫] in reiterative bi-sentential sequences.


(4)

[A] a.

[B] b.

(5)

Eu não ando a fazer nada de mal. I not go to do nothing of wrong ‘I’m not doing anything wrong.’ Anda[∫]. Anda[∫] sim. go. go sim [= AFFIRMATIVE WORD] ‘You are. Of course you are.’

Eu não ando a fazer nada de mal. I not go to do nothing of wrong ‘I’m not doing anything wrong.’ [B] b. *Anda[∫] anda[∫]. [with overall rising intonation] go go ‘Of course you are.’ [A] a.

Another clear indication that emphatic verb reduplication in European Portuguese must be separated from sentence repetition is the fact that the latter does not convey emphatic affirmative disagreement. It would thus be excluded from the discourse contexts set by (1a) and (2a) above. Accordingly, it may express agreement, as in (6) below, which is not compatible with emphatic verb reduplication. (6)

[A] a.

Felizmente, correu tudo bem. fortunately ran all well ‘Fortunately, everything went jus fine.’ [B] b. Correu. (Pois) correu. ran pois [= CONFIRMATIVE WORD] ran ‘It did. In fact it did.’ c. #Correu, correu. [with rising intonation] ran ran ‘It DID.’

Emphatic affirmative sentences with verb reduplication cannot include evidential adverbs such as realmente ‘really’, certamente ‘certainly’, efectivamente ‘efectively’, obviamente ‘obviously’ or the adverbial expression de facto ‘in fact’ (see example (7) below). To the contrary, reiterative sentence repetition appears totally in harmony with such adverbs (see example (8) below). Evidential adverbs reinforce the polarity value of the sentence where they occur and may express agreement with a previous statement or not. In any case, they are not allowed to coexist with emphatic verb reduplication within the same sentence. When assertive evidential adverbs express agreement (associated with affirmation), a semantic clash with verb reduplication arises (because the latter expresses disagreement). When evidential adverbs convey disagreement, semantic redundancy and possibly syntactic incompatibility with emphatic verb reduplication (see next section) exclude sentences like (7b) below.





Ana Maria Martins

O João gosta de ler. / O João não gosta de ler. the J. likes of read / the J. not likes of read ‘John likes reading.’ / ‘John doesn’t like reading.’ [B] b. *O João realmente gosta de ler, gosta.6 [with rising intonation] the J. really likes of read-INFIN likes ‘John does like reading.’

(7)

[A] a.

(8)

[A] a.

[B] b.

O João gosta de ler. the J. likes of read ‘John likes reading.’ O João (realmente) gosta de ler. (Realmente) gosta. the J. really likes of read. really likes ‘John (really) likes reading. He really does.’

The distinction between mono-sentential verb reduplication and bi-sentential reiterative repetition can be further tested by observing their contrastive behaviour with respect to sequences of a finite verb plus a nonfinite verb, be the finite verb an auxiliary (e.g. ser ‘be’) or a raising/control verb (e.g. ir ‘go’). While syntactic reduplication cannot target but the finite verb (see (9b) vs. (9c) and (10b) vs. (10c)), the whole verbal sequence can be reiteratively repeated (see (9c) vs. (9d) and (10c) vs. (10d)). (9)

.

Eu não fui avisada. I not was warned ‘I wasn’t warned.’ [B] b. Tu foste avisada, foste. [verb reduplication (rising intonation)] you were warned were ‘Of course you were warned.’ c. *Tu foste avisada, foste avisada. [verb reduplication (rising intonation)] you were warned, were warned. ‘Of course you were warned.’

[A] a.

The sentence is ungrammatical irrespective of the evidential adverb position, as shown below: (i)

[A] a.

(ii)

[B] a. b. c. d.

O João não gosta de ler. the J. not likes of read ‘John doesn’t like reading.’ *O João realmente gosta de ler, gosta. the J. really likes of read- likes *Realmente o João gosta de ler, gosta. really the J. likes of read- likes *O João gosta realmente de ler, gosta. the J. likes really of read- likes *O João gosta de ler realmente gosta. the J. likes of read- really likes ‘John does like reading.’


d.

(10)

Tu foste avisada. Foste avisada. Não finjas que não. [sentence repetition] You were warned. were warned. not pretend that not You were warned. I’m sure you were warned. Don’t pretend you were not.’

O João não vai vir. the J. not goes come-INF ‘John is not coming.’ [B] b. O João vai vir, vai. [verb reduplication (rising intonation)] the J. goes come-INF, goes ‘Of course John is coming.’ c. *O João vai vir, vai vir. [verb reduplication (rising intonation)] the J. goes come-INF goes come-INF ‘Of course John is coming.’ d. Tem calma. O João vai vir. Vai vir. [sentence repetition] have calm. the J. goes come-INF. goes come-INF ‘Calm down. John will come. He probably/certainly will.’

[A] a.

Finally, it must be pointed out that emphatic verb reduplication is incompatible with negation. EP verb reduplication is a grammatical strategy to express emphatic disagreement in affirmative sentences only. Negative sentences are ungrammatical with reduplication of the verb by itself (see (11b) below) or associated with the predicative negation marker (see (11c) below). Because verb reduplication is distinct from sentence repetition, there is no constraint against repeating reiteratively (in a bi-sentential structure) the sequence negation marker plus verb (see (11d) below). (11)

O João ganhou a lotaria. the J. won the lottery ‘John won the lottery.’ [B] b. *O João não ganhou a lotaria, ganhou. the J. not won the lottery won [no interpretation available] c. *O João não ganhou a lotaria, não ganhou. [with rising intonation] the J. not won the lottery not won ‘John did NOT win the lottery.’ d. O João não ganhou a lotaria. Não ganhou (infelizmente). the J. not won the lottery. not won regrettably ‘John didn’t win the lottery. Regrettably, he didn’t.’7 [A] a.

. Emphatic negative sentences are illustrated by (i) below, where only apparently the negative word não is repeated. See on this matter Footnote 25 below. (i)

[A] a.

O João ganhou a lotaria. the J. won the lottery ‘John won the lottery.’





Ana Maria Martins

.

V-to-T-to-Σ-to-C movement in EP emphatic verb reduplication

Having established that European Portuguese emphatic verb reduplication represents mono-sentential structures, I will now propose an analysis for such structures. Starting with emphatic affirmative answers to yes/no questions like (12b) below, verb reduplication is to be seen as an instance of phonetic realization of the two higher links of the verbal chain, as represented in (12c). (12)

[A] a.

[B] b.

c.

O João não comprou o carro, pois não? the J. not bought the car, pois NEG ‘John didn’t buy the car, did he?’ Comprou, comprou. bought, bought ‘Yes, he DID.’ [CP [C’ [C comproui] [ΣP [Σ’ comproui [TP [T’ comproui bought bought bought [VP NULL: (O João comprou o carro)] ] ] ] ] ] ] the J. bought a car

Emphatic answers in EP activate the domains of Σ and C. In affirmative emphatic answers C encodes emphatic features while Σ encodes [+aff] polarity features. Both functional heads are strong and need to be visible (thus lexicalized) at PF (cf. Section 1 above). The verb reduplication pattern is derived in EP with verb movement to Σ, followed by verb movement to C. As the verb copies in Σ and in C are both phonetically realized, the visibility requirement of the two strong functional heads is satisfied. The double phonetic realization of V is possible because the higher copy undergoes morphological reanalysis with C (resulting in a C0 category) and so becomes invisible to the LCA (see below for details). Verb movement to Σ generally licenses VP deletion in EP, as far as the appropriate discourse antecedent for VP deletion is available (cf. Martins 1994, Holmberg (forthcoming)). The null VP in (12c) contains the subject, which does not move to Spec,TP because T is not necessarily associated with an EPP feature in EP (see Costa 2003, Costa and Martins (2003, 2004).8 In turn, EP emphatic affirmative declaratives with verb reduplication have the structure represented in (13c).

[B] b.

O João não ganhou a lotaria, não. the J. not won the lottery no ‘John did NOT win the lottery.’

. EP preverbal subjects occupy Spec, ΣP and are interpreted as unmarked topics (cf. Martins 1994: 182).


(13)

[A] a.

b.

c.

Ele não comprou o carro. he not bought the car ‘He didn’t buy the car.’ Ele comprou o carro, comprou. He bought the car, bought ‘He did buy the car.’ [CP [ΣP ele comproui o carro]k [C’ [C comproui] [ΣP elej[Σ’ comproui he bought the car bought he bought [TP [T’ comproui [VP elej comproui o carro ] ] ] ] ]k ] ] bought he bought the car

Emphatic declaratives, like emphatic answers, activate the domains of Σ and C in EP. But in emphatic declaratives the clausal constituent is a Topic in the CP space. Sentences like (13) above are derived in EP with movement of V-to-T-to-Σ-to-C, followed by movement of the remnant ΣP to Spec, CP (or to the specifier position of a Top head).9 Again, the double phonetic realization of the verb is possible because there is morphological reanalysis in C. (For the details on how deletion of lower copies and linearization proceed, so that (13c) is spelled out as (13b), see Nunes (2004) and Bošković and Nunes (this volume)).10

. The two reviewers ask whether there is evidence for remnant movement to Spec, CP other than deriving the correct word order for emphatic declaratives with verb reduplication. I cannot offer clear independent evidence for such movement. However, the derivation proposed may account for the ungrammaticality of sentence (ib) below – to be contrasted with (ic) and (id) – which displays topicalization inside the larger constituent topicalized by remnant movement. Topicalization of ΣP in emphatic declaratives can be understood as a scope-out-of-focus strategy in order to leave in final position the constituent that expresses ‘reply/polarity focus’, in the terms of Holmberg (forthcoming). As for the relation between word order and informational focus assignment in EP, see Costa (1998). (i)

[A] a.

O bilhete do cinema, o João não pagou. the ticket of-the cinema the J. not paid ‘The cinema ticket, John didn’t pay.’ [B] b. *?O bilhete do cinema, o João pagou, pagou. the ticket of-the cinema the J. paid paid ‘The cinema ticket, John did pay.’ c. O João pagou o bilhete do cinema, pagou. the J. paid the ticket of-the cinema paid ‘John did pay the cinema ticket.’ d. (O João) pagou, pagou. the J. paid paid ‘John did pay.’

. Note that if morphological reanalysis had not taken place, the verbal copy in Σ would be deleted (as it is c-commanded by the verbal copy in C). Hence the constituent moved to Spec,





Ana Maria Martins

The proposed analysis of EP emphatic verb reduplication is in tune with the properties associated with such structures described in Section 2.1 above. The intonation pattern of verb reduplication sentences signals their mono-sentential nature. The incompatibility between emphatic verb reduplication and evidential adverbs can be understood admitting with Cinque (1999) that such adverbs belong in the “COMP space”. According to the analysis proposed herein, this is where the verb moves to in emphatic verb reduplication structures. So evidential adverbs and a COMP-moved verb may well compete for the same grammatical role, being alternative licensors for the emphatic features of C[+emph]. As for the exclusion of negation from emphatic verb reduplication structures, it is also expected under the approach taken in this paper. Because the negative head não (‘not’) has [+neg] features, it cannot be merged with a [+aff] Σ-head. If on the other hand não is merged with Σ[+neg], the strong property of the functional head is satisfied (as Σ is lexicalized through syntactic merger); therefore, verb movement to Σ is blocked. Verb movement to C, skipping the Σ position, is also excluded as it would violate the Head Movement Constraint (If the negative marker and the verb would form a complex head through incorporation and subsequently move to C, morphological reanalysis with C would not be permitted – see Section 4 below). Finally, the fact that verb sequences cannot be reduplicated (as a whole) also finds a straightforward explanation under the current analysis. Recall that in emphatic verb reduplication structures only the finite verb can surface twice, as illustrated by (14) and (15) below. Both the reduplication of the entire verbal sequence and the reduplication of the non-finite verb lead to ungrammaticality: (14)

Eu não estava cantando. I not was singing ‘I wasn’t singing.’ [B] b. Tu estavas cantando, estavas. you were singing were ‘Of course you were singing.’ c. *Tu estavas cantando, estavas cantando. you were singing were singing ‘Of course you were singing.’ d. *Tu estavas cantando, cantando. you were singing, singing ‘Of course you were singing.’ [A] a.

CP would not include the verb. Nunes (2004: 50–55) offers a representational approach to chain reduction that adequately deals with the linearization of chains created by remnant movement. Bošković and Nunes (this volume) alternatively propose a derivational approach to chain reduction which is also unproblematic with respect to remnant movement structures.


(15)

Ele não pode sair de casa. he not can leave-INF of house ‘He can’t go out.’ [B] b. Ele pode sair de casa, pode. he can leave-INF of house can ‘Of course he can go out.’ c. *Ele pode sair de casa, pode sair. he can leave of house can leave ‘Of course he can go out.’ d. *Ele pode sair de casa, sair. he can leave-INF of house, leave-INF ‘Of course he can go out.’

[A] a.

There are two types of analyses for verb sequences integrating a non-finite verb: either the two verbal heads are taken to occupy disjoint structural positions throughout the derivation (see for example Wurmbrand 2001) or they are taken to form a verbal complex through incorporation (see for example Roberts 1997). Under the former type of approach, the ungrammaticality of the (c) and (d) sentences above, in contrast to the (a) sentences, is expected because locality conditions prevent movement of the lower verbal head to C (in violation of the Head Movement Constraint); besides, once the higher verbal head moves to C, the strong property of the functional head (requiring that C be lexicalized) is satisfied, so further movement to C is blocked under general economy principles. Under the second type of approach, the morphological complexity of the head integrating the two verbs would not allow morphological reanalysis in C, thus preventing verb reduplication. The incompatibility between morphological complexity and morphological reanalysis will be the topic of Section 4 below. It should be noted, however, that under the incorporation approach the contrast between the (b) sentences and the (c)–(d) sentences in (14)–(15) above can only be explained if the (b) sentences are derived with excorporation of the finite verb that moves to C. A further property of emphatic verb reduplication, which was not mentioned in Section 2.1, is its root nature. As a matter of fact, because the derivation of both emphatic affirmative answers and emphatic affirmative declaratives involves verb movement to C, we expect it to be blocked in (finite) subordinate clauses where either the complementizer que ‘that’ is merged with C or C is lexicalized in some other way. The ungrammatical sentence (16c), to be contrasted with the well-formed (16b), shows that emphatic verb reduplication is actually restricted to root domains. (16)

[A] a.

Ele não ouve bem. he not hears well ‘He doesn’t hear well.’





Ana Maria Martins

[B] b.

Ele ouve bem, ouve. he hears well hears ‘He does hears well.’ c. *Eu sei que ele ouve bem, ouve. I know that he hears well hears ‘I know that he does hear well.’

Hence, in complex sentences the matrix verb can display reduplication (see (14b) below) while the embedded verb cannot (compare (17b) with (17c) below). (17)

Não sei se ele vem à festa. not know-1SG whether he comes to-the party ‘I don’t know whether he is coming to the party.’ [B] b. Sabes se/que ele vem à festa, sabes. know-2SG whether/that he comes to-the party know-2SG ‘You do know whether/that he is coming to the party’ c. *Sabes que ele vem à festa, vem. know-2SG that he comes to-the party comes ‘You know that he WILL come to the party.’ [A] a.

This root/subordinate contrast is reminiscent of the root/subordinate asymmetry found in (asymmetric) V2 languages and can be accounted in a similar way, crucially invoking verb movement to C (which subordinate clauses typically make unavailable).11 Before we proceed to the next section, it will be considered whether independent evidence can be offered to support the central claims of the proposed analysis, namely: (i) in EP emphatic verb reduplication sentences the verb moves to Σ and further moves to C; (ii) morphological reanalysis takes place in C (not in Σ). Castro and Costa (2002) show that in European Portuguese certain adverbs are heads, not maximal projections, and identify among them the temporal/aspectual já (‘already’). The interesting observation about já in relation to emphatic verb reduplication structures is that the presence of preverbal já in such structures actually blocks verb reduplication, as shown in (18) and (19) below. It is a matter of consensus that EP has V-to-I movement, so the verb generally moves to T.12 This much being

. As for infinitival subordinate clauses, either they are not CPs (having a more reduced structure) or they presumably have a deficient ‘Comp-spectrum’ which cannot encode emphatic polarity. . A reviewer asks whether I am departing from Costa (2003) and Costa & Martins (2003, 2004) who propose that the verb ends up in T in EP. In fact I am assuming that this is the general case. In minimal verbal answers to yes/no questions and in the type of emphatic affirmative sentences discussed in this paper, however, I take verb-movement to Σ to arise because in such cases Σ is the locus of ‘polarity-focus’ (cf. Holmberg (forthcoming)). Crucially, I am not assuming that


granted, the ungrammaticality of (18c) and (19c) can be thoroughly explained. In such sentences the adverbial head já blocks verb movement beyond T; thus the verb cannot reach the higher functional heads Σ and C, then undergo morphological reanalysis with C and be spelled-out twice.13 The availability of sentences like (18d) and (19d), where the adverb já is repeated, suggests that já can lexicalize C[+emph] and undergo morphological reanalysis with C. Given the Head Movement Constraint, this becomes the only available option whenever the head já is closer to C than the verb.14

verb movement to Σ is just a consequence of cyclic movement to C. If this were the case, Spanish would allow emphatic verb reduplication, against the facts (cf. Section 3). . Naturally, preverbal adverbs that are not heads do not block verb movement beyond T and are thus compatible with emphatic verb reduplication (see (ib) and (iib)). Accordingly, phrasal adverbs cannot be reduplicated in order to convey emphatic disagreement (see (ic) and (iic)). (i)

[A] a.

[B] b.

c.

(ii)

[A] a.

[B] b.

c.

O João nem sempre apoiou a Maria. the J. NEG always supported M. ‘John hasn’t always supported Mary.’ O João sempre apoiou a Maria, apoiou. the J. always supported Mary supported ‘Of course John has always supported Mary.’ *O João sempre apoiou a Maria, sempre. the J. always supported Mary always ‘Of course John has always supported Mary.’ O João não perdeu logo a paciência com a Maria. the J. not lost shortly the patience with the M. ‘John didn’t lose his patience with Mary shortly.’ O João cedo perdeu a paciência com a Maria, perdeu. the J. early lost the patience with the M. lost ‘John did soon lose his patience with Mary.’ *O João cedo perdeu a paciência com a Maria, cedo. the J. early lost the patience with the M. early ‘John did soon lose his patience with Mary.’

. A reviewer notes that a sentence like (ic) below with both the adverb já and the verb repeated is ungrammatical. The ungrammaticality of (ic) is to be accounted for in the same way as the ungrammaticality of emphatic sentences with reduplication of (a whole) verbal sequence, as discussed earlier on in this section. My thanks to the reviewer for calling my attention to this fact. (i)

[A] a.

[B] b.

O João ainda não saiu. the J. yet not left ‘John hasn’t left yet.’ O João já saiu, já. the J. already left already ‘Of course John has left already.’





Ana Maria Martins

(18)

O João ainda não saiu, pois não? the J. yet not left, pois NEG ‘John hasn’t left yet, has he?’ [B] b. Saiu, saiu. left left ‘Yes, he HAS.’ c. *Já saiu, saiu. already left left ‘Yes, he HAS.’ d. Já saiu, já. already left already ‘Yes, he HAS.’

(19)

[A] a.

[A] a.

A Maria ainda não se penteou. the M. yet not herself combed ‘Mary hasn’t combed herself yet, has she?’ [B] b. A Maria penteou-se, penteou. the M. already combed herself combed ‘Of course Mary has combed herself already.’ c. *A Maria já se penteou, penteou. the M. already herself combed combed ‘Of course Mary has combed herself already.’ d. A Maria já se penteou, já. the M. already herself combed already ‘Of course Mary has combed herself already.’

Because in the current work I will not go into establishing what the exact position of the adverb já is in the functional structure of the clause, it remains undecided whether the adverbial head já precisely blocks verb movement to Σ or verb movement to C. In turn, the unavailability of verb reduplication in negative sentences can be seen as a by-product of the unavailability of verb movement to C in negative sentences as the negative head não (‘not’) merged in Σ blocks it. Some indirect evidence for verb movement to C in emphatic verb reduplication sentences is also worth being discussed. Comparative evidence obtained by contrasting European Portuguese with Brazilian Portuguese will be presented in Section 3 below. A second type of indirect evidence can be offered by comparing different strategies to syntactically express emphatic affirmation in European Portuguese. Besides verb reduplication sentences, we find in EP emphatic affirmative sentences where

c. *O João já saiu, já saiu. [with rising intonation] the J. already left already left ‘Of course John has left already.’


the affirmative word sim or the confirmative word pois appear to be the correlate of the rightward verbal copy in verb reduplication sentences, as illustrated in (20): (20)

[A] a.

[B] b.

c.

d.

O João não comprou um carro. the J. not bought a car ‘John didn’t buy a car.’ O João comprou um carro, comprou. the J. bought a car bought ‘John did buy a car.’ O João comprou um carro, sim. the J. bought a car SIM ‘John did buy a car.’ O João comprou um carro, pois. the J. bought a car POIS ‘John did buy a car.’

It seems sensible to analyse the different structures that syntactically express emphatic affirmation in a uniform way in what concerns the role played by the functional heads Σ and C. Under this perspective, variation between EP emphatic affirmative structures (as illustrated in (20)) essentially reduces to how each one of the heads Σ and C satisfies its PF visibility requirement (this ultimately being a consequence of what Numeration is chosen).15 Martins (2006) shows that the EP affirmative word sim is a (phrasal) adverb and adjoins to ΣP (see also Footnote 21). Let us admit that the confirmative word pois is also an adjunct to ΣP. Under the stated premises, we expect that in emphatic affirmative sentences the verb surfaces to the left of sim or pois as movement to the C space will be necessary in order for C[+emph] to be lexicalized (cf. Section 3 below), whereas in non-emphatic affirmative sentences the verb appears to the right of the relevant adverbial words. This prediction is born out as attested by the data in (21) to (24) below. Example (21) shows that when a neutral affirmative answer to a yes/no question includes the affirmative word sim and the verb, the verb follows the affirmative word. In contrast, an emphatic affirmative answer displays the inverse order, with the verb preceding

. A reviewer asks: “Given that merging is more economical and oftentimes “preferred” over moving (. . .), and given that Σ and C host independently merged vocabulary items such as complementizers and polarity words like sim ‘yes’), why does the grammar go to great lengths to both move the verb into the peripheral positions and spell-out multiple chain links when it could have simply met the PF visibility requirements by two applications of Merge?”. The point is well taken but we must bear in mind that sentences built from different Numerations are not comparable on the grounds of economy principles. Moreover, it is not obvious that any “word” that can be merged with, say, C is compatible with the particular feature matrice of C in emphatic affirmative sentences.





Ana Maria Martins

the affirmative word (see (22) below). In a parallel manner, when the confirmative word pois is included in a sentence that expresses agreement with a preceding assertion, the verb follows the confirmative word (see (23) below); but when a sentence with pois conveys emphatic disagreement, the verb surfaces before pois (see (24) below).16 (21)

[A] a.

[B] b.

c.

(22)

[A] a.

[B] b.

(23)

[A] a.

[B] b.

(24)

[A] a.

[B] b.

O João comprou um carro? the J. bought a car ‘Did John buy a car?’ Comprou. Bought ‘Yes.’ Sim, comprou. SIM bought ‘Yes.’ O João não comprou um carro, pois não? the J. not bought a car POIS  ‘John didn’t buy a car, did he?’ Comprou sim. bought SIM ‘Yes, he DID.’ O João comprou um carro. / O João não comprou um carro. the J. bought a car / the J. not bought a car ‘John bought a car.’ / ‘John didn’t buy a car.’ Pois comprou. / Pois não comprou. POIS bought. / POIS not bought. ‘In fact he did.’ / ‘In fact he didn’t.’ O João não comprou um carro. the J. not bought a car ‘John didn’t buy a car.’ Comprou pois. bought POIS ‘John did buy a car.’

. I take the word pois to be a confirmative not an affirmative word because it is compatible with negation (see (23b) above) and cannot constitute an affirmative answer to a yes/no question, in contrast with sim: (i)

[A] a.

O João comprou um carro? the J. bought a car

‘Did John buy a car?’ [B] b. *Pois. / Sim. ‘yes.’


Under the analysis put forth in this paper, verb reduplication in emphatic affirmative sentences is an effect of morphological reanalysis. It was also proposed that morphological reanalysis takes place in C. The reader may wonder at this point why C and not Σ. Comparing emphatic with neutral verbal answers in EP may be illuminating in this respect. I assume with Laka (1990) that in the Romance languages the single word that surfaces in minimal neutral answers to yes/no questions gives lexical content to Σ (cf. Footnote 12 above and Section 3 below). If this is so, the fact that verb reduplication is not allowed in neutral affirmative answers to yes/no questions, as illustrated in (25) below, offers fair evidence that Σ is not a locus of morphological reanalysis.17 (25)

O que é que te aconteceu?! Caíste outra vez? the what is that you-DAT happened fell-down-2SG other time ‘What happened to you?! Did you fall down again?’ [B] b. Caí. fell-1SG ‘Yes.’ c. *Caí, caí. [with rising intonation] fell-1SG fell-1SG ‘Yes.’

[A] a.

Further on, in Section 3, it will be shown that comparative evidence points in the same direction, because the unavailability of emphatic verb reduplication structures in Brazilian Portuguese, in contrast to European Portuguese, can be thoroughly accounted for as the effect of BP lacking verb-movement to C while permitting verb-movement to Σ. .

Fusion

Before proceeding to the next section some clarification on what is meant by morphological reanalysis and how it permits the phonetic realization of multiple copies of a chain is in order.

. I am especially thankful to one of the reviewers for making me aware of this argument. By the same token, the hypothesis that morphological reanalysis might occur in some other lower position is also excluded. As it is not impossible to give an emphatic answer to a neutral yes/no question, the ungrammaticality of an answer with verb reduplication is only clear when the pragmatic context does not support/rescue an emphatic answer. Note that a verb reduplication answer is completely out in the context of an implicit yes/no question. Suppose that after a phone conversation between A and B, C asks B: então? (‘so?’, meaning ‘did A accept our proposal?’); in this context B can answer: aceitou (accepted – ‘yes’), but crucially not *aceitou, aceitou (accepted, accepted – ‘yes’).





Ana Maria Martins

Nunes (2001, 2004) shows that linearization, the operation that converts the hierarchical structure received from Syntax into a string (of linearly ordered units) at Morphology, cannot apply if copies created by movement are not appropriately dealt with. The LCA (Kayne 1994) derives precedence relations from asymmetric c-command. The problem with a structure that includes several copies of the same item of the initial array that feeds a derivation is that such copies are non-distinct elements for the purposes of linearization (see Chomsky 1995). If the LCA applies on a structure with all copies of moved items preserved, linearization will not be achieved. The reason for such failure is that when one item is represented by several nondistinct instantiations scattered over the syntactic tree (i.e. the links of a non-trivial chain), the LCA derives the contradictory requirement that such item precedes and is preceded by itself (as it c-commands and is c-commanded by itself). In order to avoid such dead end, an operation of copy deletion applies in an optimal way (according to economy considerations; see Nunes 2001, 2004) so as to leave a single link of a non-trivial chain visible for linearization according to the LCA.18 The operation of copy deletion conceived by Nunes is Chain Reduction: “Delete the minimal number of constituents of a nontrivial chain CH that suffices for CH to be mapped into a linear order in accordance with the LCA” (Nunes 2004: 27). Although Chain Reduction in the default case deletes all but one link of the chain, morphological reanalysis may exempt a (former) constituent of a nontrivial chain from Chain Reduction and the LCA, with the consequence that more than one copy of a moved item will end up phonologically realized. Nunes (2001, 2004) takes morphological reanalysis to be specifically fusion as defined by Halle and Marantz (1993), i.e. an operation that takes two sister terminal heads under a single category node and fuses them into a single terminal node. Within the Distributed Morphology (DM) model of grammar, fusion takes place before linearization, which is imposed by Vocabulary Insertion (a late operation according to DM assumptions). Therefore fusion applies at a point in a derivation when the hierarchical structure inherited from syntax is still preserved. Being an operation of the morphological component, however, fusion derives a syntactically opaque object. Syntactic opacity means that the subconstituents of the fused head are no longer accessible to syntax nor to operations rooted on syntactic structure such as the LCA. In the emphatic verb reduplication structures of EP, after fusion turns the C/Σ/T/Vcomplex-head into a syntactically opaque C0, the verb within C0 is in a sense no more a constituent of the verbal chain because a chain is a purely syntactic object. . The undeleted link is usually the head of the chain, but other possibilities exist under particular circumstances (see Nunes 2004, Bošković and Nunes (this volume)).


.

Comparative support for the analysis: contrasting EP with Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese

In this section it will be shown that languages lacking V movement to Σ or V movement to C disallow emphatic verb reduplication and resort to alternative strategies to express emphatic affirmation. I take this as evidence supporting the analysis put forward in Section 2.2 above in order to account for the EP data. I will first consider Spanish; then, Brazilian Portuguese. Differently from EP, Spanish does not allow verbal affirmative answers to yes/no questions, as illustrated by (26b). Spanish necessarily resorts to the affirmative word sí to express a minimal positive answer in the relevant context. A similar strategy can be used in EP, as (26c) shows, although it is not, in general, the preferred option. (26)

[A] a. ¿Fue a Roma Juan? (Spanish) / O João foi a Roma? (EP) went to Rome J. the J. went to Rome ‘Did John go to Rome?’ [B] b. *Fue. (Spanish) / Foi. (EP) went-3g ‘Yes.’ c. Sí (Spanish) / Sim (EP)   ‘Yes.’

If we take the single word that surfaces in minimal answers to yes/no questions to give phonological content to the polarity encoding head Σ, the contrast between Spanish and Portuguese can be interpreted as evidence that Portuguese has verb movement to Σ but Spanish does not (cf. Laka 1990; Martins 1994).19 Now, under the assumption that verb movement to Σ is unavailable in Spanish, the analysis of the EP verb reduplication structures given above correctly predicts that such structures are blocked in Spanish: (27)

[A] a.

Juan no fue a Roma. J. not went to Rome ‘John didn’t go to Rome.’ [B] b. *Juan fue a Roma, fue. (Spanish) J. went to Rome went ‘John did go to Rome.’

. In Martins (1994) some empirical contrasts between European Portuguese and Spanish are derived from the availability/unavailability of verb movement to Σ in these languages. The issues in point are clitic placement in finite clauses and VP-ellipsis.





Ana Maria Martins

c.

O João foi a Roma, foi. (EP) the J. went to Rome went ‘John did go to Rome.’

In order to syntactically express emphatic affirmation Spanish displays the sí (que) (‘AFF-that’) strategy exemplified in (28) below. The Spanish data fall right into place if we take Spanish and EP to be similar in activating the strong functional heads Σ and C in order to express emphatic affirmation. Because the verb cannot move into Σ in Spanish, it is the affirmative word sí that merges with Σ, giving it phonological content. The head Σ, incorporating sí, moves then to C. As for C, which encodes emphatic features, it has the option of being phonologically null (in which case sentences like (28b) are derived) or to be phonologically realized (originating sentences like (28c)).20 That sí in Spanish and the verb in EP play a similar role in expressing emphatic affirmation is made clear by Spanish sentences like (28d). Although slightly marginal, a pattern with sí reduplication parallels the EP verb reduplication structures (personal communication of Ricardo Etxeparre, whom I am thankful to).21

. The fact that C is given independent phonological content appears to be the effect of sí having a clitic nature. So when C is not realized by que (that), sí presumably cliticizes to the verb. Empirical evidence supporting this hypothesis is given in (i) below: while in the sentences where que is absent, sí needs to be strictly adjacent to the verb (compare (ia) with (ib)), this is not the case when sí left-adjoins to que (compare (ia) with (ic)). (i)

a. *Sí los jueves cena aqui. AFF the Thursdays dines here ‘He does dine here on Thursdays.’ b. Sí cena los jueves aqui. AFF dines the Thursdays here ‘He does dine here on Thursdays.’ c. Sí que los jueves cena aqui. AFF that the Thursdays dines here ‘He does dine here on Thursdays.’

A reviewer asks “why would sí raise to C when que is overtly realized”. The reason is presumably that que (‘that’) is unable to ‘satisfy’ the emphatic feature of C. . The sí (que) strategy is not allowed in EP because in EP the affirmative word sim is not a head, thus it cannot merge with Σ. This is shown by the fact that EP sim cannot constitute an affirmative answer to a negative question (see Example (i)) in contrast to Spanish sí (see Example (ii)). Moreover, in Portuguese the affirmative word sim cannot be used to positively answer to an embedded question, again differently from Spanish (compare Example (iii) with Example (iv)). In minimal affirmative answers to yes/no questions, EP sim is presumably adjoined to ΣP and licenses a null IP whose content is recovered from the preceding yes/no question – cf. Holmberg (forthcoming), Martins (2006).


(28)

[A] a.

Juan no fue a Roma. J. not went to Rome ‘John didn’t go to Rome.’ [B] b. Juan sí fue a Roma. (Spanish) J.  went to Rome ‘John did go to Rome.’ c. Juan sí que fue a Roma. (Spanish) J.  that went to Rome ‘John did go to Rome.’ d. ?Juan sí que sí fue a Roma. (Spanish) J.  that  went to Rome ‘John did go to Rome.’

We will now look at Brazilian Portuguese (BP), which like Spanish does not permit emphatic verb reduplication structures. Nevertheless, BP displays like EP

(i) a.

Portuguese: O João hoje não vai ao cinema? the J. today not goes to-the movies ‘Does J. happen not to go to the movies today?’ b. *Sim. (AFF) ‘Yes, he is going to the movies.’ c. Vai. (goes) ‘Yes, he is going to the movies.’

(ii) a.

b. (iii) a.

b. c. (iv) a.

b.

Spanish: No va a ir al cine hoy Juan? not go to go to-the movies today J. ‘Does J. happen not to go to the movies today?’ Sí. (AFF) ‘Yes, he is going to the movies.’ Portuguese: Sabes se o João foi à festa? know-2SG if the J. went to-the party ‘Do you know if J. went to the party?’ Sim. (AFF) ‘Yes, I know.’ [Unavailable interpretation: * ‘Yes, he did.’] Foi. (went) ‘Yes, he did.’ Spanish: Sabes si Juan fue a la fiesta? know-2SG if J. went to the party Do you know if J. went to the party?’ Sí. (AFF) ‘Yes, I know.’ / ‘Yes, he did.’



 Ana Maria Martins

non-emphatic verbal answers to yes/no questions. So the data in (29) and (30) show that the availability of verbal (minimal) answers to yes/no questions does not necessarily correlate with the availability of the verb reduplication strategy. BP allows the former (see (29)) but disallows the latter (see (30)). (29)

[A] a.

[B] b.

(30)

[A] a.

O João comprou um carro? the J. bought a car ‘Did John buy a car?’ Comprou. (BP and EP) bought ‘Yes.’ O João não comprou um carro.

the J. not bought a car ‘John didn’t buy a car.’ [B] b. *O João comprou um carro, comprou. (BP) the J. bought a car bought ‘John did buy a car.’ c. O João comprou um carro, comprou. (EP) the J. bought a car bought ‘John did buy a car’

Among Brazilian linguists, it is consensually assumed that BP lacks verb movement to C (Kato and Roberts (1996), Kato (2004), among others). Since according to our analysis verb movement to C is a crucial step in the derivation of the EP verb reduplication structures, the unavailability of such structures in BP is correctly predicted. Putting together the Spanish and the BP facts, the proposed analysis is neatly supported: Spanish which has verb movement to C (see Torrego (1984), among others) but not verb movement to Σ fails to derive the EP type verb reduplication sentences. BP which has verb movement to Σ (cf. (29)) but not verb movement to C fails to do it as well. Therefore the central role of the two functional heads Σ and C in making available the syntactic expression of emphatic affirmation through verb reduplication receives confirmation. The absence of verb movement to C in BP is the source for the word order facts illustrated by (31) to (34) below. In contrast with EP, BP systematically disallows subject-verb inversion when the order VS is the outcome of verb movement to C. This is the case of root interrogatives (see (31) and cf. Ambar 1992, Kato 2004), of gerund clauses (see (32) and cf. Ambar 1992, Britto 1998, Lobo 2003), of root conditional or futures interrogatives with a wonder interpretation (see (33) and cf. Ambar 1992), and of root subjunctives like (34), which are just unattested in BP. (31)

a.

Quem disse a Maria que telefonou? who said the M. that called ‘Who did Mary tell that called?’

EP: OK / BP: *

Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation 

(32)

b.

Quem a Maria disse que telefonou? who the M. said that called ‘Who did Mary tell that called?’

EP: * / BP: OK

a.

Telefonando a Maria, saímos para jantar. calling the M. leave-1 for dinner ‘As soon as Mary calls, we will go out for dinner.’ A Maria telefonando, saímos para jantar. the M. calling leave-1 for dinner ‘As soon as Mary calls, we will go out for dinner.’

EP: OK / BP: *

b.

(33)

a.

b.

(34)

Teria/terá o João encontrado as chaves? woud-have/will-have the J. found the keys ‘I wonder whether J. could find his keys.’ O João teria/terá encontrado as chaves? the J. would-have/will-have found the keys ‘I wonder whether J. could find his keys.’

EP: * / BP: OK

EP: OK; BP: *

EP: OK; BP: OK

Soubesse o rato as intenções do gato EP: OK; BP:* know---3 the mouse the intentions of the cat e teria escapado. and would-have escaped ‘If the mouse knew the intentions of the cat, it would have escaped.’

The loss of verb movement to C in BP is one of the diachronic episodes that set BP and EP in divergent paths. Having lost verb movement to C, BP lost concomitantly the kind of VS order attested in (31) to (34) above and the option for emphatic verb reduplication. Hence BP resorts to a different strategy in order to create structures expressing emphatic affirmation. Sentence (35) below illustrates the V-sim (V-) pattern of emphatic affirmation which is found in BP. Sentence (35) is also a grammatical option in EP (cf. Example (20) above). (35)

[A] a.

[B] b.

Ele não comprou o carro, pois não? (EP) / comprou? (BP)22 bought he not bought the car pois NEG ‘He didn’t buy the car, did he?’ Comprou sim. (EP and BP) bought  ‘Yes, he DID’

Emphatic affirmative answers and emphatic declaratives with the affirmative word sim as the rightmost constituent are found in EP and BP as well. So the fact that Brazilian Portuguese lacks verb movement to C does not prevent this type of

. The tag part of a negative tag question is constituted by pois não (confirmative word + negative marker) in EP but not in BP, which displays instead a bare verb tag.

 Ana Maria Martins

sentences from being successfully derived. Emphatic declaratives, like emphatic answers, activate the domains of Σ and C. Sentences like (36b) below are derived with verb movement to Σ followed by movement of ΣP to Spec, CP, thus satisfying the requirement of making the strong C head visible.23 Sim is merged in the ΣP domain as an adjunct to ΣP. Σ merges with C post-syntactically.24 Sentences like (36b) below have the same structure in EP and BP as they do not involve verb movement to C (cf. (36c)).25

. The visibility requirement of emphatic C either is satisfied by head movement (i.e. V-to-Tto-Σ-to-C) or by XP movement (i.e. movement of ΣP to Spec, CP). . I take this operation to be necessary because in emphatic affirmation structures the polarity features of Σ and the emphatic features of C need to be paired under C. . Emphatic negative sentences like (ib) below display a parallel structure (except for verb movement to Σ, since in negative sentences the negation marker não is merged in Σ): (i)

[A] a.

[B] b.

c.

O João comprou um carro. the J. bought a car ‘John bought a car.’ O João não comprou um carro, não. the J. not bought a car no ‘John did NOT buy a car.’ [CP [ΣP o João não comproui um carro]K [C’ [ΣP não [ΣP o joãoj [Σ’ não [TP the J. not bought a car no the J. not [T’ comproui [VP o Joãoj comproui um carro ] ] ] ] ]K ] ] bought the J. bought a car

Sentence (i), which is grammatical in EP and BP, only apparently involves repetition of the same negation marker. In fact, Portuguese (both EP and BP) has two homophonous words não, one of them can occur in isolation while the other is strictly preverbal (only clitics being allowed to disrupt its adjacency with the verb). These two não co-occur in non-minimal negative answers to yes/no questions, as illustrated in (iic): (ii)

[A] a.

[B] b. c.

O João comprou um carro? the J. bought a car ‘Did J. buy a car?’ Não. no Não, não comprou. no not bought ‘No, he didn’t.’

Because the derivation of sentences like (ib) above does not involve verb movement to C, they are a grammatical option in BP.

Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation 

(36)

[A] a.

[B] b.

c.

Ele não comprou o carro. he not bought the car ‘He didn’t buy the car.’ Ele comprou o carro, sim. (EP and BP) he bought the car  ‘He did buy the car.’ [CP [ΣP ele comproui o carro]K [C’ [ΣP sim [ΣP elej [Σ’ comproui he bought the car  he bought [TP [T’ comproui [VP elej comproui o carro ] ] ] ] ]K ] ]26 bought he bought the car

Affirmative emphatic answers with the ‘V-sim’ pattern, like (35b) above, are presumably derived just in the same way as emphatic declaratives, but the clausal constituent integrates a null subject and a null VP and so only the verb ends up spelled out (within the clausal constituent).27 In the next section we are going to see that the EP emphatic verb reduplication sentences are subject to some morphological restrictions. This is not surprising because morphological reanalysis (i.e. fusion) is sensitive to morphological complexity (see Nunes 2001, 2004). Since the derivation of the V-sim sentences does not involve morphological reanalysis it is expected that these sentences contrast with the verb reduplication ones by being immune to the effects of morphological complexity. The contrasts to be witnessed strengthen the case for the perspective that fusion is what sets the stage for the phonological expression of multiple copies of a chain.

.

Restrictions to the verb reduplication pattern in European Portuguese

In this section I will take as a diagnosis test to identify the operation of fusion the existence of morphological restrictions on the structures it contributes to. I will be following the insights of Nunes (2004) who shows that morphological reanalysis (interpreted as fusion in the terms of Halle and Marantz (1993)) may be blocked when complex heads are involved. This ‘blocking effect’ is gradual: the more complex the heads, the more constrained the availability of morphological reanalysis. If the analysis proposed for verb reduplication structures in EP is on the right track, we expect to find restrictions on the grammaticality of such structures in . I take the polarity projection ΣP to be the topmost category of the IP space. A similar view can be found in Holmberg (forthcoming). . Note that in BP (like in EP) both VP-ellipsis and null subjects are licensed in answers to yes/no questions. On the restricted availability of null subjects in BP, see Kato and Negrão (2000) among others.

 Ana Maria Martins

EP. This is in fact the case as compounds, future/conditional forms of the verb and verb-clitic sequences witness. I will leave at an intuitive level the notion of ‘morphological complexity’ and will not have any insight to offer on why morphological complexity hampers and eventually blocks fusion. .

Compound verbs and verbs with stressed prefixes

Compound verbs like fotocopiar ‘photocopy’, radiografar ‘radiograph’, manuscrever ‘handwrite’, maniatar “hand-tie”, bendizer “well-say”, maldizer “bad-say”, maltratar “bad-treat”, and verbs derived with stressed prefixes such as contra (e.g. contraatacar ‘counter-attack’), super (e.g. super-enfatizar “super-emphasize”), pré (e.g. pré-inscrever ‘pre-register’), pós (e.g. pós-graduar ‘post-graduate’), make verb reduplication awkward. Both the adverb-like constituent present in the relevant compounds and the stressed prefixes are modifiers that left-adjoin to a word (not to the verbal root), giving rise to a complex prosodic word, i.e. a word with two word stress domains.28 Adjunct modifiers are non-category changing entities as they do not project category features. (See Villalva 2000, Vigário 2003, Newell 2004). Examples (37) to (40) below show that verbs with stressed prefixes and compound verbs make morphological reanalysis less smooth although still possible.29 Sentences (37b) and (39b) illustrate verb reduplication with the ‘simple’ verbs copiar ‘copy’ and atacar ‘attack’. Contrasting with the sentences with ‘simple’ verbs, sentences (38b) and (40b) show how the complex verbs fotocopiar ‘photocopy’ and contraatacar ‘counter-attack’ make verb reduplication marginal. So adding an adjunct modifier to a ‘simple’ verbal form increases morphological complexity in as much as hampering fusion. (37)

[A] a.

Ele não copiou o livro sem autorização, pois não? he not copied the book without permission, POIS  ‘He didn’t copy the book without your permission, did he’?

. Stressed prefixes can be coordinated (e.g. Os contra e os anti-terroristas “the contra and the anti-terrorists”) and can appear in isolation (e.g. – São contra-terroristas ou anti-terroristas? – Contra – Are they contra-terrorists or anti-terrorists? – “[They are] contra.”). . Note that verbs with four syllables (e.g. comemorar ‘commemorate’, considerar ‘consider’, contaminar ‘contaminate’, incentivar ‘encourage’, incrementar ‘develop’) which are neither compounds nor prefixed forms (thus not complex prosodic words either) do not have the same effect: (i)

[A] a.

[B] b.

Os pesticidas não contaminaram a água. the pesticides not contaminated the water ‘The pesticides did not contaminate the water.’ Contaminaram, contaminaram. contaminated contaminated ‘Of course they did.’

Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation 

[B] b.

Copiou, copiou. copied, copied ‘Yes, he DID.’

(38)

Ele não fotocopiou o livro sem autorização, pois não? he not photocopied the book without permission, POIS  ‘He didn’t copy the book without your permission, did he?’ [B] b. ??fotocopiou, fotocopiou. photocopied, photocopied ‘Yes, he DID.’

(39)

[A] a.

[A] a.

[B] b.

(40)

Ele não atacou o candidato, pois não? he not attacked the candidate POIS  ‘He didn’t attack the candidate, did he?’ Atacou, atacou. attacked, attacked ‘Yes, he DID.’

O candidato não contra-atacou, pois não? the candidate not counter-attacked, POIS  ‘The candidate didn’t counter-attack, did he?’ [B] b. ??Contra-atacou, contra-atacou. counter-attacked, counter-attacked ‘Yes, he DID.’ [A] a.

That the uneasiness of fusion with compound or compound-like verbs is what is causing the marginality of the emphatic answers with verb reduplication is made clear when we compare them with a different type of emphatic answers (without verb reduplication). Recall that EP has the option to syntactically express emphatic affirmation by resorting to the V-sim (V-) strategy (cf. Sections 2.2 and 3 above). Differently from the verb reduplication sentences, the V-sim sentences do not involve fusion (so only one copy of the verb surfaces). Thus, as expected under the hypothesis we are adopting, the V-sim emphatic declaratives in (41b) and (42b) are perfectly grammatical, in contrast to (41c) and (42c) which are a by-product of fusion. (41)

Ele não fotocopiou o livro sem a tua autorização, pois não? he not photocopied the book without your permission, POIS  ‘He didn’t photocopy the book without your permission, did he?’ [B] b. Fotocopiou sim. photocopied  ‘Yes, he DID.’ c. ??Fotocopiou, fotocopiou. photocopied, photocopied ‘Yes, he DID.’

[A] a.

 Ana Maria Martins

(42)

.

O candidato não contra-atacou, pois não? the candidate not counter-attacked, POIS  ‘The candidate didn’t counter-attack, did he?’ [B] b. Contra-atacou sim. contra-attacked  ‘Yes, he DID.’ c. ??Contra-atacou, contra-atacou. contra-attacked, counter-attacked ‘Yes, he DID.’ [A] a.

Futures and conditionals

Future and conditional forms have a similar effect on verb reduplication sentences as compound and compound-like verbs. EP futures and conditionals are the only verbal forms that allow mesoclisis, which indicates that futures and conditionals have a particular morphological structure among verbal forms.30 As illustrated in (43a) and (43c) clitics are in general enclitics in matrix clauses in EP, surfacing adjacent to the right edge of the verbal form, that is, right-adjacent to the agreement morphemes. When a future or conditional form of the verb occurs in a matrix clause, however, the clitic surfaces preceding the sequence formed by the tense morpheme (present or past) plus the agreement morpheme (see (43b) and (43d)). (43)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Ele ataca-o se puder. He attack---him if can ‘He will attack him if he can.’ Ele atacá-lo-á se puder. he attack-him-will/[T(present)+Agr morphemes] if can ‘He will attack him if he can.’ Ele atacava-o se pudesse. he attack---him if could ‘He would attack him if he could.’ Ele atacá-lo-ia se pudesse. He attack-him-will/[T(past)+Agr morphemes] if could ‘He would attack him if he could.’

Having in mind the availability of mesoclisis in EP, Roberts (1992) and Roberts and Roussou (2002, 2003) analyse the EP futures and conditionals as verbal strings made of the infinitival form of a main verb plus a present or past form of the auxiliary haver ‘have’. The unusual order displayed by the verbal string, with the

. Vigário (2003) shows that verbal units that host a mesoclitic pronoun are complex prosodic words (with two word stress domains) like compound verbs and verbs with stressed prefixes.

Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation 

main verb preceding the auxiliary, is attributed to the clitic nature of the auxiliary (which induces verb movement in order to allow the clitic-auxiliary to encliticize). An analysis in the same vein is proposed by Duarte and Matos (2000), who take the finite form of have to be an affix-auxiliary instead of a clitic-auxiliary. A different approach to the morphology of future and conditional forms of the verb is offered by Arregi (2000) and Oltra-Massuet and Arregui (2005). According to their analysis, what makes future and conditional forms of the verb special is the fact that they (morphosyntactically) express a sequence of tenses, not a simple tense. Thus, the derivation of futures and conditionals implies an independent functional head FUT(ure) which combines in the course of the derivation with the T head. If T is [+present], a future form of the verb will be derived; if T is [+past] the conditional will emerge. Although Arregi (2000) and Oltra-Massuet and Arregi (2005) deal with Spanish, their analysis could be extended to Portuguese.31 I will leave undecided what analysis is to be preferred to account for EP futures and conditionals. For my purposes in the present context, it is enough to have shown that any of the available analyses describe future and conditional forms of the verbs as morphologically more complex than the other inflected verbal forms.32 The sentences in (44) to (47) below show that future and conditional forms of the verb are problematic in emphatic verb reduplication structures (see (44b) and (45b)) in contrast to the other forms of the verb (as exemplified with the present tense in (46b)). Sentence (47b) illustrates how emphatic declaratives without verb reduplication, that is, V-sim (V-) declaratives, are totally grammatical with futures and conditionals. The contrast between the reduplicative structure and the V-sim structure is expected because the marginality of the former (with futures and conditionals) is induced by fusion, which does not operate in the derivation of the latter. . Note that the fact that Spanish does not display mesoclisis is irrelevant because mesoclisis is just a variant of enclisis and Spanish does not allow enclisis in matrix clauses. Under the sequence of tenses analysis of futures and conditionals, what makes futures and conditionals peculiar with respect to clitics is that by integrating two tense nodes they make available an extra position for cliticization. Under this perspective, the difference between standard EP, which has mesoclisis with futures and conditionals, and the non-standard varieties of EP that have enclisis with future and conditional forms of the verb would be quite superficial. In standard EP a clitic would be able to intervene between the FUT and T(present/past) morphemes while the non-standard varieties require strict adjacency between FUT and T(present/past). As for BP, which does not allow mesoclisis, it is like Spanish in the sense that it also excludes enclisis from matrix clauses. . I will have to note however that the clitic-auxiliary analysis seems to be at odds with the empirical evidence to be discussed in the remainder of this section. In fact, while EP verb reduplication structures involving futures and conditionals displays a grammatical marginality similar to the marginality induced by compound and compound-like verbs, the presence of clitic pronouns in EP verb reduplication structures induces sharp ungrammaticality.

 Ana Maria Martins

(44)

Ele não atacará o candidato, pois não? he not attack-will the candidate POIS  ‘He will not attack the candidate, will he? [B] b. ??Atacará, atacará attack-will/[T+Agr morphemes], attack-will/[T+Agr morphemes] ‘Yes, he WILL.’

(45)

Ele não atacaria o candidato, pois não? he not attack-would the candidate POIS  ‘He would not attack the candidate, would he? [B] b. ??Atacaria, atacaria attack-would/[T+Agr morphemes], attack-would/[T+Agr morphemes] ‘Yes, he WOULD’

(46)

[A] a.

[A] a.

[A] a.

[B] b.

(47)

[A] a.

[B] b

Ele amanhã não ataca o candidato, pois não? he tomorrow not attack the candidate POIS  ‘He will not attack the candidate tomorrow, will he? Ataca, ataca attack--, attack-- ‘Yes, he WILL.’ Ele não atacará o candidato, pois não? he not attack-will the candidate POIS  ‘He will not attack the candidate, will he? Atacará sim attack-will/[T+Agr morphemes]  ‘Yes, he WILL’

Nunes (2004) shows that grammatical marginality increases in a gradual way as morphological complexity grows. Nunes’ observation is confirmed by the data we are discussing. As a matter of fact, when a compound or a compound-like verb displays future or conditional morphology, a cumulative effect arises with the result that the verb reduplication structure becomes ungrammatical. This is exemplified with the prefixed verb contra-atacar ‘counter-attack’ in (48), and with the compound verb fotocopiar ‘photocopy’ in (49). Sentences (48c) and (49c) show once more that the emphatic V-sim (V-) sentences, which do not involve fusion, are exempt from morphological restrictions (48)

O candidato não contra-atacará, pois não? the candidate not contra-attack-will POIS  ‘The candidate will not contra-attack, will he?’ [B] b. *Contra-atacará, contra-atacará. contra-attack-will/[T+Agr morphemes], contra-attack-will/[T+Agr] ‘Yes, he WILL.’ c. Contra-atacará sim. contra-attack-will/[T+Agr morphemes]  ‘Yes, he WILL.’ [A] a.

Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation 

(49)

.

Ele não fotocopiaria o livro sem a tua autorização, pois não? he not photocopy-would the book without your permission, POIS  ‘He wouldn’t photocopy the book without your permission, would he?’ [B] b. *Fotocopiaria, fotocopiaria. photocopy-would/[T+Agr morphemes], photocopy-would/[T+Agr] ‘Yes, he WOULD.’ c. Fotocopiaria sim. photocopy-would/[T+Agr morphemes]  ‘Yes, he WOULD.’ [A] a.

Verb plus clitic sequences

Romance clitics have long been the object of debate, but no consensual results have been achieved on the grammatical mechanisms behind their placement or on their categorial nature. As we will see to conclude this section, the sequences of verb plus enclitic are not allowed in the EP emphatic verb reduplication structure. The strong ungrammaticality brought by clitics to verb reduplication sentences contrasts with the grammatical marginality induced by compound and compoundlike verbs as well as by the future and conditional forms of the verb. It strongly suggests then that clitics are better characterized as minimal/maximal word-like entities (cf. Chomsky 1995) than as affix-like entities.33 The examples in (50) and (51) show that the presence of a single clitic or of a clitic cluster in emphatic sentences with verb reduplication makes the sentences ungrammatical. The grammatical sentences without clitics in (50b) and (51b) are

. The degree of ungrammaticality displayed by verb reduplication sentences with clitics is similar to the degree of ungrammaticality noticed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above with regard to verb reduplication sentences including verb sequences. I am assuming the Distributed Morphology definition of morphosyntactic word: “At the input to Morphology, a node X0 is (by definition) a morphosyntactic word (MWd) iff X0 is the highest segment of an X0 not contained in another X0. (. . .) A node X0 is a subword (SWd) if X0 is a terminal node and not a MWd” (Embick and Noyer (forthcoming)). Given the minimal/ maximal nature of clitics (in the terms of Chomsky 1995), syntactic cliticization may give rise to a phrasal constituent. There is a broad consensus about the fact that EP enclitics manifest a tighter relation with the verbal host than proclitics. So enclitics would actually form with the verb a morphological unit. This seems to go against the evidence we are discussing with respect to the interaction between clitics and verb reduplication sentences (since in these sentences clitics are necessarily enclitics). However, if we adopt an analysis of EP enclisis which derives it from proclisis configurations at a late stage in the Morphology component of grammar, everything falls into place. Such an analysis is proposed by Costa and Martins (2003, 2004), who view enclisis as the outcome of a morphological operation applying after linearization, that is, Local Dislocation merger with inversion (see Embick and Noyer 2001). This late operation naturally does not interact with fusion, which applies before linearization.

 Ana Maria Martins

to be contrasted with the ungrammatical ones in (50c) and (51c)–(51d), which include clitics. Example (50) illustrates emphatic declaratives; Example (51) shows emphatic answers to yes/no questions. Não lhe trouxeste o livro que ele te pediu. not him brought the book that he you- asked ‘You didn’t bring him the book that he asked you.’ [B] b. Eu trouxe-lhe o livro que ele me pediu, trouxe. I bought-him the book that he me asked, bought ‘Yes, I did bring him the book.’ c. *Eu trouxe-lhe o livro que ele me pediu, trouxe-lhe. I bought-him the book that he me asked, bought-him ‘Yes, I did bring him the book.’

(50)

[A] a.

(51)

[A] a.

Não me devolveste o livro que eu te emprestei, pois não? not me returned-2 the book that I you- lent, POIS  ‘You haven’t returned me the book I lent you, did you?’ [B] b Devolvi, devolvi. returned, returned ‘Yes, I DID.’ c. *Devolvi-te, devolvi-te. returned-you, returned-you ‘Yes, I DID.’ d. *Devolvi-to, devolvi-to. returned-you.it, returned-you.it ‘Yes, I DID.’

The presence of clitics in V-sim (V-) emphatic sentences does not induce ungrammaticality as expected, having in mind that fusion does not play a role in this case: (52)

[A] a.

[B] b.

Não me devolveste o livro que eu te emprestei, pois não? not me returned-2SG the book that I you- lent, POIS  ‘You haven’t returned me the book I lent you, did you?’ Devolvi-to sim. returned-you.it  ‘Yes, I DID.’

It is also relevant to observe that clitics are not excluded from non-emphatic answers to yes/no questions. Although answering with a bare verb, like in (53b), is more natural in EP than answering with a verb+clitic sequence, like in (53c), the two options are grammatical. This is again an expected result because the incompatibility between clitics and the kind of morphological reanalysis we are discussing is not at stake here. Neutral answers to yes/no questions are derived


with verb movement to Σ, without further movement to C.34 With respect to the structures studied in this paper, the functional head Σ is not the place where fusion operates.35 (53)

[A] a.

[B] b.

c.

.

Devolveste-me o livro que te emprestei? returned-2-me the book that you- lent-1 ‘Did you return me the book I lent you?’ Devolvi. returned ‘Yes.’ Devolvi-to. returned-you-it ‘Yes.’

Conclusion

This paper deals with sentences with verb reduplication that express emphatic affirmation. It was shown that the bulk of properties associated with such structures can be thoroughly understood if verb reduplication is interpreted as a case of double phonetic realization of copies of a chain. As far as the proposed analysis proves to be on the right track, it brings support to the copy theory of movement (see Chomsky 1995) and in particular to the insights on copy deletion and linearization (of non-trivial chains) offered by Nunes (2001, 2004). . A reviewer asks “why wouldn’t it be just V-to-C without fusion”. If this were the case, we would expect that neutral answers to yes/no questions could optionally display verb reduplication. This is not so as was shown in Section 2.2 above (see Example (25)). Moreover the inverse word order displayed by neutral affirmative answers vs. emphatic affirmative answers with sim (i.e. AFF-V vs. V-AFF) would remain unexplained (see Examples (21)–(22) in Section 2.2 above). As far as fusion is an optional operation, however, the analysis discussed in this paper predicts that bare verb emphatic answers to yes/no questions should be allowed in EP. Such sentences would be derived precisely with verb movement to C but no morphological reanalysis, therefore all but one link of the verb chain would be deleted. I believe that this type of derivation is in fact available in EP, with the result that the verb moved into emphatic C is necessarily associated with prosodic stress. The visibility requirement on the two strong heads C and Σ is not violated because V-movement to C implies that Σ incorporates in C forming with it a complex head. Prosodic stress appears to identify precisely this complex head (which associates emphatic and affirmative features) whenever Σ is not independently given phonological content. . Notice that if fusion in Σ were an available option, the emphatic verb reduplication sentences would be allowed in BP (with the copies of the verb in Σ and T phonologically realized). As discussed in Section 3 above, the verb reduplication structure is not part of BP grammar.



 Ana Maria Martins

The multiple-copy analysis of EP emphatic verb reduplication sentences appears to be more satisfactory than the right-adjunction analysis offered by Hagemeijer and Santos (2004) in different ways: (i) it matches better certain prosodic features of the relevant sentences, their root nature, and their incompatibility with verb sequences and negation (see Section 2); (ii) it can explain why the Romance languages without verb movement to C or without verb movement to the polarity encoding head Σ do not allow the syntactic expression of emphatic affirmation through verb reduplication (see Section 3); (iii) it correctly predicts the existence of morphological restrictions to the availability of the verb reduplication structure (see Section 4). According to the multiple-copy analysis, EP verb reduplication is a root phenomenon because it involves verb movement to C. Because EP sentences are derived with verb movement to Σ followed by verb movement to C, such sentences are not available in Brazilian Portuguese (which lacks verb movement to C) and Spanish (which disallows verb movement to Σ). The morphological restrictions on verb reduplication (observed with compound-verbs, future/conditional forms of the verb, and verb+clitic sequences) are a consequence of the uneasiness of fusion in dealing with morphological complexity. Fusion in C is what allows the double realization of verb copies. Since verb movement to C is an instance of head movement, the Head Movement Constraint derives the fact that negation blocks verb reduplication; it also derives the fact that in sentences with verb sequences, only the higher verbal head is allowed to move to C. (If verb sequences are instead analysed in terms of incorporation, the fact that verbal complexes cannot undergo emphatic reduplication is to be seen as the effect of morphological complexity, which blocks fusion. Similarly, incorporation between V and neg does not make ‘neg-V’ reduplication available). Last but not least, the inexistence of a prosodic break isolating the rightmost constituent (that is, the second phonological manifestation of the verb) is consistent with the contention that it is not a right adjunct.36 From the approach developed in this paper, it does not follow that crosslinguistically the languages with verb movement to C allow emphatic verb reduplication, nor does it follow that in the languages were verb reduplication is found . A further empirical argument against the right-adjunction analysis is offered by Galician. Under Hagemeijer and Santos (2004) approach, emphatic sentences with verb reduplication and V-sim (V-AFF) emphatic sentences have the same structure. Galician verbal answers (to yes/ no questions) including the affirmative word sim are illuminating in showing that right adjunction does not translate into an emphatic interpretation. As is exemplified in (i) below Galician cumulates the strategies found in European Portuguese to express emphatic affirmation with the strategy displayed by Spanish. (i)

[A] a.

Xuan no sabe destes assuntos. J. not knows of-these matters ‘John doesn’t know about these matters.’

Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation 

the verb moves to C. Firstly, different languages may resort to different functional categories to syntactically encode emphatic polarity. Kandybowicz (this volume), for example, derives emphatic verb reduplication in Nupe (a Niger-Congo language) from the workings of a ‘low’ functional head, Emph, which immediately dominates vP. Secondly, verb movement to C is not driven by some ‘across-theboard force’. The motivation for verb movement to C may vary across languages and across language-internal constructions. Hence, morphological reanalysis is not expected to be necessarily associated with verb movement to C. In the case under discussion, it is dependent on C having a certain featural content, encoding emphasis. Therefore, there is no reason to think, that V2 languages or VSO [B] b.

c.

d.

e.

Xuan sabe destes assuntos sabe. John knows of-these matters knows ‘John does know about these matters.’ Xuan sabe destes assuntos si. John knows of-these matters AFF ‘John does know about these matters.’ Xuan si sabe destes assuntos. John AFF knows of-these matters ‘John does know about these matters.’ Xuan si que sabe destes assuntos. John AFF that knows of-these matters

Verb-reduplication pattern

V-AFF

pattern

‘sí (que)’ pattern (without que)

‘sí (que)’ pattern (with que)

“John does know about these matters.” Galician si can be adverbial, like Portuguese sim, or a polarity-head, like Spanish sí, and thus adjoin to ΣP or merge with Σ. Moreover, Galician adverbial si can be a left-adjunct or a rightadjunct. In both cases it will be separated from the verb by a prosodic break and, crucially, will be associated with neutral answers to yes/no questions (contrast (ii) below with the sentences in (iii) where no pause intervenes between the verb and the affirmative word). The fact that when right-adjoined, Galician si expresses neutral affirmation (not emphatic affirmation) gives empirical evidence against a right-adjunction analysis of the EP emphatic affirmation structures (i.e. the verb reduplication structure and the V-AFF structure). Thanks to Rosario Álvarez for a thorough discussion of the Galician facts. (Cf. Álvarez and Xove (2002)). (ii)

(iii)

a. ¿E ti vas ir ó enterro? and you go to-go to-the funeral ‘Are you going to the funeral?’ b. Si, vou. / Vou, si. AFF [pause] go-1SG / go-1SG [pause] AFF ‘Yes, I am going.’ a. ¿E ti no vas ir ó enterro, no? and you not go to-go to-the funeral, no? ‘You are not going to the funeral, are you?’ b. Si vou. / Vou si. AFF go-1SG / go-1SG AFF ‘Of course I am going.’

NEUTRAL ANSWERS

EMPHATIC ANSWERS

 Ana Maria Martins

languages would necessarily display emphatic verb reduplication. Recall that even Spanish which has verb movement to C and resorts to C to codify emphatic polarity does not allow emphatic verb reduplication (see Section 3 above). Under the proposal put forth in this paper, only languages that display bare-verb affirmative answers to yes/no questions (which Spanish does not) permit emphatic verb reduplication. Bare-verb answers are taken to be an indicator that the language has verb movement to Σ independently motivated, not as a mere result of cyclic verb movement to C.37 As some VSO languages actually display bare-verb answers to yes/no questions, we may wonder whether the type of verb reduplication discussed in this paper appears in such languages. Welsh may well be a case in point: (54)

[A] a.

[B] b.

dw I ddim yn ddigon da. am I neg pred enough good ‘I’m not good enough.’ wyt, wyt ti ‘n ddigon da. are are you pred enough good ‘Yes, you’re good enough.’ (Example taken from Jones 1999: 125)

Lastly, emphatic verb reduplication may be morphological reduplication, not syntactic reduplication. In such cases it is expected to be dissociated from verb movement to the ‘high’ functional field. English is the kind of language we may want to look at. As a matter of fact, English permits sentences like (55a–b) below, although English lexical verbs do not overtly move to the Infl space (nor beyond). Also non-finite verbal forms can be reduplicated (see (55c–e)). (55)

a. b. c. d. e.

I can’t say I LIKE-like Mary. (Ghomeshi, Jackendoff, Rosen and Russell 2004: 326; thereinafter abbreviated as GJRR 2004) You mean CRIED-cried, or cried because something heavy fell on you? (GJRR 2004: 323) Are you LEAVING-leaving? (GJRR 2004: 312) No, I’m not LEAVING-leaving. (GJRR 2004: 323) But is hasn’t actually HAPPENED-happened yet . . . actually (GJRR 2004: 323)

Ghomeshi, Jackendoff, Rosen and Russell (2004) show that the reduplicated constituent in English does not have to be the verb (see (56) below) nor does it have to be a head. In fact some heads cannot be reduplicated (see (57) below). It can be a compound (see (58)) or a phrase, namely an idiom (OUT-OF_HER_MINDout-of-her-mind) or a combination of verb plus object pronoun(s) of variable . Presumably, in these languages verbal morphology includes phonologically unrealized polarity features. That’s why the verb competes with affirmative words in the answering system.

Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation 

complexity (see (59)). Besides, there is always adjacency between the two instances of the relevant constituent. These features of the English (contrastive focus) reduplication construction indicate that we are not dealing with an instance of fusion (thus morphological complexity is allowed), resulting in the phonetic realization of two copies of a chain (hence this type of reduplication cannot escape adjacency). (56)

a. b. c.

Felix: Tim! I’d be careful. That’s instant glue you’re using. Tim: It’s not like INSTANT-instant. (GJRR 2004: 336) We are not one of those COUPLE-couples. (GJRR 2004: 322) Lily: You have to get up Rick: I am up. Lily: I mean UP-up. (GJRR 2004: 312)

(57) *Are you sick, or ARE-are you sick? (GJRR 2004: 313) (58)

a. b. c. d.

You mean a BOYFRIEND-boyfriend? (GJRR 2004: 324) We have a FIREPLACE-fireplace in the living room. (GJRR 2004: 324) Oh, that’s BEACON-STREET-Beacon-Street. (GJRR 2004: 324) AIR-CANADA-Air-Canada or Canadian-Air Canada? (GJRR 2004: 324)

(59)

a.

. . . you mean though-about-it considered it or just CONSIDERED-ITconsidered-it (GJRR 2004: 321) Do I LIKE-YOU-like-you? No. You’re a little too neurotic for that. (GJRR 2004: 325) I mean, I know-him, but I don’t KNOW-HIM-know-him. (GJRR 2004: 325) I didn’t SLEEP-WITH-HER-sleep-with-her. (GJRR 2004: 326) Did you TALK-ABOUT-IT-talk-about-it, or did you just mention it? (GJRR 2004: 326) Well, he didn’t GIVE_IT_TO_ME-give-it-to-me (he only lent it to me). (GJRR 2004: 326)

b. c. d. e. f.

The English reduplication sentences exemplified above seem to be better analysed along the lines of Harris and Halle (2005), whose approach to reduplication is set within the Distributed Morphology framework: “Reduplication is a process of word formation whereby a designated contiguous subsequence of elements in a base form is repeated – that is, appears twice – in its entirety (“full reduplication”) or in part (“partial reduplication”) in a derived form. The process of repetition is triggered by some condition or set of conditions outside the reduplicated phonological sequence, as is the demarcation of this phonological substring. We present below an extended view of reduplication: not only phonological segments but syntactic and morphological elements as well can be both triggers and targets of reduplication. The abstract derivation in (4) displays the most elementary device in our formal apparatus – the only device needed for full reduplication – and its notation.

 Ana Maria Martins

(4)

 [] ---

underlying phonological string [X] = reduplicating subsequence result of reduplication

The subsequence to be reduplicated is delimited by a pair of junctures represented in (4) by paired square brackets. By its very nature, this notation guarantees that only contiguous elements are reduplicated: discontinuous sequences cannot be represented in this notation. In the overwhelming majority of cases, these brackets do no appear in the underlying phonological string itself but rather are supplied in accordance with readjustment rules that specify the relevant morphological condition(s). These brackets are unpronounceable and thus must be eliminated at some point from the phonological representation. We propose that they are automatically erased upon execution of the operation they notate since they are not referred to by any subsequent operation”. (Harris and Halle 2005: 198–199. Emphasis mine, A.M.M.) In opposition to what appears to be the English scenario with respect to contrastive focus reduplication (that is, morphological reduplication), EP emphatic affirmative sentences where the verb appears twice are instances of syntactic reduplication, meant as the phonetic realization of two chain links (a possibility anticipated by the copy-theory of movement).

References Álvarez, Rosario & Xove, Xosé. 2002. Gramática da lingua Galega. Vigo: Galaxia. Ambar, Manuela. 1992. Para uma sintaxe da inversão sujeito-verbo em Português. Lisboa: Colibri. Arregi, Karlos 2000. How the Spanish verb works. Paper delivered at the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, University of Florida, Gainesville, (handout available at: http://www.uiuc.edu/~karlos). Britto, Helena. 1998. Deslocamento à Esquerda, Resumptivo-Sujeito, Ordem SV e a Codificação Sintática de Juìzos Categórico e Tético no Português do Brasil. PhD Dissertation. Universidade Estadual de Campinas – UNICAMP. Castro, Ana & Costa, João. 2002. Possessivos e advérbios: Formas fracas como X0. In Actas do XIX Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, C. Nunes Correia & A. Gonçalves (eds), 101–111. Lisboa: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, Michael J. Kenstowicz (ed). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: OUP.

Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation  Costa, João 1998. Word order variation: A constraint-based approach. The Hague: HAG. Costa, João. 2003. Null vs. overt spec, TP in European Portuguese. In Romance languages and linguistic theory 2001: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’. Josep Quer, Jan Schroten, Mauro Scorretti, Petra Sleeman & Els Verheugd (eds.), 31–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Costa, João & Martins, Ana Maria 2003. Clitic placement across grammar components. Paper delivered at Going Romance 2003 (Seventeenth Conference on Romance Linguistics). Nijmegen. Costa, João & Martins, Ana Maria. 2004. What is a strong functional head? Paper delivered at Lisbon Workshop on Alternative Views on the Functional Domain. Lisbon. Duarte, Inês & Matos, Gabriela. 2000. Romance clitics and the minimalist program. In Portuguese syntax: New comparative studies, João Costa (ed.), 116–142. Oxford: OUP. Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595. Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. Forthcoming. Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds). Oxford: OUP. [Available at: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~embick/interface.pdf ]. Ghomeshi, Jila, Jackendoff, Ray, Rosen, Nicole & Russell, Kevin. 2004. Contrastive focus reduplication in English (The salad-salad paper). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 307–357. Hagemeijer, Tjerk & Santos, Ana Lúcia. 2004. Elementos polares na periferia direita. In Actas do XIX Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, C. Nunes Correia & A. Gonçalves (eds), 465–476. Lisboa: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds). 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Harris, James & Halle, Morris. 2005. Unexpected plural inflections in Spanish: Reduplication and metathesis. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 195–222. Jones, Bob Morris. 1999. The Welsh answering system. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Holmberg, Anders. Forthcoming. Null subjects and polarity focus. In Proceedings of NELS 35, University of Connecticut. Kato, Mary A. 2004. Dislocated and in-situ wh-questions in Brazilian Portuguese (BP). Paper delivered at Spring Linguistic Symposium. University of Santa Barbara. Kato, Mary & Negrão, Esmeralda (eds). 2000. Brazilian Portuguese and the null Subject parameter. Madrid & Frankfurt: Iberoamericana & Vervuert. Kato, Mary & Roberts, Ian (eds). 1996. Português Brasileiro: Uma viagem diacrônica. Campinas, São Paulo: Editora da UNICAMP. Kayne, Richard 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Laka, Itziar 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Lobo, Maria 2003. Aspectos da sintaxe das orações subordinadas adverbiais do Português. PhD Dissertation, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Martins, Ana Maria. 1994. Enclisis, VP-deletion and the nature of sigma. Probus 6: 173–205. Martins, Ana Maria. 2006. Emphatic affirmation and polarity: Contrasting European Portuguese with Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan and Galician. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004. Selected Papers from Going Romance 2004, Leiden, 9–11 December, Jenny Doetjes and Paz Gonzalez (eds), 197–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mateus, Maria Helena & d’Andrade, Ernesto. 2000. The phonology of Portuguese. Oxford: OUP. Newell, Heather 2004 A late adjunction solution to bracketing paradoxes. Poster delivered at NELS 35, University of Connecticut.

 Ana Maria Martins Nunes, Jairo. 2001 Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 303–344. Nunes, Jairo. 2004 Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Oltra-Massuet, Isabel & Arregi, Karlos. 2005. Stress-by-structure in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 43–84. Pope, Emily Norwood. 1976. Questions and answers in English. The Hague: Mouton. Roberts, Ian 1992. A formal account of grammaticalization in the history of Romance futures. Folia Linguistica Historica XIII/(1–2): 219–258. Roberts, Ian 1997. Restructuring, head movement, and locality. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 423–460. Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna. 2002. The history of the future. In Syntactic effects of morphological change, David W. Lightfoot (ed.), 23–56 . Oxford: OUP. Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Torrego, Esther 1984. On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 103–129. Vigário, Marina 2003. The prosodic word in European Portuguese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Villalva, Alina 2000. Estruturas morfológicas: Unidades e hierarquias nas palavras do Português. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian e Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia. Wurmbrand, Susanne 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1994. Re-examining negative clauses. In Paths towards universal grammar: Studies in honor of Richard Kayne, Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean.-Yves, Pollock, Luigi Rizzi and Rita Zanuttini (eds), 427–451. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and clausal structure: A comparative study of Romance languages. Oxford: OUP.

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out The case of verbal repetition* Jason Kandybowicz Swarthmore College

Focusing on the case of verbal repetition in Nupe, a Benue-Congo language spoken in central Nigeria, this chapter shows that verbal repetition constructions are mono-clausal syntactic objects in which the participating verbs are neither independently base-merged, as in the case of verb serialization for instance, nor are they related through reduplicative copying in the morphology/phonology. Rather, it is argued that these constructions involve chain formation and postsyntactic morphological reanalysis, which allows phonetic realization of multiple links/copies at PF. The chapter also adds some refinements to Nunes’s (1999, 2004) proposal on the interaction of the syntactic component with the PF wing of grammar as far as phonetic realization of multiple copies is concerned.

.

Introduction

The Copy theory of movement (Chomsky 1995a) receives strong empirical support from instances of displacement that leave behind phonetically detectable copies. This article discusses the consequences of one such phenomenon for the Minimalist conception of movement: the phenomenon of verbal repetition. A verbal * Thanks are due to a host of people. First and foremost, I would like to thank my consultants for the boundless hospitality and tireless assistance they provided me in Nigeria: Al-haji Usman Kawu, Abdul Kadir Kawu, Ahmadu Ndanusa Kawu, Suleiman Ilorin Kawu, Nnákó Kawu, Elizabeth Kolo, and Abubakar Bello Mohammed. Second, I want to acknowledge the guidance and inspiration of the following people: Mark Baker, Ed Keenan, Tim Stowell, and especially Hilda Koopman. This article has benefited considerably from discussions with the following individuals to whom I am also greatly indebted: Adam Albright, Enoch Aboh, Asaf Bachrach, Seth Cable, Annabel Cormack, Norbert Corver, David Embick, Danny Fox, Sun-Ah Jun, Michael Kenstowicz, Greg Kobele, Marcus Kracht, Tony Kroch, Chungmin Lee, Thomas Leu, Ying Lin, Anoop Mahajan, Alec Marantz, Kuniko Yasu Neilsen, Andrew Nevins, Jairo Nunes, Katya Pertsova, Norvin Richards, Carson Schütze, Neil Smith, Donca Steriade, Harold Torrence, and Colin Wilson. I would also like to thank the participants of the Copy Theory of Movement on the PF Side workshop at Utrecht University, the 29th and 30th Penn Linguistics Colloquia, and audiences at MIT, Swarthmore College, and UCLA, where parts of this material were presented. Thanks also to

 Jason Kandybowicz

repetition construction (VRC hereafter) is a string in which multiple discrete and segmentally non-distinct verbal occurrences surface within a single clause. These doubled occurrences are realized without the multiplication of the verb’s overt arguments or the mediation of coordination/subordination. VRCs are attested in a number of languages and encode a variety of meanings typically associated with functional projections above vP (e.g. polarity, emphasis, topic, and focus). Nonetheless, they are often overlooked in the descriptive and theoretical literature. The data below represent a small sampling. (1)

I. a.

b.

c.

Polarity-related VRC Nupe Musa è gi bise gi. Musa  eat hen eat ‘Musa IS eating the hen.’ European Portuguese (Martins this volume): O João comprou o carro, comprou. the John bought the car bought ‘John DID buy the car.’ Mandarin Chinese (Huang 1991): Ta xihuan bu xihuan zhe ben shu? he like not like this  book ‘Does he like this book (or not)?’

II. Emphatic VRCs d. Haitian (Harbour to appear): Lame a kraze kraze vil la. army the destroy destroy town the ‘The army really destroyed the town.’ e. English (Ghomeshi et. al 2004):1 I don’t just like her. I LIKE like her. cf. ‘I really like her.’

Norbert Corver and Jairo Nunes for valuable editorial remarks and contentful suggestions and finally to two very helpful and insightful anonymous reviewers. The research for this project was funded by a UCLA Lenart travel grant, which I also gratefully acknowledge. Unless otherwise indicated, the data in this article comes from fieldwork and reflects the dialect of Nupe spoken in Lafiagi. High tone is marked with an acute accent over the vowel and low tone is indicated by a grave accent. Mid tones are unmarked. . In English, it is possible to generate multiple copies of the verb along with the verb’s arguments (see Ghomeshi et al. 2004). (i)

I don’t just like her. I LIKE HER like her.

Thus, the mechanism of verbal repetition in English is flexible with respect to the quantity of syntactic material it can copy and thus differs from the other languages presented in (1). Furthermore, in certain dialects it is possible to double the auxiliary provided that the initial auxiliary element

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

III. Contrastive topic/focus VRCs f. Russian (Lee 2002): Maria pri-dti-to pri-shl-a. . . Maria come-dti- come-- ‘Maria CAME (but. . .)’ g. Hungarian (Lee 2002): Meg-erkez-ni meg-erkez-ett. . . V-arrive- V-arrive- ‘S/he ARRIVED (but. . .)’ h. Brazilian Sign Language (Nunes and Quadros 2004): I LOSE BOOK LOSE ‘I LOST the book (as opposed to say, sold it).’

Focusing on the case of verbal repetition in Nupe (cf. (1a)), a Benue-Congo language spoken in central Nigeria, we will demonstrate that VRCs are mono-clausal syntactic objects in which the participating verbs are neither independently basemerged, as in the case of verb serialization for instance, nor are they related through reduplicative copying. Rather, we will argue that VRCs involve chain formation and phonetic realization of multiple links at PF (i.e. multiple copy spell-out). The conceptual tools made available by both the Copy theory of movement and Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994) pave the way for a rigorous analysis of Nupe verbal repetition. In this article, we argue that unlike typical cases of movement, the derivation of a Nupe VRC includes a special post-syntactic operation that enables the phonetic realization of multiple copies of a Root morpheme in both the head and a lower intermediate position of a non-trivial chain. We follow Nunes (1999, 2004) in assuming that post-syntactic Morphological Reanalysis (interpreted as  in Distributed Morphology) allows for the linearization and subsequent spell-out of multiple chain links. Nonetheless, we present two motives for refining his analysis of chain linearization in its current state. One, the analysis crucially rests on the stipulation that fused chain links are invisible to the linearization algorithm (understood as the Linear Correspondence Axiom (Kayne 1994)). In response, a modification of Nunes’ system is proposed which eliminates this stipulation and instead appeals solely to the status of an n-tuple of is reduced and the two auxiliary copies are not string adjacent. The data below illustrate this fact (data from David Adger, personal communication to Jairo Nunes as cited in Nunes 2004: 170). (ii)

a. b. c. d.

%They might’ve not have left. *They might have not have left. *They might’ve have left. *They might have have left.

We draw attention to verbal repetition in English merely to highlight the existence of the phenomenon close to home, although it may turn out that verbal repetition in English does not involve the variety of syntactic copying proposed in this article (cf. Travis 2001).

 Jason Kandybowicz

chain links as distinct or non-distinct, notions that are conceptually necessary once the Copy theory of movement is assumed. We show that once this move is made, the previously mentioned stipulation can be derived. A second desideratum for revising Nunes’ framework is that the Fusion operation is ultimately empirically unmotivated. That is, there are currently no proposals on the table that seek to derive, constrain, and motivate the functions of the operation. Consequently, accounts of multiple copy spell-out that appeal solely to Fusion lose considerable explanatory force and thus fall short of principled explanation. In response to this state of affairs, we offer an account of the forces at work driving the operation, as illuminated by the Nupe VRC. We conclude that Fusion is triggered by purely phonological/prosodic requirements. Once all is said and done, these modifications allow for a principled account of Nupe VRCs, something that is anomalous under a Government-Binding style trace-theoretic approach to movement. The article thus provides empirical motivation for the Copy theory of movement, sheds light on the mechanics of Copy spell-out operations, and contributes to a refined understanding of the Fusion operation. The article unfolds as follows. Section two provides the reader with a brief introduction to Nupe syntax. In Section three, we provide a brief descriptive overview of the Nupe VRC and adduce evidence that it is a derived mono-clausal construction owing to syntactic non-reduplicative copying. Section four advances an analysis of the phenomenon and proposes the modifications to Nunes’ framework alluded to above. The article concludes in Section five with a brief summary and some closing remarks.

.

Brief overview of Nupe syntax

Here we consider only those aspects of Nupe syntax that will be directly relevant to our analysis of VRCs. The claims advanced in this section were previously laid out in Kandybowicz and Baker 2003 and Kandybowicz 2006a. The interested reader is invited to consult these sources for further information. Nupe verb phrases appear to exhibit a degree of mixed directionality. Whether VO or OV word order surfaces depends both on the tense/“aspect” of the clause (in a way reminiscent of Vata (Koopman 1984)) and the Case status of the verb’s object. As shown below in (2b), accusative objects that normally follow the verb come to precede the verb in the “perfect”. Locative objects, however, follow V in the “perfect” (2c). (2)

a.

Musa è si dukùn. Musa  buy pot ‘Musa is buying a pot.’

(VO)

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

b.

c.

Musa á dukùn si. (OV) Musa  pot buy ‘Musa has bought a pot.’ Musa á ci kata-o. (VOLOC) Musa  lie house- ‘Musa has laid down in the house.’

There is telling evidence that the tense and the “perfect” marker (cf. note 2) occupy hierarchically distinct syntactic positions in the language. VP-initial adverbs cannot precede tense markers (3a), while the same adverbs must precede the “perfect” element (3b). In addition, tense and “perfect” morphemes can be stacked and separated by adverbs (3c), further suggesting their autonomy. (3)

a.

b.

c.

Musa (*dàdà) à dàdà si dukùn. Musa quickly  quickly buy pot ‘Musa will quickly buy the pot.’ Musa dàdà á (*dàdà) dukùn si. Musa quickly  quickly pot buy ‘Musa has quickly bought the pot.’ Musa (g)à dàdà á nakàn ba aní. Musa  quickly  meat cut already ‘Musa will have quickly cut the meat already.’

This suggests that tense markers are independent particles as opposed to verbal prefixes. It also suggests that the Nupe “perfect” marker does not occupy a T/Infl position, but rather inhabits some lower head, say v0.2 Because tense markers are not prefixed to verbs, there is evidence that verbs do not raise to T0 in the language. However, on the standard assumption that v0 is a bound morpheme and must not be stranded (Lasnik 1981, 1995), we assume that verbs raise to v0 in order to lend support just in case the head is syntactically unfilled (i.e. not occupied by the “perfect” morpheme á). If we postulate the existence of Accusative and Locative Casechecking functional projections between the shells of the verb phrase as in Travis . Justification for generating “perfect” á in v0 rather than some other functional head such as Aspect0 comes from the fact that Nupe á is historically related to lá ‘take’, as in many other West African languages (Stahlke 1970), and v0 is the natural home for light verbs like ‘take’. Thus, the Nupe “perfect” construction has its historical origins in a serial verb construction source. What’s more, apart from á, Nupe does not appear to make use of any additional aspectual morphology, rendering the postulation of an Aspect projection somewhat dubious. Of course, nothing crucially hinges on this assumption. If we were to generate the perfect marker in a functional head higher than v0, we would simply have to shift our structures up accordingly. We assume that little v is present in all transitive and unergative clauses, where it plays a role in assigning the external theta-role. Whether it is also present in unaccusative clauses is more controversial. We assume that it is, but does not assign a theta-role in that context (cf. Bowers 1993, Baker 2003, Chomsky 2001, 2005, among others).

 Jason Kandybowicz

1991, Koizumi 1995, Baker and Collins 2006, among others, we can account for the mixed word order patterns discussed above. VO orders arise whenever the verb Root is able to raise to a head position higher than the Case-licensing position occupied by the object. OV orders, on the other hand, obtain when the verb Root fails to reach v0, but Case-driven movement proceeds as usual. This difference is illustrated below.3 In this way, Nupe is head-initial in the base and verb raising is motivated. (4) VO → Acc Case movement + raising to v0 VOLOC → Loc Case movement + raising to v0 a. Musa si dukùn. b. Musa ci kata-o. Musa buy pot Musa lie house- ‘Musa bought a pot.’ ‘Musa laid down in the house.’ vP

vP

v

Musa

v´

DP

v´

DP

Musa V

AgroP

AgroP Agro´

ci si

DPi[–ACC] Agro´

Agro

dukùn Agro[ACC] √P DPi[–ACC]

LocP

DPi[-LOC] Loc´ kata-o Loc[LOC] √P

√SI

DPi[-LOC] √CI

OV → Acc Case movement - raising to v 0 VOLOC → Loc Case movement - raising to v0 c. Musa á dukùn si. d. Musa á ci kata-o. Musa  pot buy Musa  lie house- ‘Musa has bought a pot.’ ‘Musa has laid down in the house.’ vP DP Musa

vP DP

v´ v

v´

Musa v

AgroP

á á DPi[-ACC]

Agro´

dukùn Agro[ACC] si

AgroP Agro´ Agro

√P

DPi[-ACC]

LocP

ci DPi[–LOC] Loc´ √SI

kata-o Loc[LOC] √P DPi[–LOC] √CI

. Kandybowicz & Baker (2003) argue that goal arguments in Nupe are generated in complement positions and themes in Spec, √P/VP (cf. Larson 1988, Baker 1989, 1996, 1997, Stewart 2001). Thus, the √Ps in (4) are not head-final projections.

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

.

The Nupe VRC

This section is divided in two. In the first part, we provide a brief semantic overview of the phenomenon and furnish evidence that V1 and its copy are clause mates. Following this, we consider the derivational status of the construction. These considerations will drive the analysis in Section four. .

Descriptive preliminaries

One potentially formidable challenge facing the VRC analyst is that in order to provide an adequate treatment of the construction, a number of syntactic, semantic, and phonological facts must be confronted, as we will see. For now, we begin by enumerating some key semantic properties of verbal repetition. As the article progresses, a variety of syntactic and phonological properties will be considered. Nupe VRCs are emphatic declaratives that assert the truth-value of a proposition or presupposition that contrasts with the hypothesized truth-value of a discoursesalient assertion. (Although hypothesized, the truth-value of this contextually salient assertion is not in doubt to the speaker.) Because the truth-value of a contextually salient utterance is promoted in the discourse, we characterize Nupe VRCs as   constructions, following the terminology of Hyman and Watters 1984. As such, VRCs in the language are focus constructions that operate at the level of the proposition. The following discourses highlight these semantic properties. Note that unlike European Portuguese (Martins (this volume), cf. (1b)), Nupe VRCs are not limited to negative contexts (5b). (5)

a.

b.

B:

A: Musa ´ pa eci à. Musa 4 pound yam à ‘Musa didn’t pound the yam.’ B: Ebà, Musa pa eci pa. yes Musa pound yam pound ‘Yes, Musa DID pound the yam.’ A: Musa pa eci. Musa pound yam ‘Musa pounded the yam.’ Hahà, Musa ´ pa eci pa à. no Musa  pound yam pound à ‘No, Musa DID NOT pound the yam.’

A number of facts suggest that Nupe VRCs are mono-clausal syntactic objects – that is to say, VRCs do not involve bi-clausal structures that are derived by eliding the . FT abbreviates “floating tone” and in this environment represents the negative morpheme. See Kandybowicz 2006a for more on floating tones in the language.

 Jason Kandybowicz

relevant parts of the second clause. For one thing, subject/topic drop is unavailable in the language, rendering unlikely the hypothesis that V2 inhabits a (subjectless) clause distinct from that of V1 (e.g. Musa pound yam. Musa/he pound.). Prosodically, there is no break separating V2 from the rest of the clause, nor is there evidence suggesting that V2 inhabits a major prosodic domain (i.e. intonation phrase) that is distinct from that of V1 (see Kandybowicz 2004 for details).5 Additionally, neither tense nor “aspect” markers may precede V2 (6a). And lastly, although verbal repetition constructions can be negated as a whole (5b), the verbs themselves cannot be individually negated (6b). (6)

a. *Musa à yà etsu èwò à/á yà. Musa  give chief garment ⁄ give *‘Musa WILL give the chief a garment.’ b. Elúgi ´ fu (*à) (*') fu à. bird  fly à  fly à ‘The bird DID NOT fly.’

These facts strongly suggest that V1 and V2 are clause bound. .

Derivational status

We can ask whether the verbal occurrences in VRCs are syntactically related or independent terms. In the context of a Copy-theoretic framework, the burden of proof is to show that verbal repetition in a language with rich verb phrase structures like Nupe is a derived construction and not a variety of some existing verb phrase construction type in which the verbs were independently base-merged. One such construction that immediately comes to mind is the serial verb construction (SVC), examples of which are provided below. (7)

a.

b.

Consequential SVC: Musa à wan bise zun gi. Musa  catch hen slaughter eat ‘Musa will catch the hen, slaughter it, and (then) eat it.’ Resultative SVC: Musa è fo èwò li. Musa  wash garment be clean ‘Musa is washing the garment clean.’

. See the pitchtracks in (32) for this prosodic evidence. Note the absence of a break separating SV1O from V2, although a break does separate V1 from OV2 in some cases (cf. (32b,d,e)). Evidence that this interval does not constitute an intonation phrase break comes from the fact that pitch is not reset following the pause.

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

c.

Purposive SVC: Musa à ba nakàn lo dzukó. Musa  cut meat go market ‘Musa will cut the meat in order to go to the market.’

VRCs and SVCs have a number of syntactic properties in common. In both constructions, the verbal elements appear without marking of coordination or subordination, some of the arguments of the serialized/repeated verbs are overtly missing, and there is a single tense/aspect specification for all verbs in both constructions. There is evidence, however, that the constructions are distinct, that is, that VRCs are not merely SVCs that happen to have the same V1 and V2. The first piece of evidence is semantic. Nupe SVCs come in three semantic varieties; those that have temporal sequencing interpretations (cf. Consequential SVCs (7a)), those with causal interpretations (cf. Resultative SVCs (7b)), and those with purposive meanings (cf. Purposive SVCs (7c)) (see Stewart 2001 for detailed discussion). VRCs, on the other hand, can only be construed as polarity focus constructions. We can adduce a number of syntactic arguments illustrating the same point. First, a well-known fact about Resultative SVCs is that V2 cannot be unergative in the construction (Stewart 2001), as shown below (8a). However, in a VRC, V2 can in fact be unergative (8b). (8)

a. *Elúgi à nikìn fu. bird  fall fly *‘The bird will fall, thereby causing it to fly.’ b. Elúgi à fu fu. bird  fly fly ‘The bird WILL fly.’

Our second syntactic argument concerns the fact that in Nupe SVCs, only the initial verbal occurrence may be repeated. Consider the following. (9)

a.

Musa du eci du kun. Musa cook yam cook sell ‘Musa DID cook and (then) sell the yam. b. *Musa du eci kun kun. Musa cook yam sell sell

With respect to VRCs, however, neither verb can undergo (further) repetition, as shown below. (Note that in the following examples it is unclear whether it is V1 or V2 that is being repeated. This, however, is irrelevant for the purpose at hand because if VRCs were actually SVCs with identical verbal occurrences, at least one of the two serialized occurrences should be capable of repetition as in (9a).)

 Jason Kandybowicz

(10)

a. *Musa Musa b. *Elúgi bird

è  à 

gi eat fu fly

bise hen fu fly

gi gi. eat eat fu. fly

The data in (10) illustrate another interesting point, namely, that that there is an upper bound on the number of overt verbal occurrences that may surface in a VRC. In particular, given that a maximum of two verbal copies may surface6, we can think of the derivational operation responsible for yielding VRCs as being bounded. The number of verbs that can occur serialized, however, is syntactically unbounded. (7a) shows that it is possible for more than two verbs to surface in an SVC, unlike in VRCs. An additional syntactic difference between the two constructions worth noting concerns extraction. VRCs, unlike SVCs, seem to be islands. Object extraction from SVCs (for example) is permissible, as shown in (11a). However, object extraction from VRCs is blocked (11b). (11)

a.

Eci, Musa du __ kun o. yam Musa cook sell o ‘It’s the YAM that Musa cooked and (then) sold.’ b. *Eci, Musa du __ du o. yam Musa cook cook o *‘It was the YAM that Musa DID cook.’

One last asymmetry concerns the fact that unlike VRCs, SVCs are possible in the “perfect”. (12)

Musa á eci du kun. Musa  yam cook sell ‘Musa has cooked and sold the yam.’ b. *Musa á eci du du. Musa  yam cook cook *‘Musa HAS cooked the yam.’

a.

We are thus led to the conclusion that VRCs are not a sub-species of serial verb constructions. In that case, the participating verbal occurrences are not generated independently of each other, as in SVCs. There are reasons to believe that the relationship between the verbal occurrences in VRCs is not the by-product of reduplication either. Native speaker judgments (Smith 1970) and experimental results (Kandybowicz 2004) confirm that despite . Smith 1970 reports that up to three copies of the verb may surface in the Nupe VRC. While this might have been a grammatical possibility in older varieties of Nupe, it is clearly inadmissible in the present-day grammar in both the local dialect studied by Smith (Bida Nupe) and the dialect investigated in this article (Lafiagi Nupe).

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

perceptible differences in the fundamental frequencies of the verb and its copy (see Section 4.2.2), the tones on V1 and V2 belong to the same phonological tone category (tonal class), such that the tonal specification of V2 is a function of the categorical tonal identity of V1. This is striking because tone is not perfectly copied in the case of verb reduplication (nominalization) in the language. The data in (13) illustrate that the reduplicant prefix always bears a mid tone (the unmarked tone in the language) regardless of the tonal specification of the base. (13)

gé ‘be good’ gi-gé ‘being good’ du ‘cook’ du-du ‘cooking’ yà ‘give’ yi-yà ‘giving’

Notice also that in Nupe verb reduplication there is a base-reduplicant vowel height alternation in certain forms (e.g. ‘being good’, ‘giving’). As is evident upon inspection of the VRC data presented thus far, there are no such categorical tonal/ vowel alternations between the verb and its double. We thus conclude that Nupe verbal repetition is a phenomenon distinct from both verb serialization and verb reduplication. That is to say, VRCs are distinct derived constructions in the language. Additional justification for this conclusion comes from the fact that one of the verbal occurrences does not project – although there are twice as many segmentally non-distinct verbal elements in a VRC, it is not the case that there are twice as many surface thematic arguments. This is shown below. (14)

a.

*Musa Musa b. *Musa Musa

à  è 

yà etsu èwò yà etsu èwò. give chief garment give chief garment gi bise gi bise. eat hen eat hen

This is precisely what we would expect if one of the verbal occurrences were a phonetically realized copy of a single element selected from the initial numeration; in other words, if the repeated verbal occurrence were derived rather than base-merged. With these preliminaries out of the way, we turn now to our derivational analysis of Nupe VRCs. .

Derivation and analysis

The ultimate goal of this section is to determine how and why multiple copies of the verb Root are phonetically realized in VRCs. The how part of the question concerns the consequences of multiple copy spell-out for linearization. How is it that seemingly non-distinct elements entering into an asymmetric c-command

 Jason Kandybowicz

relation come to be linearized in line with the Linear Correspondence Axiom? The why question, however, is perhaps deeper. Given that economy principles disfavor pronouncing elements that are unnecessary at the PF interface level (Landau 2004), why is it the case that a second lower copy of the verb comes to be pronounced at all? That is to say, what grammatical principles license and ultimately force the spell-out of V2? We begin by considering the narrow syntactic derivation of the VRC, concentrating on the structural and derivational qualities that distinguish VRCs from simple declaratives. We then follow the derivation from the output of narrow syntax to the PF component, where the issues of multiple copy spell-out and chain linearization arise. In this stretch, we propose answers to the how’s and why’s mentioned above, refining Nunes’ (1999, 2004) theory of chain linearization along the way. .

Narrow syntactic derivation of VRCs

.. Low (clause-internal) focus phrase A good starting point for the syntactic analysis of any novel or under-investigated construction type is to identify the dimensions of variation that distinguish the construction from simpler and better understood constructions in the language. With the exception of an additional verbal occurrence, VRCs do not appear considerably different than simple declaratives on the surface. That is, VRCs do not invoke special overt functional particles or cause drastic shifts in word order with respect to V1 and its dependents. (15)

a.

b.

Musa à ba nakàn. Musa  cut meat ‘Musa will cut the meat.’ Musa à ba nakàn ba. Musa  cut meat cut ‘Musa WILL cut the meat.’

Along the semantic dimension, however, VRCs and simple declaratives show considerable variation. As previously discussed, the polarity of a proposition is focused in a VRC. In this respect, the basic semantic difference between VRCs and simple declaratives is one of focus: VRCs are focus constructions and simple declaratives are not. This semantic difference can be cashed out in syntactic terms. We propose that VRC derivations involve the merger of a phonetically null Focus head not found in basic declaratives. Because neither the focused verb phrase nor any of the two verbal occurrences appear to occupy a peripheral position in the linear order (cf. (6b), (9a)), it is unlikely that VRCs involve movement to a left peripheral Focus position. Rather, given the fact that the locus of polarity focus is verb phrase related, we propose that the source of VRC focus is syntactically low,

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

that is, somewhere within the Nupe vP shell structure (cf. (4)). In this respect, we follow Belletti (2001, 2003), who motivates the existence of a low Focus Phrase, in addition to its peripheral counterpart. Furthermore, we propose that the phonetically null low Focus0 bears an interpretable Focus feature that the verb Root picks up as it raises to v0. In this way, the head of the propositional vP is endowed with LF-legible Focus features. As our discussion unfolds, further evidence for positing this Focus feature will come to light. Before moving forward with this proposal, we need to decide where in the vP shell structure the low Focus head is merged. Given the vP architecture motivated in (4), there are basically three live options: (16)

a. b. c.

v >> Foc >> Agro >> Loc >> √ v >> Agro >> Foc >> Loc >> √ v >> Agro >> Loc >> Foc >> √

We opt for the placement of the low Focus head below Agro0 and Loc0 (option (16c)). Although supporting empirical evidence will have to be briefly postponed, we can at least offer some independent conceptual justification for this placement. Kandybowicz and Baker (2003) furnish evidence that this intermediate space within the vP structure is independently motivated to host other functional material in the language, such as the infinitival particle in modal-auxiliary constructions. The vP structure we assume to underlie the VRC is presented below. The arrows indicate the verb Root’s path of head adjunction to v0. (17)

vP v

AgroP Agro

LocP Loc

FocP √P

Foc √

Foc[FOC]… √ …

.. Sigma phrase Verbal repetition is just one way to assert the truth of a proposition in Nupe. Another is by way of the sentence-final factive particle ni:. (18)

Musa à ba nakàn ni:. Musa  cut meat  ‘Musa will in fact cut the meat.’

 Jason Kandybowicz

The semantic and pragmatic properties of Nupe factives closely parallel those of VRCs as described in Section 3.1, the exception being that factives are used exclusively in situations in which the truth of a previous assertion is in doubt and confirmation is being offered by the speaker. Given the semantic contribution of ni: as a polarity-related propositional operator, a natural place to assume its generation is in Sigma Phrase (ΣP – Laka 1990). It is reasonable to assume something along these lines as far as verbal repetition constructions are concerned as well. We can say that unlike ni:, which is the overt exponent of Σ0, the head of ΣP in VRCs is pronounced Ø7. ΣP is thus the locus of polarity in VRCs. But where is ΣP merged in the Nupe clause structure? Laka (1990) claims that ΣP placement is crosslinguistically variable, being positioned above TP in Basque and below TP in English, for example. Although it might be natural to assume that it occupies a left-peripheral position such as Force Phrase (Rizzi 1997), there are good reasons for thinking that ΣP occupies the syntactic space just above TP, as in Basque. Our primary source of evidence for this claim comes from what appears to be an Agree relation (Chomsky 2001, 2004) that holds between Σ0 and the v0 in a VRC. As the following data show, VRCs are ungrammatical whenever movement to v0 is blocked. In (19a), movement to v0 is blocked by the “perfect” marker, which was argued in Section 2 to reside in v0. In (19b–c), V2 is once again prevented from moving into v0 given the presence of structurally higher verbs that come to occupy this position (cf. Kandybowicz and Baker 2003).

. Incidentally, verbal repetition and factive ni: are not mutually exclusive within the same clause, as shown below. This is entirely expected under the assumption that the surface distribution of the verbal occurrences is unrelated to the ΣP projection (as proposed in Section 4.2.1.). (i)

Musa ba nakàn ba ni:. Musa cut meat cut  ‘Musa DID in fact cut the meat.’

An anonymous reviewer points out that nothing in the analysis presented in Section 4.1.2. excludes the possibility of having both verbal repetition and factive ni: within a “perfect” clause. Because ni: is not a probe in Nupe (see the discussion below this note), the lead repeated verb need not surface in v0, i.e. in the vP phase edge. Therefore, given the acceptability of (i) above and the analysis presented in Section 4.1, nothing should block factive VRCs in the “perfect”, despite the fact that ni:-less VRCs are ungrammatical in the “perfect” (cf. (12b)). As it turns out, “perfect” factive VRCs are fully grammatical in the language, as shown in (ii) below. This lends further support to the syntactic analysis of VRCs presented in this section. (ii) Musa á nakàn ba ba ni:. Musa  meat cut cut  ‘Musa HAS in fact cut the meat.’

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

(19)

a. *Musa á nakàn ba ba. Musa  meat cut cut Also bad: *Musa á ba nakàn ba. b. *Musa du eci kun kun. Musa cook yam sell sell c. *Musa yá eci yin si si. Musa begin yam  buy buy

The generalization seems to be that movement of the lead doubled verb into v0 is a precondition for VRC formation in Nupe. Assuming V1 to bear an interpretable Focus feature (cf. Section 4.1.1), one way of formalizing this intuition is to maintain that null Σ0 is merged with an unvalued Focus feature (uFOC) and thus probes to find an occurrence (i.e. the raised verb Root) with a valued matching feature (i.e. Agree(Σ[uFOC],v0[FOC]). By the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2001), Σ0 can only probe into the edge of the vP phase. Thus, if the verb Root fails to move into v0, an Agree relation cannot obtain and the unvalued features of null Σ0 will fail to be eliminated, causing the derivation to crash. Evidence that the Σ0 headed by factive ni: is not a probe comes from the fact that movement to v0 is not a precondition for factive-formation. (20)

Musa á nakàn ba ni:. Musa  meat cut  ‘Musa has in fact cut the meat.’

To return to the issue of justifying the placement of ΣP above TP, we can show that raising to v0 is only one of two instances of movement that must obtain in the narrow syntactic derivation of a VRC. Given our assessment of Nupe as a headinitial language (cf. Section 2, see also Kandybowicz and Baker 2003), it must be the case that Σ0 itself triggers movement. In the case of factive ni: constructions, we can derive the sentence-final position of the particle by moving TP into Spec, Σ. Presumably, this movement is triggered by the semantics. We can say that ni: bears a generalized EPP/Occurrence feature (Chomsky 2000). This feature triggers the movement of the material under the scope of ni: (i.e. the proposition denoted by TP) into its specifier. (21)

Musa à ba nakàn ni:. Musa  cut meat  ‘Musa will in fact cut the meat.’ [ΣP[TP Musa à ba nakàn]i [Σ´ [Σ [EPP] ni: [TP Musa à ba nakàn]i ]]]

In addition to deriving correct word orders, this analysis provides an account of the fact that all extraction from factive clauses is blocked. This is shown below.

 Jason Kandybowicz

(22)

a. *Musa, __ à ba nakàn ni: o. Musa  cut meat  o *‘MUSA will in fact cut the meat.’ b. *Nakàn, Musa à ba __ ni: o. meat Musa  cut  o *‘Musa will in fact cut the MEAT.’ c. *Èsun, Musa à ba nakàn __ ni: o. tomorrow Musa  cut meat  o *‘Musa will in fact cut the meat TOMORROW.’

Movement of a TP-internal constituent from Spec, Σ would violate the CED/Subject Condition (Huang 1982). In this way, we derive the island status of factive constructions in the language from the placement of ΣP above TP. If ΣP were located below TP, however, vP-internal subject movement to Spec,T would also violate the CED. Given that subjects clearly raise to Spec, T in factives (cf. (21)), it is clear that ΣP dominates TP. We can extend this analysis to null Σ0 in VRCs. Although we do not find independent confirmation in the form of word order facts as in the case of the ni: construction, we can derive the fact that VRCs are also strong islands if we assume that TP raises to Spec, Σ in a VRC. Consider the following data. (23)

a. *Zèé __ du eci du o? who cook yam cook o *‘Who DID cook the yam?’ b. *Ke Musa du __ du o? what Musa cook cook o *‘What DID Musa cook?’ c. *Kàfi Musa du eci du __ o? when Musa cook yam cook o *‘When DID Musa cook the yam?’

We propose that this movement is driven by the fact that the unvalued/uninterpretable Focus feature on probe Σ0 bears the EPP property. Because head movement to positions higher than v0 is prohibited in the language (cf. Section 2), the EPP property of the probe cannot be satisfied by head adjunction of the goal (i.e. the complex v0 head) to Σ0. Rather, this EPP requirement must be fulfilled by alternate means. We propose that the goal (i.e. the interpretable Focus feature) percolates up the tree to TP and that following feature percolation, the TP is pied-piped into Spec, Σ. In this way, we derive the fact that Nupe VRCs involve polarity focus of a proposition rather than a predicate – the category that undergoes movement to Spec, Σ (TP) is a propositional category, rather than a bare predicate or minimal predicate phrase. A schematic of the narrow syntactic derivation of the Nupe VRC we are proposing is presented below.

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

ΣP

(24)

Σ´ Σ[uFOC]

TP[FOC]

[EPP]

∅

T´[FOC] T

vP[FOC] v´[FOC] v

AgroP[FOC] Agro´[FOC] Agro

FocP[FOC] Foc´[FOC] Foc[FOC]

√P

√

We conclude this sub-section by providing further justification for the separation of ΣP from vP (i.e. for locating ΣP above TP and having the verb Root fail to head move into Σ0). In the case of the repetition of CP complement-taking verbs like gàn ‘say’, both copies of the verb must precede the clausal complement. Orders in which the copies of gàn flank the CP complement are ungrammatical, as illustrated below. (25)

Musa gàn gàn gànán Nàn`á ba nakàn. Musa say say that Nana cut meat ‘Musa DID say that Nana cut the meat.’ b. *Musa gàn gànán Nàn`á ba nakàn gàn. Musa say that Nana cut meat say

a.

Setting aside the technical details of multiple copy chain realization for the time being, suppose that in the spirit of work by Nunes (1999, 2004), the head of a chain is privileged at PF, that is to say, is typically realized phonetically (all things being equal). If gàn were to raise directly to Σ0 and the remnant TP were to raise around it into Spec, Σ as before, unattested orders like the one in (25b), in which a copy of the verb (i.e. the head of the chain) comes to follow the CP complement,

 Jason Kandybowicz

would be derived. This further dovetails with our claim that verbal head raising past v0 is not tolerated in the language (cf. Section 2). Similar arguments can be made regarding the placement of low adverbials (i.e. adverbs of manner and location) relative to V2 in a VRC. As shown below, both occurrences of the verb must appear to the left of the adjunct series. (26)

a.

b.

Musa yà etsu èwò yà sanyin (*yà) efo cigban o (*yà). Musa give chief garment give quietly give hole tree  give ‘Musa DID give the chief a garment quietly under the tree.’ Musa du eci du hàràfíya (*du). Musa cook yam cook well cook ‘Musa DID cook the yam well.’

Assuming these low adverbials occupy positions internal to the moved TP, a fairly uncontroversial assumption, unattested orders in which V2 comes to follow the adjunct series are derived if the verb Root directly raises into Σ0. We thus take it that there is sufficient evidence for maintaining the position that the Σ head and V1 are minimally separated by T0 in a VRC. . VRCs at the syntax-phonology interface Now that we have explored the narrow syntactic side of the VRC derivation, we can approach the derivation from the PF side. It is at this point in the computation that many of the defining properties of VRCs take shape. At PF, a decision is made regarding which copies of the verb Root are to be realized phonetically, which are to be erased, and how the resulting output is to be linearized. Whatever mechanism allows for multiple copy spell-out and linearization is also to be found here. In this section, we focus on these aspects of the VRC derivation, our ultimate goal being to discover and understand the conditions that drive multiple copy spell-out in VRCs. .. Fusion and multiple copy linearization Before proceeding, let’s briefly recapitulate. Take a simple monotransitive VRC such as the one given below and consider its derivation thus far. (27)

Musa ba nakàn ba. Musa cut meat cut ‘Musa DID cut the meat.’

The output of the narrow syntactic derivation contains several non-trivial chains, among them, the subject-raising, the object-Case, and the pied-piped TP chains. Setting these cases aside, the crucial chain for the purposes of VRC composition is the chain formed by raising the verb Root to v0. In the structure presented below, the links of this chain are boldfaced and numbered for visual convenience.

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

ΣP

(28)

Σ′

TPn[FOC] DPm

T′[FOC] Σ[uFOC]

Musa T

TPn[FOC]

vP[FOC]

∅ DPm

v′[FOC] v

Agrok … √BAi …

AgroP[FOC] v DPl

Agro′[FOC]

nakàn Agrok Foc j[FOC]

FocP[FOC] √P

Agro Foc j

i … √BAi … √BA

Foc[FOC] DPl ∅

√BAi

The verb Root raising chain transferred to PF consists of four morphosyntactically non-distinct links that must be linearized in accordance with the LCA in order for the output to satisfy the basic PF Bare Output criterion that language be instantiated in real time. Because two segmentally identical verb Roots are pronounced in a Nupe VRC, it must be the case that two of these four chain links escape the operation of   (Nunes 2004) and come to be successfully mapped onto a linear order. In most instances of Copy movement, however, failure to delete all but one link (typically the chain head) results in an unlinearizable syntactic object, causing the derivation to crash at PF (Nunes 1995, 2004). Consider the output given in (28). Assuming a first-branching category definition of c-command (Kayne 1994), if links 1 and 2 were spelled-out, then the Root copy adjoined to v0 in link position 1 would asymmetrically c-command the object in Spec, AgroP8 and thus would have to be pronounced before the object in accordance with the LCA. On the other hand, because the object asymmetrically c-commands the Root copy adjoined to Agro0 in link position 2, the very same object must linearly precede

. Assuming a first-branching category definition of C-command (Kayne 1994), the first branching category dominating the Root morpheme is v, which also dominates AgroP. Although Foc0, Agro0, and v0 also dominate the Root morpheme (cf. (i) below), they are segments rather than categories (May 1985), and thus do not count for purposes of C-command calculation on the above definition.

 Jason Kandybowicz

the lower copy of the Root. Now, because the Root morpheme in link position 1 is a copy of the Root morpheme in link position 2, both occurrences must have been selected from a single element of the numeration and would thus be considered non-distinct by the computational system (Chomsky 1995a, Nunes 1999, 2004). If both links were to survive at PF, the resulting structure would be unlinearizable because of a contradictory requirement imposed by the LCA: the Root morpheme would have to both precede and follow the same object in Spec, Agro. Symmetric orderings such as these are characteristically non-linear. Furthermore, because the Root morpheme in position 1 asymmetrically c-commands its non-distinct lower copy in position 2, it would therefore come to precede itself, violating the irreflexivity condition on linear orderings. Nunes (1999, 2004) offers a provision under which multiple chain links may be phonetically realized. His idea is that multiple copies that stand in an asymmetric c-command relation can be phonetically realized if at least one copy/intermediate chain link is rendered invisible to the linearization algorithm, understood as the application of the LCA at PF. Building on Chomsky’s (1995a: 337) contention that the LCA applies after Syntax/Morphology, but does not apply word-internally to morphologically reanalyzed pieces, Nunes claims that heads (copies) which undergo the operation of   as a result of head movement/adjunction, understood as  in the framework of Distributed Morphology, are technically word-internal and thus morphologically hidden from the LCA. The operation of morphological Fusion is a highly local postsyntactic operation of the PF component that takes as input discrete terminals that are sisters under a single category node and outputs a single terminal node in which the number of morphemes (i.e. syntactic terminals) in the structure is reduced by one. Hence, Fusion is a structure-destroying operation because it blurs the original structure of the participating morphemes at PF. That is to say, following Fusion, the morpheme boundaries of the fused pieces are no longer recoverable. In this way, the output of Fusion is morphologically distinct from all other occurrences in the derivation. This is schematized below for a hypothetical case involving the Fusion of independent terminals y and z. In what follows, # denotes a morpheme boundary and fused morphemes are highlighted in grey for visual ease. v´

(i)

v

v … Agro …

Agro Foc √

Agro Foc

AgroP

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

(29)

X #x#

FUSION OF

Y #y#

y AND z ⇒

X #x#

#z#

Y #yz#

If we adopt this line of thought – that one of the two surviving verbal copies has undergone Fusion/Morphological Reanalysis, we can surely account for the multiple verbal occurrences that surface in Nupe VRCs in Nunes’ terms. However, we must ask ourselves how principled an explanation this really is. How can we detect the presence of Fusion? Why does Fusion occur in some, but not all cases of chain formation? That is, what forces Fusion in the first place? And even if an analysis in terms of Fusion is motivated, how precisely do the mechanics of linearization interact with the operation to guarantee the successful phonetic realization of multiple copies? The drawback of directly applying a Nunes-style analysis to an investigation into the phonetic realization of multiple chain links is that it offers no rigorous or falsifiable answers to these questions. We believe that Nunes’ take on Fusion and chain linearization is ultimately correct, but that it currently lacks explanatory rigor and principal. By investigating Nupe VRCs in these terms, however, we can arrive at principled answers to these questions. The remainder of this section is devoted expressly to this purpose. Suppose we buy into Nunes’ claim that Morphological Reanalysis via Fusion allows for the possibility of multiple copy spell-out. The question, then, is which link in the Root raising chain is subject to Fusion? That is, which of the four copyhosting heads in (28) triggers the application of Fusion? Given that the lower copy of the verb follows all Case-checked objects, including locative Case-marked DPs (cf. (30) below), the head that triggers Fusion must be lower than the Agro layer (cf. (4)). (30)

a.

b.

c.

Musa pa (*pa) eci pa. Musa pound pound yam pound ‘Musa DID pound the yam.’’ Musa à yà (*yà) etsu (*yà) èwò yà. Musa  give give chief give garment give ‘Musa WILL give the chief a garment.’ Musa leci (*leci) èmì o leci Musa lie lie house  lie ‘Musa DID lie down in the house.’

This eliminates all but link positions 3 and 4 as the possible Fusion sites in (28). We can throw out the possibility that link 4 is the locus of Morphological Reanalysis because the Root in that position has no structural terminal sister and thus the

 Jason Kandybowicz

structural description for Fusion is not met in that case (cf. (29)). This leaves us with link position 3, i.e. the low Focus head, as the head that is responsible for triggering Morphological Reanalysis of the verb Root in VRCs. What makes this proposal appealing is the fact that the existence of the low Focus head is unique to the verbal repetition construction in Nupe, explaining why Fusion and subsequent multiple copy spell-out are attested in VRCs, but not in simple declaratives or other locutions. As it stands, our analysis provides a first approximation of how it is that VRCs come to be linearized. Owing to Morphological Reanalysis, the link adjoined to the low Focus head is invisible to the LCA. Consequently, the only chain links visible to the linearization algorithm are the unfused links: the head, tail, and intermediate link adjoined to Agro0 (cf. (28)). As in typical applications of Chain Reduction, the chain head survives and the visible lower links are erased/marked for deletion at PF, leaving the head and the fused intermediate link in Foc0 for pronunciation. The success of this analysis, however, rides on Chomsky’s (1995a: 337) stipulation that morphologically reanalyzed links are invisible to the LCA. But why should this be the case? If reanalyzed links are terminal nodes and the LCA functions to establish linear relations among terminals, why should fused links be exempt from or invisible to the workings of the LCA? Nunes (1999, 2004) simply adopts this stipulation without argument or conceptual motivation. However, without a principled account of how Fusion facilitates multiple copy spell-out, an analysis couched in these terms loses explanatory force. Moreover, although our approach confers tremendous explanatory power on the Fusion operation, it has nothing to say regarding the motivation for Fusion in the first place. Our analysis thus shifts the burden of explanation onto a poorly understood phenomenon. Without a theory characterizing and constraining the operation of Fusion, we cannot hope to achieve an explanatorily adequate analysis of Nupe verbal repetition. In fact, we can reach this goal if we reject Chomsky’s stipulation that Fusion renders a chain link invisible to the LCA and rely instead on the dichotomy between distinct and non-distinct occurrences, concepts that are independently necessary once the Copy theory of movement is assumed. After all, Chomsky’s idea that the LCA fails to apply word-internally was primarily motivated on theory-internal/conceptual grounds (i.e. relating to Bare Phrase Structure) rather than on an empirical basis. Nunes’ (1999, 2004) theory of chain linearization is already equipped to handle cases of multiple copy spell-out without this stipulation. On his account, spelling-out multiple non-distinct syntactic occurrences will lead to a linearization failure. Therefore, Chain Reduction applies to delete as many non-distinct occurrences as are needed to map the string onto a linear order. Assuming that Fusion has applied to the low Focus adjunction structure in the derivation mapped out in (28), it is instructive to ask how many of the four

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

links formed by head raising are non-distinct from one another. The answer in this case is three, namely, all chain members apart from the fused link. Let’s elaborate. Because Morphological Reanalysis/Fusion destroys the pre-existing morphological structure of its input component parts and introduces into the PF derivation an entirely new morphological word with new morpheme boundaries (Chomsky 1995a, Nunes 1999, 2003, 2004), a morphologically fused chain link will be morphologically distinct from the unfused link(s) it is associated with. A fused chain link is also syntactically distinct from its associates. Prior to Fusion, the two participating syntactic objects (terminals) stand in a sisterhood relation. Following Fusion, they occupy a single terminal node (cf. (29)). In this way, the fused link in low Foc0 is morphosyntactically distinct from all remaining chain links and needn’t be removed by Chain Reduction in order for linearization to proceed. We arrive at the same conclusion previously stipulated by Nunes: fused links are immune to elimination by the linearization computation. As terminal nodes, they are still visible and subject to the LCA. However, they are no longer part of the set of nodes evaluated for linearization purposes as the other links of the chains they comprise. Thus, in the case of Nupe VRCs, despite the fact that both surviving copies appear segmentally non-distinct, the morphosyntactic differences between the two links (owing to Morphological Reanalysis) guarantee that they will be differentiated by the linearization computation and hence be successfully linearized. Under this interpretation of chain linearization, the distinctness of multiple syntactic occurrences need not be determined solely by appealing to the initial numeration as in Chomsky 1995a and Nunes 1999, 2004. Rather, the difference between distinct and non-distinct terms is a derivational by-product, computed on-line and chain-internally in both the narrow syntax and at PF (following operations of the Morphological component like Fusion). This assessment is referenced throughout the entire linearization computation. (31)

For any pair of expressions σ,σ´, σ and σ´ are non-distinct if and only if i. σ and σ´ are related by chain formation AND ii. σ and σ´ are morphosyntactically isomorphic

Because Fusion disrupts the isomorphism between a chain link and its associates, fused links are rendered distinct from their chain-mates. Thus, following Fusion, the linearization computation has one less chain link to evaluate. This in turn gives the appearance that fused links are invisible to the LCA. .. What drives fusion? Thus far, we’ve provided an account of how multiple phonetically realized verbal copies in Nupe come to be successfully linearized, but we have not yet justified why this is the case. That is, we have provided no motivation for the operation of

 Jason Kandybowicz

Fusion at PF other than to account for the double realization of the verbal Root. We have simply assumed the existence of the operation. In this section, we aim to do better. Our goal is to determine the precise condition that triggers Morphological Reanalysis in Nupe VRCs. So, what drives the Fusion operation that triggers the spell-out of the lower copy of the verb Root? Thus far in the literature, no substantive proposals have been advanced in this respect. Given that Fusion is purportedly a post-syntactic operation of the PF interface, it would seem reasonable to seek an explanation in either morphological or phonological terms. One clue we can exploit in our efforts to better understand VRCs in the context of Fusion is that the surviving (i.e. pronounced) verbal occurrences are not perfectly identical, contrary to initial impressions. Although there are no segmental or discernible morphosyntactic differences between V1 and V2 to directly support a Fusion analysis, prosodic effects of the process can be detected, suggesting that purely phonological considerations may be responsible for driving Fusion. The fundamental frequencies (F0) of tones on V1 (in particular, High tones) are significantly greater than those of V2, even when confounding factors such as pitch declination, downdrift, and tonal coarticulation are factored away (Kandybowicz 2004:48). That is to say, tones on V2 appear to be somewhat depressed in the construction. Because this lowering is independent of other phonetic factors that tend to lower the fundamental frequencies of tones (e.g. declination, downdrift, and tonal coarticulation of neighboring tones), this effect is somewhat unexpected from a purely phonetic/phonological perspective. These facts are illustrated in the following data.9 (32a–b) illustrate that repeated verbs lexically specified to bear High tones surface with F0 values characteristic of Mid tones. (32c), when combined with the data in (32a–b), provides a minimal pair showcasing the fact that the fundamental frequencies of High tone-bearing second verbs in serial verb constructions (SVCs) are not depressed as in VRCs. (32d–e) show that F0 depression on V2 is much less pronounced when the repeated verb is underlyingly specified to bear either a Mid or Low tone. (32)

a.

-     VRC: Wun nú nú. 3rd. be sharp be sharp ‘It IS sharp.’

. The dots on the lower half of the pitch track represent detected F0 values (increasing along the y-axis) over time (increasing along the x-axis). The vertical lines demarcate word boundaries.

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

b.

-     VRC: Nànàá wá róma wá. Nana want soup want ‘Nana DOES want soup.’

c.

-     SVC: Nànàá má lèmùú ná. Nana know lime wash ‘Nana knows how to wash the lime.’

d.

-     VRC: Nànàá lu èwà lu. Nana weave garment weave ‘Nana DID weave the garment.’

e.

-     VRC: Nànàá yà Màmùú lulu yà. Nana give Mamu cotton give ‘Nana DID give Mamu cotton.’

 Jason Kandybowicz

To the extent that F0 lowering on V2 is not a consequence of typical prosodic factors at play in tonal lowering, as previously mentioned, we have incentive to explore the Fusion operation from a morphophonological perspective. Previously, we analyzed the low Focus head present in VRCs as a phonetically null morpheme (cf. (28)). In this way, the phonetic realization of the low Focus morpheme can be treated as parallel to that of the peripheral Focus marker found in wh-questions and focus constructions in the language (Kandybowicz 2006a). In other words, the claim is that all vocabulary items inserted into Foc0 in Nupe, whether peripheral or low, are devoid of phonetic/prosodic content. (33)

[Foc0] ↔ Ø

Suppose instead that in contrast to peripheral Foc0, the exponent of the low Focus morpheme, while devoid of any segmental content, is a categorically low “floating tone” (`), that is, an exponent that has exclusively suprasegmental content. We postulate the following insertion rules to encode this difference. Note that low Focus0 is contextually differentiated from ‘elsewhere’ occurrences of Foc0 (i.e. headadjoined copies and left peripheral instances) in that only low Foc0 is syntactically left adjacent to √P. (34)

a. b.

[Foc0] ↔ (`)/ ___ √P [Foc0] ↔ Ø (elsewhere)

By “floating tone”, we simply mean a suprasegmental property/instruction regarding tone not lexically linked to an overt timing unit. Floating tones are independently attested in Nupe. For instance, negation in the language has been standardly analyzed as involving two pieces: a sentence-final particle and a pre-verbal floating High tone (FT) that affects the tonal realization of tense markers and occasionally verbs (Banfield and Macintyre 1915, Madugu 1982: 33). An example is provided below. (35)

Musa (´) è ba nakàn à. Musa   cut meat à ‘Musa isn’t cutting the meat.’

The presence of the floating High tone in cases of negation is easily detectable. In the case of (35), for example, the present tense morpheme, which is otherwise

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

pronounced on a Low tone, surfaces with a distinct Mid tone (i.e. a raised Low tone). Likewise, the presence of a floating Low tone on low Foc0 would explain the lowered fundamental frequencies observed on V2 in VRCs if this floating tone were somehow associated with the tonal tier of V2. Given that suprasegmental entities such as tones must dock onto overt prosodic material if they are to be phonetically instantiated, we can begin to formulate an account of why it is that low Focus heads trigger Fusion in Nupe. In order for the floating Low tone exponent of low Foc0 to be realized at PF it must associate with a prosodic unit, otherwise it will be phonologically illegible/uninterpretable, causing the resulting derivation to crash. We claim that the optimal scenario under which this association comes to pass involves the Fusion of low Foc0 with the verbal Root morpheme, made possible by the step in the narrow syntactic derivation in which the verb Root raised and adjoined to the left of low Foc0 (cf. (17)). In this way, the two occurrences (verb Root + low Foc0) are forged into a single morpheme and the floating tone is provided with a local prosodic domain with which to dock. In this environment, the tonal coarticulation of the tone on the verb with the newly associated floating Low tone results in the lowering or depression of the verb’s fundamental frequency. That is, the F0 values of the two tone-bearing units are averaged together rather than interpolated to form a contour tone (cf. (32a,b,d,e)). Had the floating Low tone simply associated with the tone on the verb copy rather than Fusing with it, we would expect to see the identities of the two tone-bearing morphemes preserved. That is, we would expect to observe the creation of a tonal contour. This argues in favor of the conglomeration/Fusion of the participating tonemes over mere concatenation. Our proposal is graphically illustrated below. (36)

a.

-

b.

-

FocP

FocP √P

Foc #√i#

#Foc# (`)

√i

√P

Foc #√i -Foc#

√i

(`)

On this approach, Fusion is taken to be a highly constrained operation. It applies as a repair strategy, mending ill-formed PF objects (fed by Vocabulary Insertion) so that the output of the derivation may be legible to the Articulatory-Perceptual system and thus converge. In the case of Nupe, Fusion enables otherwise disassociated morphophonological pieces (namely, floating tones) to be phonetically realized. It is possible that in other languages Fusion resolves different morphophonological/prosodic tensions. This take on Fusion suggests non-trivial revisions to the Minimalist/Distributed Morphology conception of PF architecture.

 Jason Kandybowicz

The interested reader is referred to Kandybowicz 2006b for full discussion of this issue. Before concluding this section, we must admit that there is an alternative way of accounting for the tonal depression on V2 without invoking Fusion. If this alternative were to pan out, it would single-handedly compromise the analysis presented thus far. It is thus important to pay careful attention to this possibility. Suppose that the exponent of the low Focus terminal was the floating Low tone morpheme, as before, but that rather than Fusing to and associating with local prosodic material, it simply remains unassociated with/unlinked to a timing tier. The analogy here would be to cases of tonal downstep in phonology, where a delinked (unassociated) low tone fails to (re-)associate, yet nonetheless affects the tonal realization of an adjacent neighboring tone to its right. The alternative is thus that V2 tonal lowering is the by-product of downstep rather than Fusion. (37)

     (‘!’ represents a lowered tone-value) H

L

H

σ

σ

σ

⇒

H

!H

σ

σ

There are two reasons why this analysis will not work. For one, the direction of downstep is standardly taken to be rightwards (Clements 1979, Huang 1985). That is, a floating unassociated low tone will lower the target value of adjacent tones to its right in the linear order, but never to its left. As before, assuming that the locus of lower copy spell-out in Nupe VRCs is low Foc0 given the fact that the existence of the head is unique to the construction, we’d have to assume that head adjunction of the verb Root to low Foc0 is to the right, a non-standard assumption about head movement. The necessary structure to get this proposal off the ground is shown below. (38)

(compare with (17), (28))

Foc Foc

√

(`)

To the extent that head adjunction is always to the left (Kayne 1994) and that V2 is pronounced in low Foc0, the existence of a floating Low tone influencing the tonal realization of material to its left (as in the current analysis) suggests a reassociation/relinking approach to V2 tonal depression via Fusion over the downstep-based account previously laid out. The second reason for dismissing the downstep analysis of VRC lowering is that Nupe is not otherwise known to manifest downstep in the grammar (Ahmadu Ndanusa Kawu, personal communication).

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out 

Because the Fusion-based approach previously outlined gibes well with standard assumptions about directionality of head adjunction/downstep and offers an account of multiple copy pronunciation and linearization (unlike the downstep approach), we feel confident that the proposal advanced in this section is descriptively and explanatorily tenable.10

.

Concluding remarks

In line with Minimalist considerations, we have argued that the Nupe verbal repetition construction does not represent a genuine construction type per say, but rather arises as a general consequence of independent PF-centric grammatical properties. Verbs raise in the language, leaving behind copies which may or may not be pronounced at PF. The highest copy of the verb Root is spelled-out in v0 in order to support the head’s affixal features. The pronunciation of the lower copy of the verb Root in VRCs is directly linked to the Fusion of the verb Root to the low Focus morpheme following Vocabulary Insertion, an operation that alters the morphosyntactic structure of the chain link. Because the copy of the verb Root at the head of the chain and the fused intermediate Root copy count as morphosyntactically distinct to the computation system, both copies can be phonetically realized and successfully linearized in line with the LCA. On this analysis, morphologically fused structures are not treated as being inherently invisible to the linearization algorithm and general PF well-formedness criteria (which drive morphological Fusion) are taken to condition multiple copy spell-out. As mentioned in the introduction, verbal repetition is a fairly abundant phenomenon cross-linguistically, yet with a relatively modest number of exceptions outside the predicate cleft/A-not-A literature (Cheng (this volume), Cho and Kim 2002, Choi 2003, Hutchison 1989, Kang 1988, Kim 2002, Lefebvre and Ritter 1993, Lidz 2001, Martins (this volume), Nishiyama and Cho 1998, No 1988, Nunes 2003, Piou 1982, Smith 1970, Yim 2004) little formal work has been done examining the distributional properties of the verbal copies in these constructions and the extent to which this distribution is a consequence of syntax-PF interactions. We hope to

. Alec Marantz (personal communication) suggests an additional way to account for multiple copy spell-out in Nupe VRCs without invoking Fusion. If the exponent of the low Focus morpheme were treated as an affix by the Morphological component, the Stray Affix Filter (Lasnik 1981, 1995) would guarantee lower copy spell-out of the verb Root in addition to the chain head. While this approach allows one to derive the dual phonetic existence of the verb Root, it does not explain why the tonal realization of V2 is characterized by an overall lowered fundamental frequency, as opposed to tonal averaging as in the previous discussion.

 Jason Kandybowicz

have shown that verbal repetition sheds light on a number of important issues, namely, empirical motivation for the Copy theory of movement and the mechanics of chain linearization, Fusion, and multiple copy spell-out. The hope is that this work will stimulate further research and discussion on verbal repetition.

References Baker, Mark C. 1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 513–553. Baker, Mark C. 1996. On the structural positions of themes and goals. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zauring (eds), 7–34. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Baker, Mark C. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Elements of grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 73-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: CUP. Baker, Mark C. & Collins, Chris. 2006. Linkers and vP structure. To appear in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24. Banfield Alexander W. & Macintyre, J.L. 1915. A Grammar of the Nupe language. London: SPCK. Belletti, Adriana. 2001. Inversion as focalization. In Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of universal grammar, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 60–90. New York NY: OUP. Belletti, Adriana. 2003. Aspects of the low IP area. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (Volume 2), 16–51. Oxford: OUP. Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656. Cho, Sae-Youn & Jong-Bok Kim. 2002. Echoed verb constructions in Korean: A constructionbased HPSG analysis. Korean Journal of Linguistics 27: 661–681. Choi, Kiyong. 2003. The echoed verb construction in Korean: Evidence for V-raising. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 11, Patricia M. Clancy (ed.), 457–470. Stanford CA: CSLI. Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. Categories and transformations. In Chomsky 1995b, 219–394. Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. The minimalist program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, Adriana Beletti (ed.), 104–131. New York NY: OUP. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. On phases. Ms. MIT. Clements, George N. 1979. The description of terraced-level tone languages. Language 55: 536–558. Ghomeshi, Jila, Jackendoff, Ray, Rosen, Nicole & Russell, Kevin. 2004. Contrastive focus reduplication in English (The salad-salad paper). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 307–357. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20; Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

On fusion and multiple copy spell-out  Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. In Papers in phonology and morphology [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21], Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley & Tony Bures (eds), 275–288. Cambridge MA: MITWPL. Harbour, Daniel. To appear. Klivaj predika or predicate clefts in Haitian. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages. Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1985. The autosegmental and metrical nature of tone terracing. In African linguistics: Essays in memory of M.W.K. Semikenke, Didier L. Goyvaerts (ed.), 209– 238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1991. Modularity and Chinese A-not-A questions. In Interdisciplinary approaches to language, Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, Carol Georgopolous & Roberta Ishihara (eds), 305–332. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Hutchison, John. 1989. Predicate emphasis and copying in Haitian. Paper given at the MIT Niger-Congo workshop on Serial Constructions and Transitivity Alternations, January 23–24. Hyman, Larry & Watters, John R. 1984. Auxiliary focus. Studies in African Linguistics 15(3): 233–273. Kandybowicz, J. 2004. Nupe tonology and the categorical identity of verb copy tones: A pilot experimental study. In University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 16, Ad Neeleman (ed.), 17–53. Kandybowicz, Jason. 2006a. Conditions on multiple copy spell-out and the syntax-phonology interface. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Kandybowicz, Jason. 2006b. Fusion and PF architecture. In Tatjana Scheffler et al. (eds), Proceedings of the 30th Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 85–98. Kandybowicz, Jason & Baker, Mark C. 2003. On directionality and the structure of the verb phrase: Evidence from Nupe. Syntax 6(2): 115–155. Kang, Myung-Yoon. 1988. Topics in Korean syntax: Phrase structure, variable binding, and movement. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kim, Jong-Bok. 2002. Echoed verb constructions: A complex-predicate formation. In Korean linguistics today and tomorrow: Proceedings of the 2002 Association for Korean Linguistics, International Conference on Korean Linguistics, 568–574. Seoul: Association for Korean Linguistics. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht: Foris. Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Landau, Idan. 2004. Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P)-fronting. Ms. Ben Gurion University. Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–392. Lasnik, Howard. 1981. Restricting the theory of transformations: A case study. In Explanation in Linguistics, Norbert Hornstein & David Lightfoot (eds), London: Longman. Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic structure meets the minimalist program. In Hector Campos & Paula Kempchinsky (eds), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Carlos Otero, 251–275. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Lee, Chungmin. 2002. Contrastive topic and proposition structure. In Asymmetry in grammar, Anne-Marie Di Sciullo (ed.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 Jason Kandybowicz Lefebvre, Claire & Ritter, Elizabeth. 1993. Two types of predicate doubling adverbs in Haitian creole. In Focus and Grammatical Relations in Creole Languages, Francis Byrne & Donald Winford (eds), 65–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lidz, Jeffrey. 2001. Echo reduplication in Kannada and the theory of word formation. The Linguistic review 18: 375–394. Madugu, Isaac S. George. 1982. The na…na construction in Nupe. Jolan: Journal of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria 1, 35–45. May, Robert. 1985. Logical form. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Nishiyama, Kunio & Eun Cho. 1998. Predicate cleft constructions in Japanese and Korean: The role of dummy verbs in TP/VP preposing. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 7: 463–479. No, Yongkyoon. 1988. Negative morphemes in Korean: Evidence for a derivational treatment. In Papers from the Sixth International Conference on Korean Linguistics, Eung-Jin Baek (ed.), 556–567. Seoul: Hanshin. Nunes, Jairo. 1999. Linearization of chains and phonetic realization of chain links. In Working minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 217–250. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Nunes, Jairo. 2003. Head movement, remnant movement and phonetic realization of chains. In Syntax at sunset 3: Head movement and syntactic theory [UCLA/Potsdam Working Papers in Linguistics 10], Anoop Mahajan (ed.), 161–177. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Nunes, Jairo & Quadros, Ronice. 2004. Phonetic realization of multiple copies in American and Brazilian Sign Languages. Paper presented at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 8, Barcelona. Piou, Nanie. 1982. Le redoublement verbal. In Syntax de L’Haitien, Claire Lefebvre, Hélèn Magloire-Holly & Nanie Piou (eds), 152–166. Ann Arbor MI: Karoma. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–338. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Smith, Neil V. 1970. Repetition of the verb in Nupe. African Language Studies 11: 319–339. Stahlke, Herbert. 1970. Serial verbs. Studies in African Linguistics 1: 60–99. Stewart, Osamuyimen Thompson. 2001. The serial verb construction parameter. New York NY: Garland. Travis, Lisa. 1991. Derived objects, inner aspect, and the structure of VP. Paper presented at NELS 22, Newark, DE. (Not in proceedings). Travis, Lisa. 2001. The syntax of reduplication. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society Annual Meeting (NELS 31), Minjoo Kim & Uri Strauss (eds), 455–469. Amherst MA: GLSA. Yim, Changguk. 2004. Remnant movement and echoed verb constructions in Korean. Ms. Cornell University.

Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese* Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng Leiden University

This chapter examines the ambiguity in resultative constructions with verb copying in Mandarin Chinese (resultative de-clauses and resultative compounds) and argues that the ambiguity is the result of two different derivations, which have in common the fact that more than one copy of the verb is phonetically realized. It is argued that both standard movement and sideward movement (in the sense of Nunes 2001, 2004) are used for verb copying in resultative de-clauses, leading to different interpretations. In the case of standard movement, the subject of the resultative clause is raised to the matrix clause, accompanied by verb movement, yielding an object-result reading. In the case of subject-result reading, ergativity shift is involved and the subject of the resultative clause becomes the subject of the matrix clause. In the latter case, the verb is copied to accommodate a thematic noun phrase associated with a verb (via sideward movement). For both readings, due to a modified structure in the lower copy, both copies are allowed to be pronounced, without violating the LCA. Using data from verb copying in resultatives, the chapter further examines how copying is restricted to avoid unwanted copying, lending independent support to Hornstein and Nunes’ (2002) proposal that the copy operation may be triggered by θ-requirements.

.

Introduction

Nunes (2004) and Bošković and Nunes (this volume) argue that many of the phenomena of copying can be explained by an analysis based on the phonetic realization of traces, assuming the (revised) copy theory of movement (See Nunes 2004). In this paper, I examine the phenomenon of verb copying in Mandarin Chinese within the copy theory of movement. In particular, I investigate the ambiguity in

* I thank the audience in the lectures in Beijing University, LSA summer school, the European Chinese Linguistics Spring School, as well as the audience in the Copying Workshop in Utrecht and the Resultative Workshop in Leiden (June 2005) for comments and suggestions. In addition, I thank the three reviewers as well as Norbert Corver and Jairo Nunes for detailed comments and suggestions.

 Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng

verb copying in resultative constructions (resultative clauses and resultative compounds) and argue that the ambiguity is the result of two different movement operations. I further show that in both cases, the spelling out of multiple copies is due to the phonetic realization of “traces.” Using data from verb copying in resultatives, I examine further how copying is restricted to avoid unwanted copying. In particular, I support the Last Resort view of copying (Hornstein and Nunes 2002), which restricts copying to cases where formal feature checking requirements need to be satisfied. In addition, I argue that the analysis of verb copying involving various complemental and adverbial expressions sheds light on how these expressions are merged in the structure. This paper is organized as follows. I first present the phenomenon of verb copying in Section 2. In Section 3, I examine verb copying in resultative de-clauses in detail. I argue that both standard movement and Sideward Movement are used for verb copying in resultative de-clauses, leading to different interpretations. In Section 4, I discuss the triggering of copying in the case of Sideward Movement, as well as the ergativity shift that we encounter. In Section 5, I show that the present analysis carries over to explain verb copying with durative/frequency expressions, manner de-clauses, and resultative compounds. In addition, I discuss data from Jieyang Chao-Zhou dialect in support of the ergativity shift we find in data with resultatives. A brief conclusion is presented in Section 6.

.

The verb copying construction1

An often cited case of verb copying concerns durative/frequency expressions, as shown by the data in (1). The verb chī ‘eat’ can be followed by either a nominal complement (fàn ‘rice’ in (1b)) or an adverbial phrase such as liăng ge xiăoshí ‘two hours’ (1b). However, having both follow the verb, as in (1c), yields an ungrammatical sentence.2 (1)

Durative/frequency expressions a. tā chī-le liăng ge xiăoshí he eat- two  hour ‘He ate for two hours.’

. A-not-A questions (a type of yes-no question) are not discussed here, because they involve a different type verb copying. Verb copying involving simple reduplication of verbs (with no noun phrase in between) is not discussed here either. . As discussed in the literature, there are examples in which a verb can be followed by two constituents. These are discussed in Section 5.1.

Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese 

tā chī-le fàn3 he eat- rice ‘He ate (rice).’ c. *tā chī-le fàn liăng ge xiăoshí (double postverbal elements) he eat- rice two  hour d. tā chī-fàn chī-le liăng ge xiăoshí (verb copying) he eat-rice eat- two  hour ‘He ate for two hours/he had a meal which took two hours.’ b.

Verb copying can void the ungrammaticality in (1c), as shown in (1d). This led Huang (1982, 1984) to propose the Phrase Structure Constraint for Chinese in (2), which rules out double postverbal constituents. (2)

Phrase structure constraint (PSC) (Huang, 1984) Within a given sentence in Chinese, the head (the verb or VP) may branch to the left only once, and only on the lowest level of expansion.

The PSC allows for the VP in Chinese to have the branching in (3a), but not in (3b) since the latter VP branches to the left twice (both at the VP level and at the V´ level). (3)

a.

VP

*VP

b. V’

V

V’ XP

V

XP

We can thus understand the unacceptability of (1c) as being a violation of the PSC. Under this view, the verb copying strategy is used in order to avoid the violation. Other examples of verb copying are illustrated in (4) and (5).4 (4)

Resultative de-clauses a. *tā qí mă de hĕn lèi he ride horse  very tired b. tā qí mă qí de hĕn lèi he ride horse ride  very tired ‘He got tired riding (a horse).’ c. tā qí de mă hĕn lèi he ride  horse very tired ‘He rode the horse and as a result the horse is tired.’

. This sentence also has an activity reading. The object noun phrase can thus be considered to be an “inherent” or “dummy” object (see Cheng and Sybesma 1998 as well as discussion in Section 5.3.2). . The de of resultative de-clauses is on the surface similar to the one in manner de-clauses, but they are in fact not the same. See Section 5.2 for a brief discussion.

 Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng

(5)

Manner de-clauses a. *tā kàn zhè-bĕn xiăoshuō de hĕn he read this- novel  very ‘He read this novel very fast.’ b. tā kàn zhè-bĕn xiăoshuō kàn de he read this- novel read 

kuài fast hĕn kuài very fast

The examples in (4) and (5) illustrate a pattern similar to the durative/frequency expressions. However, the view that verb copying is a rescue strategy runs into difficulty with the data in (6) and (7): (6)

a. b.

(7)

a.

b.

wŏ dĕng-le Zhāngsān bàntiān (D/F expressions) I wait- Zhangsan half-day wŏ dĕng Zhāngsān dĕng -le bàntiān I wait Zhangsan wait- half-day ‘I have waited for Zhangsan for a long time.’ tā qí-lèi-le (nèi-pī) mă (Resultative compounds) he ride-tired- that- horse ‘He rode the horse and the horse became tired.’ →other readings possible (see also Cheng 1997 and Li 1999 among others) tā qí (nèi-pī) mă qí-lèi-le he ride that- horse ride-tired- ‘He rode and got tired.’ (Not: the horse is tired)

In (6a), the definite object Zhāngsān can follow the verb, together with the durative expression bàntiān ‘half-day’ (apparently violating the PSC); and in (7a), it is clear that (nèi-pī) mă ‘(that) horse’ is the sole complement of the resultative verb compound. In neither case is verb copying obligatory. Below, I will first focus on the resultative de-clauses, which can shed light on the mechanism of verb copying. The other cases will be discussed in Section 5.5 .

Resultative de-clauses

Resultative de-clauses provide a good case to investigate verb copying, since they allow quite a range of flexibility. .

The structure

Consider first the basic structure of resultative de-clauses. . Verb copying examples with locative and directional phrases can be directly captured under the same analysis if we treat locative and directional phrases on a par with resultatives (cf. Sybesma 1999).

Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese 

(8)

a.

b.

tā kū de wŏ dōu fán le he cry  I even annoyed  ‘He cried to the extent that I got annoyed.’ tā qí de (nèi-pī ) mă hĕn lèi he ride  that- horse very tired ‘He rode the horse and as a result the horse is tired.’

Sentences such as (8a,b) show that the clause following de can be a full clause. Temporal adverbs as well as aspectual markers can also appear within the de-clause. Sybesma (1999) treats de as the head of an Extent Phrase (ExtP/deP). A sentence such as (8a) can thus be interpreted as: ‘he caused a crying event to the extent that I got annoyed’. Following Sybesma (1999), I assume that the basic VP structure of (8b) is (9): (9)

[VP ride [P de [ horse tired]]]

We have seen that verb copying is possible with resultative de-clauses. Consider now the examples in (10). (10)

a.

b.

tā qí nèi-pī mă qí de hĕn lèi he ride that- horse ride  very tired (i) ‘He rode the horse and the horse got very tired.’ (object-result) (ii) ‘He rode the horse and became tired as a result.’ (subject-result) tā dă Lĭsì dă de hĕn căn he hit Lisi hit  very miserable ‘He hit Lisi to the extent that Lisi became very miserable.’

(10a) is particularly interesting because it allows two readings.6 In the reading in (10a–i), nèi-pī mă ‘the horse’ is interpreted as the one being linked to the resultative predicate hĕn lèi ‘very tired’ while in the second reading (10a–ii), tā ‘he’ is the one being linked to the resultative predicate. I’ll call the first reading the “objectresult” reading since the result is connected to the logical object of the matrix verb and the second reading the “subject-result” reading as the resultative predicate is predicated of the logical subject of the matrix verb. For both readings, it should be noted that there is no overt noun phrase in the de-clause. The subject of the resultative clause is phonetically not spelled-out. Sentences which yield “object-result” reading are interchangeable with băsentences. Consider the bă-counterparts of (10a,b): (11)

a.

tā bă nèi-pī mă qí de hĕn lèi he  that- horse ride  very tired ‘He rode the horse and the horse got very tired.’

. (10b) is in principle also ambiguous, but the “subject-result” reading is a bit incompatible with our knowledge of the world. That is, we don’t expect that hitting someone would yield a result such that the hitter becomes miserable.

 Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng

b.

tā bă Lĭsì dă de hĕn căn he  Lisi hit  very miserable ‘He hit Lisi to the extent that Lisi became very miserable.’

Note that the bă-counterparts shown in (11a,b) only have an object-result reading. I assume, following Sybesma (1999), that bă is the head of the small (causative) ν. Furthermore, the noun phrase following bă is moved from the subject position of the resultative de-clause (as in (12)).7 Considering that in the object result-reading of the verb copying cases, the verb can be replaced by bă (and they cannot cooccur), the null hypothesis for verb copying sentences is that the copied verb also occupies ν, as shown in (12b): νP

(12) a. ta ‘he’

b. ν’

ν ba

νP ta ‘he’

VP

ν’ ν

VP

V’ V qi ‘ride’ de

V’ deP

V XP

qi ‘ride’ de

ma hen lei ‘horse very tired’

deP XP ma hen lei ‘horse very tired’

In the derivations in (12a,b), the noun phrase mă ‘horse’ raises from within the deP to the matrix SpecVP. In the case of verb copying, I assume that the copying is a result of movement (the mechanism of verb copying will be discussed in Section 3.2). We have seen that verb copying (object-result reading) and bă go handin-hand. However, when the matrix verb is intransitive, though a bă-variant is allowed, verb copying is not possible, as (13b,c) show: (13)

tā kū de shŏupà hĕn shī he cry  handkerchief very wet b. tā bă shŏupà kū de hĕn shī he  handkerchief cry  very wet c. *tā kū shŏupà kū de hĕn shī he cry handkerchief cry  very wet ‘He cried to the extent that the handkerchief got wet.’ a.

. In this paper, as will be discussed in more detail in Section 4, I assume that the movement (i.e., Copy and Merge) of the noun phrase in the resultative de-clause is related to thetarequirements.

Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese 

This shows that bă-constructions are not equivalent to verb-copying (objectresult) cases. If the derivations in (12a,b) are on the right track, the ungrammaticality of (13c) is probably related to the fact that the verb cannot move up or that the SpecVP cannot accommodate the noun phrase. We will discuss this in Section 4. .

Verb copying – 1st strategy

I assume the basic framework of movement and realiziation of multiple copies in Nunes (2004) (see also Bošković and Nunes (this volume)). Chain reduction (i.e., deletion of constituents of a non-trivial chain) takes place in order to yield a linearizable sequence according to the L(inear) C(orrespondence) A(xiom) (Kayne, 1994). When chain reduction fails to apply, it is due to modification of word structure (e.g., fusion, as in Distributed Morphology (see Halle and Marantz 1993)). We have indicated that when verb copying is comparable to bă-sentences (i.e., “object-result” reading), there is movement of the noun phrase from the resultative de-clause. Further, we assume that the copied verb can occupy the small ν, just like bă. Instead of base-generating bă, the verb is copied and then merged to ν. The question that arises is why both copies can be realized.8 I propose that after the verb raises (i.e., copies and merges) to ν, in the morphological component, the lower copy of the verb is fused with de (under adjacency; see also Bobaljik 1995).9 Due to fusion (which merges the morphological structure of the verb and de), LCA cannot see the inner elements in [v V-de] (i.e., treating V and [v V-de] as distinct). Chain reduction will thus not apply. Both copies are thus allowed to be phonologically realized. Verb copying in this case is thus the result of standard movement (Copy + Merge) and lack of chain reduction. .

Verb copying – 2nd strategy

The first strategy of verb copying, i.e., standard movement-related copying, takes care of the “object-result” reading of resultative de-clauses. Consider now the “subject-result” reading. The “object-result” reading arises due to the fact that the noun phrase starts out as the subject of the resultative de-clause and it raises to the SpecVP position in the matrix. For the “subject-result” readings, the null hypothesis should be that the . Due to the limit of space, I cannot do any justice in discussing previous proposals (e.g., Paul 2002 and Gouguet 2004 among others). The analysis offered in this paper, I think, covers a wider range of cases than these proposals. . De always carries neutral tone, suggesting that it is like a clitic/suffixal element (similar to the perfective marker -le, and the dimunitive suffix -zi.)

 Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng

subject noun phrase in the matrix is the same as the noun phrase in the resultative de-clause. Hoekstra and Mulder 1990 argue that there is ergativity shift in case of resultatives. That is, a non-ergative verb can become ergative if a resultative clause is added.10 In the case of Chinese resultative de-clauses, this is not at all surprising, as we can see from the examples in (14). (14)

a.

b.

c.

tā qí de hěn lèi he ride  very tired ‘He rode and got tired.’ shŏupà kū de hěn shī handkerchief cry  very wet ‘The handkerchief is wet as a result of crying.’ qíu-xié tī de hěn pò ball-shoes kick  very broken ‘The sport shoes are broken as a result of kicking/playing soccer.’

In all the cases in (14), only one single argument noun phrase is present, and this noun phrase is also interpreted as the subject of the resultative clause. In (14a), the verb qí ‘ride’ is not used transitively (i.e., it becomes a one-argument verb). In (14b), the agent (and the only) argument of the verb is suppressed. In (14c), neither the agent nor the theme argument of the verb is present. These examples show a shift to an ergative structure when the resultative de-clause is added. In other words, we have an ergative sentence comparable to the one in (15a), which has a causative counterpart in (15b): (15)

a. b.

The ship sank. They sank the ship.

Following Sybesma (1999), I assume that the single noun phrase in the sentences in (14a–c) is first merged in the resultative de-clause (as proposed in Hoekstra and Mulder 1990, and raised to the matrix (similar to standard cases of ergative verbs in which the single argument starts out as an internal argument; in this case, internal means inside the resultative clause). (16)

[IP ___ [VP ride [deP de he tired]]]

There is no vP layer, nor is SpecVP available to host any object-like argument (see more details in Section 4).11

. More specifically, they argue that in cases where a verb is shifted to an ergative verb, it has a structure in which the single argument is generated inside the small clause complement (similar to a copular structure) and there is no position in the VP for this argument. . As mentioned above, I am assuming that vP is actually not present. However, it is possible to add a vP (causative layer) to generate a sentence such as (i) (similar to (15b)):

Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese 

Further, (14a–c) show clearly that the noun phrase in the resultative predicate, which may not be thematically related to the matrix verb, can raise to the matrix. This is similar to the ship in (15a) raising from its base (i.e., object) position to the matrix position when the verb is used ergatively (and non-causatively). Consider now more cases with a “subject-result” reading: (17)

a.

b.

c.

tā qí mă qí de hĕn lèi he ride horse ride  very tired ‘He rode and got tired.’ tā kàn shū kàn de hĕn lèi he read book read  very tired ‘He read and got tired.’ tā chī fàn chī de hĕn băo he eat rice eat  very full ‘He ate and became very full.’

The sentences in (17a–c) do not have an “object-result” reading at all. All of these sentences involve a bare noun as the object of the first verb, and the V-O combination yields an activity reading (or necessarily has a non-specific indefinite reading).12 Huang (1982, 1992) suggests that the V-O combination is actually an adjunct. I have suggested earlier that when we have the “subject-result” reading, the noun phrase which is first merged in the de-clause subsequently raises up to the matrix subject position (if there is no causer (see Footnote 11)). Given that there is no SpecVP (see Section 4), the object noun phrase associated with the verb copy cannot be generated in SpecVP. I propose that the V-O combination is generated via Sideward Movement (see Nunes 2001, 2004 among others). The intuition behind Sideward Movement is that once Move is decomposed as Copy and Merge, nothing in the system can or should stipulate that the copy should be merged to the structure where the original item comes from. If the copy is merged with another syntactic object being built, we get a configuration which Nunes calls Sideward Movement, as illustrated in (18). (18)

a.

[K ... αi ... ]

b.

[K ... αi ... ]

αi

[L . . . ]

(Nunes 2004, p. 90)

Copy

(i)

[Mαi [L . . . ]

nèi-pī mă qí de wŏ hĕn lèi that- horse ride  I very tired ‘That horse made me very tired by my riding it.’

. It is not the case that the subject reading is necessarily related to a non-specific indefinite object noun phrase. (10a) shows that given a definite object noun phrase, ambiguity still arises, i.e., “subject-result” reading is still possible.

 Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng

In (18a), α is copied. And there is another structure L being built along the side. As illustrated in (18b), instead of merging directly to K, α is merged with L, forming M. In the case of the “subject-result” reading, there is no position available for the object noun phrase (due to the ergative structure). After the verb is copied, instead of merging to the original structure, it merges with the object noun phrase, which has been constructed separately, projecting a VP, as illustrated in (19): (19)

[VP V [DEP ... ]] V Copy

Merge

DP/bare noun

The VP formed after the Sideward Movement can subsequently merge to the original structure, by adjoining to the VP. This yields the same structure which Huang (1982, 1992) suggests: (20) tāi [[VP1 qí mă] [VP2 qí de ti hĕn lèi]] he ride horse ride  very tired

In the structure in (20), qí-de is also fused in morphology as a morphological unit. As a result, chain reduction is also not triggered in such a case, and realization of both copies is thus possible. It should be noted that the structure in (20) treats qí-mă ‘ride-horse’ as a constituent, which is supported by the fact that this sequence can be fronted as a unit: (21)

qí mă, tā qí de hĕn lèi ride horse he ride  very tired ‘Riding a horse, he got very tired.’

More importantly, recall that verb copying involving a definite object can yield both a subject-result and an object-result reading (as in (10a), repeated here as (22a)). However, if the verb-object sequence is fronted, only one reading, in particular, the subject-result reading remains, as shown in (22b):13 (22)

a.

tā qí nèi-pī mă qí de hĕn lèi he ride that- horse ride  very tired (i) ‘He rode the horse and the horse got very tired.’ (ii) ‘He rode the horse and became tired as a result.’

. I assume here that movement is involved, instead of simply adjoining the VP to the matrix, because island effects can be detected, as indicated by (i) and (ii), with complex NP island and adjunct island, respectively. (i) ?*qí nèi-pī mă, wŏ jùjué-le Guōjíng qí de hěn lèi de shuōfă ride that- horse I reject- Guojing ride  very tired  claim ‘As for riding that horse, I rejected the claim that Guojing got tired.’

Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese 

b.

qí nèi-pī mă tā qí de hĕn lèi ride that- horse he ride  very tired ‘Riding that horse, he got very tired.’ (= “subject-result”) Not: ‘Riding that horse, he got the horse tired.’

This follows naturally from the proposal put forth here: in the second strategy of verb copying, Sideward Movement is involved, yielding a VP consisting of the verb-object sequence. Since the V-O sequence forms a constituent, it can be fronted as a unit. On the other hand, the object-result reading is derived by standard movement of the verb from V to v, and by the movement of the noun phrase from deP to SpecVP. The verb and the noun phrase in question crucially do not form a constituent, and thus cannot move as a unit. .

Triggering copy, sideward movement, and optionality of SpecVP

We have seen two copying strategies, each yielding a different interpretation. The “standard” movement gives us the “object-result” reading while Sideward Movement gives us the “subject-result” reading. In both cases, we see an asymmetry concerning transitive and intranstive verbs. In particular, (13b) (repeated below as (23)) should not be allowed regardless of which copying strategy is used. (23) *tā kū shŏupà kū de hĕn shī he cry handkerchief cry  very wet

With respect to the first strategy, what needs to be blocked is the movement of shŏupà ‘handkerchief ’ from the de-clause to the matrix SpecVP. And for the second strategy, consider the sentence in (24), which intends to have (and supposes to be biased towards) a “subject-result” reading. (24) *tā kū shŏupà kū de hĕn lèi he cry handkerchief cry  very tired Intended: “He is tired from having cried (on) the handkerchief.’

To derive (24), the verb kū ‘cry’ has to copy, and sideward move to the object noun phrase shŏupà ‘handkerchief ’, which is being built separately (while the subject noun phrase is moved from the de-clause). From these ungrammatical examples, it is clear that both the copying of the noun phrase (in the first strategy) and the copying of the verb (in the second strategy) have to be restricted. (ii) ?*kàn shū, women [zai měi-ge rén dōu kàn de hěn lèi zhīhòu] cái jiànmiàn read book we at every- person  read  very tired after then meet ‘As for reading, we met after everyone got tired after reading.’

 Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng

Hornstein and Nunes (2002) propose that Last Resort is a condition on the operation of Copy, with Last Resort being satisfied by formal feature checking including theta-role assignment/checking. The data with resultative verb copying in Mandarin provides further support for this. As noted, for both strategies, there is an asymmetry between transitive and intranstive verbs. This is linked to the argument structure/theta-marking asymmetry. Consider the first stategy (“object-result” reading), and the Example (10b) (repeated here as (25)): (25)

tā dă Lĭsì dă de hĕn căn he hit Lisi hit  very miserable ‘He hit Lisi to the extent that Lisi became very miserable.’

The noun phrase Lĭsì is first merged in the de-clause. The matrix verb dă ‘hit’ still needs to check its theta-feature (for its internal argument). By making a copy of Lĭsí and merging it to SpecVP, the theta-feature of the verb can be checked (cf. Hornstein 1999). In contrast, with an intransitive verb such as kū ‘cry’ (as in (23)), there is no theta-feature for the verb to check. The copying of the noun phrase shŏupa ‘handkerchief ’ in (23) will not be triggered (and thus no “raising” of the noun phrase, nor raising of the verb). Consider now the second strategy. For a sentence such as (17b) (repeated below as (26)), the subject noun phrase is merged in the de-clause and subsequently moved to the matrix. The structure is an ergative structure and thus, the object noun phrase cannot be merged directly to SpecVP (see Section 4 below). Last Resort can trigger verb copying, merging the verb with the noun phrase shū ‘book’, and this VP is subsequently adjoined to the main clause VP, deriving the sentence in (26). (26)

tā kàn shū kàn de hĕn lèi he read book read  very tired ‘He read and got tired.’

Now consider (24) again. In this case, we are dealing with the verb kū ‘cry’, which has no internal theta-feature to check. Copying is thus not triggered, and therefore the derivation of sentences like (24) is blocked as well. For both strategies, Last Resort clearly restricts the copying. In the first case, the copying of a noun phrase, and in the second case, the copying of a verb. Sideward movement is thus shown to be as constrained as the standard movement. The triggering of the verb copying operation in the case of Sideward Movement is dependent on the fact that the object noun phrase of the verb cannot be merged in the structure already established. I suggested that this is due to the fact that resultatives can trigger an ergative shift in the structure of the VP (assuming Hoekstra and Mulder 1990). However, in the above analysis of the “object-result”

Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese 

reading, I have assumed that the noun phrase in the deP moves to the SpecVP in the matrix, allowing therefore an “extra” position in the matrix, i.e., the SpecVP position. If this position were available in the cases of “subject-result” reading, we could never derive the sentences in (17). Consider the following derivation: (27)

a. b. c. d.

[V’ ride [P de he very tired]] [VP horse [V’ ride [P de he very tired]]] [IP ____ [VP horse [V’ ride [P de he very tired]]]] nèi-pī mă qì de tā hěn lèi that- horse ride  he very tired ‘That horse made him tired by his riding it.’

In (27a), he is the subject of the predicate in the deP. The matrix verb ride still has one theta-role to check (i.e., the theme/object role). If we allow the SpecVP to be projected, and merge horse in that position, we will get a representation such as (27b). Consider now (27c). The noun phrase that can move up to SpecIP should be horse since it is a hierarchically higher than he. The sentence generated by this derivation is not an ungrammatical sentence (cf. (27d)), but it has a different reading, with horse as the causer (see Foonote 11). However, crucially, the sentence in (10a) (with the “subject-result” reading) cannot be generated along these lines, as tā ‘he’ needs to be in the matrix position. This entails that ergativity shift of the matrix verb is optional with resultative de-clauses. (27d) is derived if there is indeed ergativity shift and a causative layer is added (i.e., horse is then the causer). The question that remains concerns sentences such as (4c) (repeated as (28)). This is an object-result reading case without verb copying.14 (28)

tā qì de mă hĕn lèi he ride  horse very tired ‘He rode the horse and as a result the horse is tired.’

We can treat (28) on a par with (27d). That is, there is indeed ergativity shift (and there is one single argument left, which is generated inside the resultative clause). The matrix argument is a causer argument: he caused a riding event such that the horse got tired as a result. In Section 5.3, I provide data from Jieyang Chao-Zhou dialect for further support for the optionality of ergativity with resultative de-clauses.

. Both (27d) and (28) do not involve verb copying. The causer argument is added to the structure without triggering syntactic copying of the verb. This is compatible with Hornstein and Nunes (2002) proposal regarding the last resort nature of Copy. This also entails that the verb does not raise to the causative layer in Chinese.

 Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng

.

Other verb copying cases

We discussed in the Introduction instances of verb copying in addition to the Resultative constructions. In this section, we examine each case with respect to the two copying strategies proposed above. .

D(uration)/F(requency) expressions

As has been discussed in the literature, the definiteness of the direct object plays a role in the obligatoriness of copying in sentences with D/F expressions. (29a,b) provide examples of a definite object noun phrase with duration/frequency expressions and (30) examples with an indefinite object. (29)

a.

b. c. (30)

tā kàn-le nèi-běn shū sān cì he read- that- book three times ‘He read that book three times.’ tā kàn nèi-běn shū kàn-le sān cì he read that- book read- three times tā bă nèi-běn shū kàn-le sān cì he  that- book read- three times

a. *tā kàn-le shū sān-ge xiăoshí he read- book three- hour b. tā kàn shū kàn-le sān-ge xiăoshí he read book read- three- hour ‘He read for three hours.’

As the data show, with a definite object noun phrase, verb copying is optional (i.e., both (29a) and (29b) are acceptable). This verb copying sentence seems to be equivalent to the bă-variant in (29c). On the other hand, with an indefinite object, verb copying is necessary, as indicated by the contrast between (30a) and (30b). The verb copying strategies proposed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 involve extra morphological material which is fused with the verb. This creates a modified morphological structure which allows the copies to escape from Chain Reduction. One might conclude from this and from the data in (29) that le ‘perfective marker’ constitutes this extra material in (29b) and (30b). However, this is not the case, as the sentences in (31) show: here le is not present, and yet we find copying. (31)

a.

b.

tā měi-yī-tiān kàn nèi-běn shū kàn sān cì he every--day read that- book read three times ‘He reads that book three times every day.’ tā kàn nèi-běn shū kàn sān cì he read that- book read three times ‘He read   three times (. . . and this book twice, etc.).’

Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese 

In (31a), měi-yī-tiān ‘every-one-day’ is a phrasal adjunct, which cannot morphologically fuse with the verb. (31b) provides a stronger piece of evidence that no extra material is available. In other words, these verb copying cases involving D/F expressions seem to present a problem for the theory of copying that we have been exploring here. However, as Ernst (1987) points out, there is another variant of D/F expressions, shown in (32), with the lower copy of the verb replaced by the verb yŏu ‘have’:15 (32)

a.

b.

tā kàn nèi-běn shū yŏu sān cì le he read that- book have three times  ‘He has read that book three times.’ wŏ rènshì tā yŏu shí-nián le I know him have ten-years  ‘I have known him for ten years.’

I propose that the two variants differ only in that the cases with verb copying involves a covert yŏu ‘have’ (indicated as ), as represented in (33):16 (33)

[νP . . . [VP that book read [ three times]]

To derive (29a) and (29b), the verb kàn ‘read’ copies and merges to the upper v. In the case of definite noun phrases (as represented in (33)), I suggest that fusion between the verb and the covert yŏu is optional. If fusion takes place, the upper copy of the verb and the lower [verb plus yŏu] are distinct. Chain reduction does not apply and multiple realization of the verb becomes possible. If fusion does not take place, the copies are non-distinct, chain reduction applies, and only one copy (the upper one) remains. With non-specific indefinites, which involve obligatory verb copying, I suggest that the second strategy of verb copying (involving Sideward Movement) is involved. This is due to the fact that non-specific indefinites cannot be merged in SpecVP, the affected object position (see Diesing 1992, Marantz 1993). This is further supported by the fact that such V-O sequences always yield an activity reading.17

. For lack of space, I do not discuss here the various readings that are possible with duration expressions. See Ernst 1987 and Li, 1987 for discussions of sentences such as (32). . Within the framework of lexical relational structures, the structure can be understood as saying that an event of reading has been realized 3 times (i.e., basically derived from an e→n relation). . There are thus two independent reasons why SpecVP is not used: (i) SpecVP is not available due to the ergative structure; and (ii) SpecVP cannot only host definite noun phrases.

 Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng

.

Manner de-clauses

Manner adverbial de-clauses present an interesting puzzle for the analysis of verb copying proposed here. Consider again the data in (5) (repeated below as (34)): (34)

a. *tā kàn zhè-běn xiăoshuō de hěn kuài he read this- novel  very fast ‘He read this novel very fast.’ b. tā kàn zhè- běn xiăoshuō kàn de hěn kuài he read this- novel read  very fast

(34a) shows that manner de-clauses differ from D/F expressions in not allowing definite noun phrases to co-occur without reduplication; with manner de-clauses, there is no difference between definite and indefinite noun phrases (see (35)). (35)

a. *tā kàn xiăoshuō de hěn kuài he read novel  very fast ‘He read this novel very fast.’ b. tā kàn xiăoshuō kàn de hěn kuài he read novel read  very fast

Huang (1988) argues convincingly that the manner adverbial de-clauses should be treated as a type of secondary predication, with the adverbial clause being an inner adverbial. This gives us a basic VP structure for (35b) as: (36)

[VP novel read [de very fast]]

Note that the object of the verb, novel, does not begin within the secondary predicate, since the object noun phrase is not predicated by it. Assuming this structure, it is interesting to note that it is not possible to have (37) (in comparison with resultative de-clauses, as in (28)). (37)

*tā kàn de (nèi- běn) xiăoshuō hěn kuài he read  that- novel very fast Intended: “He read the novel very fast.’

(37) can be derived if the manner-de clauses can also trigger ergativity shift. The fact that (37) is ungrammatical suggests that manner de-clauses do not trigger ergativity shift. This is not surprising since manner clauses are adverbials clauses, they cannot be interpreted as an inner argument of the verb. Further, though de in manner de-clauses appear on surface to be the same as de in resultative de-clauses, they are in fact different. This can be clearly seen in other dialects, such as Cantonese: de in the resultative clause is actually the verb dou ‘arrive’, while de in the manner adverbial clause is dak.

Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese 

I propose that de in manner-de clauses is always fused with the verb (indicated in the representation in (38)).18 The spelling out of both copies is allowed because the two copies are distinct. This derives the difference between manner de-clauses and D/F expressions. (38)

[νP read [VP that novel [read-] very fast ]]

A question which arises concerns indefinite noun phrases occurring with manner declauses. I suggest that these can also be derived via Sideward Movement, assuming that indefinite noun phrases cannot be merged in SpecVP, as we mentioned above. .

Resultative compounds

We turn now to verb copying in sentences with resultative compounds, which are comparable to resultative de-clauses in some ways but not identical to them. Consider now the basic data involving resultative compounds.19 (39)

a.

b.

c.

tā qí-lèi-le (nèi-pī) mă he ride-tired- that- horse (i) ‘He rode the horse and the horse became tired.’ (ii) ‘He got tired of riding the horse/horses.’ tā qí (nèi-pī) mă qí-lèi-le he ride that- horse ride-tired- ‘He rode and got tired.’ (Not: the horse is tired) tā bă (nèi-pī) mă qí-lèi-le he  that- horse ride-tired- ‘He rode the horse and the horse became tired.’

As shown in (39a), when there is no verb copying, there is more than one reading available.20 As we see from the translation, both the “subject-result” and “object-result” readings are available. However, with verb copying, the “object-result” reading disappears. In this way, the interpretation with verb copying and the bă-variants differ. In the bă-variant (with resultative compounds), as in the cases with resultative . De in manner-de clauses also has a neutral tone, suggesting that it is also a clitic/suffixal element. . Following traditional terminology, I use the term “compound” to describe these sentences; however, this does not imply that I believe that these verbal complexes are really derived by compounding. See Cheng 1997 for a mixed lexical-syntactic analysis, Huang 1992 for an alternative syntactic analysis and Li 1999, 2005 for a lexical analysis. . In fact, as Li (1999) points out, there are three readings available here. Since the number of readings in the non-copying cases is not important here, I illustrate only two. For a detailed discussion, see Li 1999, Cheng 1997 and Cheng and Huang 1994, as well as Sybesma 1999.

 Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng

de-clauses, only the “object-result” reading is available. In the verb copying case with resultative compounds, it is precisely this reading that is not available. I follow Sybesma (1999) and assume a small clause analysis for the resultative compound sentences, as shown in (40) for (39a). (40) is a simplified structure of the VP. The perfective marker is assumed to be merged between V and SC.21 VP

(40) V ride

SC DP horse

VP tired

The structure can be interpreted as follows: there is a riding event such that the horse got tired. Within the Hale and Keyser (1993) framework, it is a dynamic event implicating a state (and thus a result). The subject of the matrix clause (merged in SpecVP) can thus be considered to be a causer of the dynamic event. The structure in (40) derives the “object-result” reading. For the “subject-result” reading, the matrix subject is also the subject of the resultative small clause predicate, yielding a structure as in (41): (41)

[VP ride [SC Zhangsan tired]]

This is comparable to the ergative structure proposed earlier for the subject-result reading in resultative de-clauses. In fact, both (42a) and (42b) are possible, showing that the “inner” argument becomes the matrix subject. (42)

a.

b.

Zhāngsān qí-lèi-le. Zhangsan ride-tired- ‘Zhangsan is tired from riding (a horse).’ shŏupà kū shī-le handkerchief cry wet- ‘The handkerchief is wet as a result of crying.’

.. Verb copying with resultative compounds As we have seen in (39b), verb copying with resultative compounds is only possible if the resultative predicate is predicated of the matrix subject (see also Huang 1984). Compare the pair (39a–b) and (43a–b) with (44a–b) and (45a–b).22 . Given the structure [VP ride [ PERF [SC horse tired]], tired subsequently moves up to the perfective marker. I think that there is no further movement to the matrix verb, though there is perhaps morpho-phonological merger of the matrix verb and the resultative complex (see Bobaljik 1995). . Some speakers consider (44b) to be good. I don’t know whether this is a dialectal distinction or not.

Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese 

(43)

a.

b.

tā chī-băo-le he eat-full- ‘He is full.’ tā chī fàn chī-băo-le he eat rice eat-full- ‘He got full by eating (rice).’

(44)

tā xĭ-gānjíng-le yīfú he wash-clean- clothes ‘He washed the clothes and the clothes got cleaned.’ b. *tā xĭ yīfú xĭ gānjìng-le he wash clothes wash clean-

(45)

tā kū-shī-le shŏupà he cry-wet- handkerchief ‘He cried and handkerchief became wet.’ b. *tā kū shŏupà kū-shī-le he cry handkerchief cry-wet- c. tā bă shŏupà kū-shī-le he  handkerchief cry-wet- ‘He cried the handkerchief wet.’

a.

a.

In the Examples (39b) and (43b), verb copying is allowed. But in (44b) and (45b), the ones having only the “object-result” reading, verb copying is not allowed. Consider now the structures for the two result-readings: (46)

a. b.

object-result: [VP wash [SC clothes clean]] subject-result: [VP eat [SC he full ]]

Leaving the causer/agent aside, with “object-result”, the theta-requirements of wash are satisfied, assuming that the argument within the SC is accessible to the matrix verb.23 On the other hand, in the case of the “subject-result”, eat still has an object theta-feature to check. We have shown that copying is triggered by Last Resort. Therefore, the thetarequirements of eat (i.e., the “subject-result” cases) can trigger verb copying, as in (43b). On the other hand, in the “object-result” cases, copying is not triggered by theta-requirements. One question that remains concerns why the first strategy of verb copying is not available; why we do not have movement of the inner argument to matrix SpecVP position, as in the case of resultative de-clauses. Following Hoekstra and Mulder 1990, and Hoekstra 1992, I assume that a verb plus a resultative small clause

. I assume that in de-clauses, the theta-features of the clause are not accesssible to the matrix verbs, while this is not true for small clauses. This is not so surprising since the de-clauses are full clauses.

 Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng

obligatorily yields an ergative structure (i.e., no structural object position). This means that SpecVP is not available with resultative compounds. This also leads to a difference between resultative de-clauses and resultative compounds, since resultative de-clauses only optionally trigger ergativity shift (as discussed in Section 4). Supportive evidence for this claim can be found from Chao-zhou dialects, as discussed in Matthews, Xu and Yip (2005). In Jieyang (one of the Chao-Zhou dialects), the marker k’e is obligatorily used to mark passive and ergatives:24 (47)

a.

b.

ua tiam k’e *(i) me I always pass 3sg scold ‘I keep being scolded by him.’ kai nou-kiã k’e i pua lo k’ cl child pass 3sg fall down RVC ‘The child fell over.’

When an unergative verb such as tsau ‘run’ is followed by a resultative verb, as in (48), the marker k’e also appears obligatorily. See also the examples in (49), where the verb i, ‘sleep’ becomes ergative when the resultative verb is added (49b). (48)

sã kai ts’a k’e i tsau k’ three cl thief pass 3sg run RVC ‘Three thieves escaped.’

(49)

a.

b.

ua t’õi tiangsi au tsu k’ ĩ, I watch TV after then go sleep ‘I went to sleep after watching TV.’ ua t’õi tiangsi, t’õi t’õi e tsu *(k’e i) ĩ, k’ I watch television watch watch asp then pass 3sg sleep RVC ‘I fell asleep while watching television.’

The contrast between resultative de-clauses and resultative compounds is also reflected in the Jieyang dialect. In Jieyang, kau is the equivalent of de. We see in the resultative kau-clauses in Jieyang in (50a,b), the marker k’e is optional.25 (50)

a.

b.

ua k’e i tsia kau kai tou t’iã, si I pass 3sg eat until cl stomach hurt RVC ‘I ate until my stomach hurt.’ ua tsia kau kai tou t’iã, si I eat until cl stomach hurt RVC ‘I ate until my stomach hurt.’

.

The resultative verb k’ means literally ‘go’.

.

I thank Stephen Matthew for providing the data in (50).

Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese 

From the Jieyang Chao-Zhou dialect we have seen confirming evidence that a clausal resultative yields optional ergativity shift while resultative compound verbs yield obligatory ergativity shift. This difference in ergativity shift leads to the difference we have seen in the availability of the verb copying strategies. .. Extra argument The cases of verb copying involving resultative compounds concern the “subjectresult” cases. There are however other cases which do not have a straightforward “subject-result” reading but they do allow copying. These are also cases which provide supporting evidence for the Last Resort requirement of copying and Sideward Movement. These cases involve an “extra” argument. Consider first the two sentences in (51). (51)

a. tā kàn shū kàn-lèi-le yănjīng He read book read-tired- eye ‘He tired his eyes by book-reading.’ a. tā tī qiú tī-pò-le qiú-xié he kick ball kick-broken- sport-shoe ‘He broke his sport-shoes by ball-kicking.’

The VP structures of these two sentences before verb copying are: (52)

a. b.

[VP read [SC eye tired ]] [VP kick [SC sport-shoe broken ]]

In both examples, the argument inside the resultative small clause is not an internal or extenal argument of the verb. In other words, the internal theta-feature of these verbs is still available. Hence, verb copying can be triggered (and Sideward Move with the object noun phrase), and we derive the sentences in (51). Note that the object of the verb in these cases differ from the subject of the result predicate. This falls out very well given the current analysis, as these sentences still involve resultative compounds and thus obligatory ergativity shift is involved. It should be also noted that (51a,b) do not have a bă-variant, as the ungrammatical (53a,b) show. This provides further evidence for the claim that bă does not introduce its own argument; the noun phrase associated with bă must be first merged in another position.26

. The subject of the resultative predicate can raise to SpecVP position in the matrix to create a bă-sentence: (i) a. tā bă yănjīng kàn-lèi-le read-tired-PERF he BA eye ‘He made his eyes tired by reading.’

 Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng

(53)

a. *tā he b. *tā he

bă  bă 

shū kàn-lèi-le yănjīng book read-tired- eye qiú tī-pò-le qiú-xié ball kick-broken- sport-shoe

In addition, (54a,b) show that the copy of the verb can take a dummy object, if the verb is an unergative verb (see Cheng and Sybesma 1998 regarding dummy objects). Crucially, the copied verb does not take a derived object, as shown in (54b). (54)

tā păo-lèi-le tuĭ he run-tired- leg b. *tā păo tuĭ păo-lèi-le he run leg run-tired- c. tā păo-bù păo-lèi-le tuĭ he run-step run-tired- leg ‘He ran and as a result his legs got tired.’

a.

Lastly, I would like to turn back to the Last Resort requirement, which should not allow optionality. But in almost all of the verb copying cases with resultative compounds, there is also a no-copy variant, i.e., no verb copying at all: (55)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

tā qí-lèi-le he ride-tired- ‘He is tired because of (horse-back) riding.’ tā chī-băo-le he eat-full- ‘He is full.’ tā kàn-lèi-le yănjīng he read-tired- eye ‘His eyes are tired from reading.’ tā tī-pò-le qíu-xié he kick-broken- sport-shoe ‘His sport-shoes are broken because of soccer playing.’27 tā păo-lèi-le tuĭ he run-tired- leg ‘His legs are tired because of running.’

b. tā bă qiú-xié tī-pò-le he  sport-shoe kick-broken- ‘He made his sport-shoes torn by kicking.’ This suggests bă can license an extra SpecVP despite of the ergativity shift in resultative compounds. . Speakers disagree as to whether or not the kicking here can be kicking other things than a soccer ball.

Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese 

If Copy is triggered by Last Resort, and we have seen that the verb copying cases in Mandarin verb copying is triggered by the theta-requirement of the verb, then the lack of verb copying in (55) become problematic. The optionality that I am pointing out now has to do with the satisfaction of the theta-requirement of the verb. Crucially, if the verb is ergative, can it still have the theta-feature to be checked? I speculate here that the ergativity has to do with the structure, but it does not affect the theta-features (which may be suppressed and hence optional).

.

Conclusion

I have shown that we can treat verb copying in different types of constructions in Mandarin Chinese under one umbrella. All verb copying involves either standard movement of a noun phrase plus verb movement, or Sideward Movement of the verb. In all cases, due to a modified structure in the lower copy, both copies are allowed to be pronounced, without violating the LCA. If the analysis of verb copying proposed here is on the right track, we have further evidence for Last Resort trigger of copying: both for copying of noun phrases (i.e., DP movement) and for copying of verbs (i.e., V movement). In both cases, the theta-requirement of the verb is the sole trigger for the copying. Given the analysis of verb copying, structural analyses of the various complemental and adverbial expressions are suggested, mostly making certain choices from previous analyses. I have further shown that ergativity is associated with resultatives, either optionally or obligatorily. The remaining question rests upon how theta-features are affected by modified argument structure which are imposed in syntax.

References Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Cheng, Lisa L.-S. 1997. Resultative compounds and lexical relational structures. Symposium Series of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 2: 167–197. Cheng, Lisa L.-S. & Huang, C.-T. James. 1994. On the argument structure of resultative compounds. In A Festschrift for William S.-Y. Wang, Matthew Chen & Ovid Tzeng (eds), p. 187–221. Taipei: Pyramid Press. Cheng, Lisa L.-S. Sybesma, Rint. 1998. On dummy objects and the transitivity of run. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 15, ed. Renée van Bezooijen & Rene Kager, 81–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

 Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng Ernst, Tom. 1987. Duration adverbials and Chinese phrase structure. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 12: 1–11. Gouguet, Jules. 2004. Verb copying and the linearization of event structure in Mandarin. Ms. Universite de Paris 7. Hale, Ken & Keyser, S. Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Hoekstra, Teun & Mulder, René. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs; locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7: 1–79. Hoekstra, Teun. 1992. Aspect and theta-theory. In Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, I.M. Roca (ed.), 145–174. Berlin: Foris. Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96. Hornstein, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo. 2002. On asymmetries between parasitic gap and across-the board constructions. Syntax 5: 26–54. Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. Phrase structure, lexical integrity, and Chinese compounds. Journal of Chinese teacher’s association 19: 53–78. Huang, C.-T. James. 1988. Woŏ paăo de kuài and Chinese phrase structure. Language 64: 274– 311. Huang, C.-T. James. 1992. Complex predicates in control. In Control and Grammar, Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou & Utpal Lahiri (eds), 109–147. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Li, Audrey Yen-hui. 1987. Duration phrases: Distributions and interpretations. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 12: 27–65. Li, Yafei. 1999. Cross-componential causativity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 445–497. Li, Yafei. 2005. X0: A theory of the morphology-syntax interface. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar 1, Sam A. Mchombo (ed.), 113–150. Stanford CA: CSLI. Matthews, Stephen, Xu, Huiling & Yip, Virginia. 2005. Passive and unaccusative in the Jieyang dialect of Chaozhou. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14: 267–298. Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 303–344. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Paul, Waltraud. 2002. Proxy categories in phrase structure theory and the Chinese VP. Cahiers de Linguistique-Asie Orientale 31: 137–174. Sybesma, Rint P.E. 1999. The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon Norbert Corver Utrecht University

This chapter investigates Dutch expressions involving two instances of the bound morpheme –s, which is traditionally analyzed as a genitival case suffix, as in blootshoofds (lit.: bare-s-head-s; ‘bare headed; with the head bare’) or ’s Zondags (lit.: -s Sunday-s; ‘on Sundays’). The first instance of –s in these expressions is traditionally qualified as being proleptic in that it anticipates the occurrence of the final –s that is right-attached to the noun. An analysis of –s-prolepsis is proposed in terms of the operations movement/copying. More specifically, it is argued that in expressions like blootshoofds, for instance, –s is not a genitival case suffix but rather a small clause head that establishes a predication relationship between a predicate and a subject (schematically: [XP hoofd [X’ –s [AP bloot]]]. The surface order is derived by movement of the predicate to a position preceding the subject and concomitant head movement of the small clause head –s to the functional head into whose specifier position the displaced predicate has moved (schematically: [FP blootj [F’ –si+F [XP hoofd [X’ –si blootj]]]]). The multiple realization of the two –s copies is accounted for in terms of Nunes’s (1995, 2004) theory about the linearization of movement chains. Cases likes ’s Zondags receive the same basic account, with the difference that –s is analyzed as a (weak) demonstrative pronoun (i.e. a reduced variant of the word des) rather than a small clause head. A parallel is then drawn with phenomena of demonstrative-doubling in prepositional structures in German dialects.

.

Prolepsis as a design property of human language

The notion prolepsis is used in (Dutch) traditional grammar to refer to the phenomenon of grammatical anticipation: an element appears ‘too early’ in the linguistic representation, i.e. in a position which is not its ‘canonical’ position or where it does not find its origin (Overdiep 1937: 137 ff.). A well-known case of syntactic prolepsis is the appearance in the main clause of a sentence element that belongs to (i.e. fulfills a grammatical function in) the embedded clause, as for example in (1) where the wh-word who surfaces as a member of the main clause but is interpreted as a member (i.e. a direct object) of the embedded clause: (1)

Who do you think that she kissed?

 Norbert Corver

This instance of syntactic prolepsis, which in traditional grammar has been referred to as ‘sentence intertwining’ (Dutch: zinsvermenging (De Vooys 1967); German: Satzverschlingung (Paul 1904)), is also familiar from generative grammar. In that framework, syntactic prolepsis as in (1) is analyzed in terms of the displacement property of human language. The constituent who in (1) starts out as a direct object noun phrase of the verb kissed, from which it receives its semantic role (theme), and is subsequently moved to the left periphery of the main clause, i.e. Spec, CP, where it receives its interrogative interpretation. In pre-minimalist analyses, syntactic prolepsis as in (1) was analyzed in terms of two levels of representation: d-structure (the pre-movement structure where who gets its theta role) and s-structure (the structure resulting from overt movement). In current minimalist analysis, d-structure and s-structure — being non-interface levels — have been eliminated. The ‘d-structure’ (i.e. thematic) position is obtained through the syntactic operation External Merge, which combines the lexical items kissed and who in (1) into a new syntactic object (VP). The ‘s-structure’ (i.e. proleptic) position is derived by the computational operation Internal Merge (i.e. Move). This operation takes who in (1) and moves it to the left edge of the syntactic object that has been built up to that point in the derivation (say the CP do you think that she kissed). In Chomsky (1993), it is proposed that movement leaves behind a copy of the moved element, rather than a trace. For the derivation of a sentence like (1), this implies that under a successive-cylic movement analysis of long distance whmovement, there are copies of the fronted wh-word in the object position of kissed and in the Spec-position of the embedded C. Schematically (abstracting away from other movement operations): (2)

[CP Who do you think [CP who that she kissed who]]

As is clear from (1), only the highest copy (i.e. the leftmost proleptic constituent) may survive (i.e. surface phonetically) at PF. The lower copies (‘the traces’) are not to be pronounced in standard English. Intererestingly, there are languages/dialects in which long distance wh-movement features two instances of the fronted wh-element: one in the highest CP and the other in the intermediate CP. An example is given in (3) from German. (3)

Wen glaubst Hans [wen Jakob gesehen hat]? Whom thinks Hans whom Jakob seen has ‘Who does Hans think that Jakob saw?’

(McDaniel 1986)

The question obviously arises as to why ‘wh-prolepsis’ (i.e. the anticipatory occurrence of a wh-element; i.e. wh-movement) permits wh-duplication (i.e. phonetic realization of more than one copy) in (3) but not in (2). Besides syntactic prolepsis, i.e. the anticipating occurrence of a constituent (e.g. a wh-phrase) in the syntactic representation, (Dutch) traditional grammar has

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

also identified phenomena of morphological prolepsis, i.e. the anticipating appearance of an inflectional morpheme α on an element X, which is not a regular host of such an inflectional element and which is followed by an element Y which ìs a regular host of α. An interesting case of morphological prolepsis in Dutch is the anticipatory occurrence of the (attributive) adjectival agreement morpheme –e on degree ‘adverbs’ that modify a gradable adjective that also carries the attributive inflectional morpheme –e (cf. Corver (2006)).1 Some examples of this phenomenon of morphological prolepsis are given in (4). The relevant pattern is schematically represented in (5): (4)

a.

b.

(5)

een [erg(-e) leuk-e] auto a very- nice- car ‘a very nice car’ [vreselijk(-e) leuk-e] huizen extreme- nice- houses ‘extremely nice houses’

[FP [AP [XP X] A] [F’ F [NP N]]]( is the degree adverb)

As shown in (4), the degree word (erg, vreselijk) can (optionally) carry the inflectional morpheme –e (i.e. the sound ‘schwa’) if it modifies a (gradable) attributive adjective carrying this inflectional morpheme. Importantly, the inflectional morpheme -e appears on all (prenominal) attributive adjectives except for those that modify an indefinite neuter singular noun phrase, as in een leuk(*-e) huis (a nice(*-) house). As expected, proleptic –e does not occur on the degree adverb in such cases: (6)

a. b.

een [erg(*-e) leuk] huis a very(*-e) nice house een [vreselijk(*-e) leuk] huis a extreme(*-e) nice house

(Compare with (4a)) (Compare with (4b))

As argued in Corver (2006), the phenomenon of proleptic agreement as illustrated in (4) is a systematic design property of natural language (in casu: Dutch) and should not be interpreted, for example, as sloppy speech (i.e. a performance property) or an imperfection of language. Its systematic and restricted behavior is shown among others by the following two properties: (a) the host of the proleptic –e must always be a degree adverb; other adverbs are excluded (see (7)); (b) within the class of degree adverbs, it is only a subclass that permits proleptic –e, viz. those that designate (extremely) high degree (see (8)). . Another phenomenon that Dutch traditional grammar characterizes as an instance of prolepsis is Complementizer Agreement, i.e. the phenomenon that the complementizer agrees with the subject pronoun, as does the finite verb. Some generative studies have analyzed this instance of prolepsis in terms of movement theory (cf. Zwart’s 1993 T-to-C movement analysis), others have interpreted it in terms of Agree (cf. Van Craenenbroeck and Koppen 2002, Carstens 2003).

 Norbert Corver

(7)

a.

b.

c.

(8)

a.

b.

een [erg(-e) dur-e] fiets a very- expensive- bike ‘a very expensive bike’ een [waarschijnlijk(*-e) dur-e] fiets a probable- expensive- bike ‘a probably expensive bike’ een [gelukkig(*-e) goedkop-e] fiets a fortunate- cheap- bike ‘a fortunately cheap bike’ een [compleet/*complet-e blind-e] man a complete/*complete- blind- man ‘a completely blind man’ een [vrij/*vrij-e dur-e] auto a fair/fair- expensive- car

(degree adverb)

(modal adverb)

(evaluative adverb)

(absolute degree)

(moderate degree)

Since a complete analysis of this phenomenon of morphological prolepsis is beyond the scope of this article, I will confine myself to a rough characterization of what seems to underlie this pattern of morphological prolepsis (see Corver (2006) for a more detailed discussion). As pointed out above, only a degree adverb that designates a very high degree can bear the proleptic inflectional morpheme –e that enters into an agreement relationship with the noun. These proleptically agreeing high degree adverbs typically have an affective/emphatic (i.e. focalized) force. Suppose now that this affective/emphatic force is associated with its placement in a left peripheral A-bar type position (i.e. an edge position) within the extended adjectival domain. More specifically, let’s assume that the proleptically agreeing degree adverb occupies Spec, DegP. The intuitive idea would be now that being in an edge position, the proleptically agreeing degree adverb (the probe) is able to enter into an agreement relationship with the noun (the goal). This way, the uninterpretable φ-features associated with –e on the degree adverb (i.e. the proleptic inflection) are deleted under matching with the interpretable φ-features of the noun. This possibility of having an agreement relationship between the edge of a phrase XP (in casu: Spec, DegP) and another element is in line with Chomsky’s (2000) Phaseimpenetrability condition, which informally states that the spec-position and the head position of some phrase XP are accessible for entering into a dependency relation with some element outside of XP. Thus, proleptic agreement within the Dutch attributive adjectival system is another illustration of the accessibility of the edge of a phase.2 . This brief sketch of the phenomenon of prolepsis of adjectival agreement in degree adverbadjective patterns raises the following questions: (i) Why is the phenomenon optional?; (ii) How is the double agreement on both the degree adverb and the adjective explained — after all, only

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

From this brief discussion of syntactic and morphological prolepsis, we may conclude that this phenomenon of grammatical anticipation is part of the design of natural language. Obviously, the traditional notion of ‘prolepsis’ is nothing but a descriptive term for a grammatical phenomenon that shows up at the ‘surface’ of a linguistic expression: some element (a syntactic constituent, a morpheme) in a way shows up ‘too early’ in the linear string. It is the linguist’s task to give an account of the anticipatory occurrence of some grammatical element in certain linguistic expressions, e.g. in terms of operations such as ‘movement’ (see ‘whprolepsis’ in (1)) and ‘Agree’ (see –e-prolepsis in (4)). In this article, I will investigate another pattern of prolepsis that has been observed in (Dutch) traditional grammar, viz. the appearance of an anticipatory –s in structural contexts like those in (9): (9)

a.

blootshoofds bare–s-head–s ‘bare headed; with the head bare’

one of these can be at the edge of the DegP? A possible answer to the first question is that the phenomenon is not truly optional. One might argue, for example, that degree adverbs displaying proleptic –e occupy a different structural position than ‘bare’ degree adverbs. More specifically, the former occupy a truly left-peripheral position (say, Spec, DegP), whereas the latter occupy a left-branch position lower in the functional skeleton of the adjective phrase (say, Spec, FP); see Corver 2000, 2006, who argues that DegP-internal degree adverbs originate as predicates in a post-adjectival position and undergo movement to a left branch Spec-position within the extended adjectival projection. As for the second question: in Corver (2006), I propose an analysis of attributive adjectival modification according to which the adjective phrase originates as a postnominal predicate and undergoes leftward movement to a prenominal position (cf. also Kayne 1994). A phrase like een mooi-e auto (a beautiful- car) is assigned the structure in (i), where the underlying predication relation is configurationally defined in terms of a small clause structure XP, with the inflection –e as the small clause head that raises to a higher functional head F into whose Spec-position the adjectival predicate moves. Schematically: (i) [DP een [FP mooii [F’ F (= -Ø) +Xj (= -e)

[XP auto [X’ tj ti ]]]]]

A pattern like een [vreselijk-e mooi-e] auto (an extreme- beautiful- car; ‘an extremely beautiful car’) can be assigned the structure in (ii), where vreselijk is a degree-designating adjective that has undergone Predicate Fronting (i.e. A-bar type predicate displacement) to Spec,DegP with concomitant head movement of the small clause head X (i.e. –e) to Deg. After –e has raised to Deg, it occupies an edge position within the extended adjectival projection, from where it can enter into an agreement relation with the noun auto. See Corver (2006) for a more elaborate discussion. (ii) [DP een [FP [DegP vreselijkn [Deg’ [Deg –ek] [XP [AP mooi] [X’ tk [AP tn]]]]]i [F’ F (= -Ø) +Xj (= -e) [XP auto [X’ tj ti ]]]]]

 Norbert Corver

b.

c.

binnensmonds inside-s-mouth-s ‘under one’s breadth; between one’s teeth’ ’s Zondags –s Sunday–s ‘on Sundays’

These linguistic expressions feature two instances of the bound morpheme –s, which is traditionally analyzed as a genitival case suffix. One –s follows the bare noun: hoofd in (9a), mond in (9b) and Zondag in (9c). The other –s occurs in between the adjective bloot and the bare noun in (9a) and in between the preposition binnen and the bare noun in (9b). In (9c), the initial –s is not preceded by any overt element. It is this intermediate/initial occurrence of –s that is traditionally qualified as being proleptic; it anticipates the occurrence of the final –s that is right-attached to the noun. At first sight, the phenomenon of –s-prolepsis exemplified in (9) appears to be of the morphological type: a bound morpheme (–s) appears on an element X (e.g. the adjective bloot or the preposition binnen) which does not seem to be a regular host of –s and which is followed by an element Y (the noun hoofd) which ìs a regular host of –s. I will propose an analysis, however, according to which this phenomenon of –s-prolepsis is analyzed in terms of movement and copying. More specifically, I will argue that in (9a) and (9b), –s is a (small clause) head that undergoes head movement to a higher functional position F and leaves behind a copy (i.e. –s) that may surface phonetically. Thus, the proleptic –s in bloot-s-hoofd–s and binnen-smond-s is in fact a displaced element (i.e. the head of a chain) and the final –s in the string is a phonetic realization of the lower chain link. The phenomenon of –s prolepsis in (9c) will receive the same analysis (i.e. movement and copying). In this construction, however, –s will be analyzed as a (weak) demonstrative pronoun rather than a small clause head. The article is organized as follows: In Section 2, I will discuss the phenomenon of –s prolepsis in construction (9a), which is traditionally referred to as an absolute genitival construction. In Section 3, I present an analysis of this construction based on the idea that it features predicate displacement and that –s is a nominal copular element that gets spelled out at PF. It will be shown that this analysis cannot account for the multiple realization of –s in (9a). Therefore, an alternative analysis will be developed in Section 4 which also starts from predicate displacement but assigns a different interpretation to –s. This element is analyzed as a small clause head that undergoes head movement, creating a chain whose members can both be spelled out phonetically. This analysis will be elaborated on in Section 5, which discusses the phenomenon of –s prolepsis in (9b). Section 6 presents an analysis of the pattern in (9c) in terms of movement and copying of a weak demonstrative pronoun. Section 7 is the conclusion.

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

.

–s prolepsis in the absolute genitival construction

Let us start our discussion of –s prolepsis by giving some additional examples of the absolute genitival pattern. (10)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

blootshoofds heelshoofds heelshuids goedsmoeds blootsbeens droogsmonds luidskeels droogsoogs

(bare-s-head-s; ‘bare headed’) (whole-s-head-s; ‘unhurt’) (whole-s-skin-s; ‘without injury’) (good-s-heart-s; ‘cheerful’) (bare-s-leg-s; ‘with bare legs’) (dry-s-mouth-s; ‘with a dry mouth’) (loud-s-throat-s; ‘at the top of one’s voice’) (dry-s-eye-s; ‘with dry eyes’)

This pattern features two occurrences of –s. One –s follows the noun hoofd. The other –s occurs in between the adjective (bloot) and the noun (hoofd). The way in which blootshoofds is pronounced suggests that this intermediate –s (phonologically) attaches to the preceding adjective rather than to the following noun; i.e. in slow speech, blootshoofds is pronounced as bloots + hoofds, and not as bloot + shoofds.3 It is this intermediate –s, which gets attached to the adjective, that is traditionally qualified as being ‘proleptic’; it anticipates the occurrence of the final –s that is attached to the noun. It is clear that the absolute genitival construction in (11a) has a certain resemblance to the absolute met (‘with’) construction in (11b):4 (11)

a.

b.

Jan liep [blootshoofds] de tuin in Jan walked bare-s-head-s the garden into ‘Jan walked into the garden bare headed’ Jan liep [met het hoofd bloot] de tuin in Jan walked with the head bare the garden into

The two absolute constructions have the same interpretation. They both mean: ‘with the head (being) bare.’ Thus, an adjective (bloot) is predicated over an external . Another interesting phonological property of this construction type is its stress pattern. In Dutch dictionaries, two possible stress patterns are given: one pattern with stress on the first element (e.g. BLOOTshoofds), another pattern with stress on the second element (e.g. blootsHOOFDs). The first stress pattern is similar to the stress pattern found with compounds (e.g. een SNELtrein; a fast train, ‘an intercity train’), the second stress pattern is similar to the one found with syntactic phrases, e.g. een bloot HOOFD (a bare head). The co-existence of these two patterns suggests that at this stage of the Dutch language, the construction has an ambiguous status, i.e. it can be a purely morphological construct or a purely syntactic construct. In this article, I will concentrate on the analysis of the syntactic pattern. . See Van Riemsdijk (1978) for discussion of certain properties of the Dutch absolute met construction.

 Norbert Corver

argument/subject ((het) hoofd). An obvious difference between the two absolute constructions concerns the word order of the nominal subject and the adjectival predicate. The absolute met construction displays a straight order (subject-predicate), whereas the genitival absolute construction exhibits an inverted order (predicate-subject). Under the assumption that the subject predicate relationship in (11b) is configurationally defined in terms of a small clause structure (cf. Stowell 1983), the structure in (12) could be assigned to the absolute construction in (11b):5 (12)

[PP met [XP het hoofd [X’ X bloot]]]

If we take the order ‘subject predicate’ to be the base order, we must conclude that the absolute genitival construction features predicate displacement. That is, the adjectival predicate undergoes leftward movement across the small clause subject to some higher Spec position. Schematically:6 (13)

.

[FP blootj [F F [XP hoofd [X’ X tj]]]]

See Beukema and Hoekstra (1984) for a small clause analysis of the absolute met construction.

. Since the order A+N is also the order found with attributive adjectives in Dutch (e.g. een bloot hoofd, a bare head), one may wonder whether blootshoofds could involve an attributive adjective rather than an (inverted) predicative one. Evidence for the non-attributive status seems to come from the systematic absence of the inflectional marker –e that typically attaches to attributive adjectives (e.g. een blot-e man; a naked- man) except for those attributive adjectives that modify indefinite neuter singular nouns (e.g. een bloot hoofd). Consider, for example, (10f), which contains the non-neuter noun mond. As shown in (i), an attributive adjective that modifies the noun mond always carries the inflectional morpheme -e: (i)

a. b.

een drog-e mond a dry-AGR mouth de drog-e mond the dry mouth

The systematic absence of the attributive inflectional marker –e in absolute genitival constructions (e.g. drog(*-e)-s-mond-s; dry(-AGR)-s-mouth-s) suggests that the adjective is not an attributive one. According to the analysis given in (13), bloot is an inverted phrasal predicate and hoofd is a phrasal subject. The question arises as to why more complex phrases are excluded as predicates (cf. (iia)) or subjects (cf. (iib)) in these ‘absolute genitival constructions’. (ii)

a. *[erg luid]keel-s very loud throat-s ‘with a very loud voice’ b. *bloot-s-[groot hoofd-s] bare-s-big head-s ‘with a big head bare’

(compare (10g))

(compare (10a))

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

If FP is PP, we get the derived structure in (14).7 Even though the parallelism with the absolute met construction is suggestive for a PP-analysis of the entire construction, I will leave the issue of the exact categorial status of FP in (13) aside and simply use FP in the rest of the article. (14)

[PP blootj [P’ P [XP hoofd [X’ X tj]]]]

The question arises as to how the bound morpheme –s fits into this representation. In what follows, I will explore a number of possible analyses, finally proposing that –s is a determiner-like element that functions as a small clause head (X) that takes the predicate as its complement (e.g. bloot) and the subject (hoofd) as its specifier. Thus, the linguistic expression blootshoofds starts from the ‘base structure’ in (15a). The inverted surface pattern blootshoofds is obtained by movement of the adjectival predicate across the small clause subject and concomitant raising of the small clause head –s to the functional head whose specifier position is occupied by the displaced predicate. Duplication of –s follows from the copy theory of movement: the moved small clause head –s leaves behind a copy. This is represented in (15b), where, for the sake of clarity, I have co-superscripted the two copies. As indicated, the copy of the displaced predicate must de deleted. A question which obviously arises is why the lower –s copy may surface but not the lower predicate copy. (15)

a. b.

[XP hoofd [X’ [X –s] [AP bloot]]] [FP blootj [F’ [–si]+F [XP hoofd [X’ [X –si] blootj]]]]

Another characteristic of this absolute construction is the fact that there is variation in the appearance of –s. Besides the duplication pattern, in which two instances of –s are found (see (10)) for some illustrations), we have a pattern in Dutch in which –s only occurs in the intermediate position (i.e. A + -s + N) and a pattern in which it appears only on the final noun (i.e. A + N + -s). Some illustrations of the three

I have no answer to the question why the subject and the predicate can only be bare words. See Section 4.3, though, for some thoughts on the question of why the inverted predicate must be a bare word. . Van Riemsdijk (1978) discusses absolute constructions like (i). The motional PP seems to have moved from a position following the subject (die boef) to a position preceding the preposition met. The structure may be then as in (ii). (i)

De gevangenis in met die boef! The jail into with that rascal ‘To jail with that rascal!’

(ii)

[PP [de gevangenis in]i [P’ met [XP die boef [X’ X ti]]]]

 Norbert Corver

patterns are given in (16)–(18) (data from Royen 1948, who cites sentences taken from texts of Dutch writers). Obviously, the question needs to be addressed how this variation in the distribution of the bound morpheme –s can be accounted for.8 (16)

(17)

a.

Dan rijkt de provoost, blootshoofds, op den overloop aan Then reaches the provost-sergeant, bare-s-head-s, at the landing to Jacob Claeszoon Jacob Claeszoon een brood en kruik wijn (v. der Woude, 246; Royen 255) a bread and jar wine

b.

Marie is blootshoofds en in haar daagsche kleer Marie is bare-s-head-s and in her daily clothes (de Man, 89; Royen 255)

c.

een paard . . . dat a horse . . . that die er naast that there next-to

d.

en nog . . . . acht ik het mirakel er heelshuids te zijn and still . . . . consider I it (a)miracle there whole-s-skin-s to be afgekomen gotten-off (Bosb.-Touss I, 93; Royen, 254; fn 61)

a.

De man staat blootshoofd, The man stands bare-s-head,

b.

Zij was blootshoofd en de grillige stralen der ondergaande zon She was bare-s-head and the capricious beams the- setting sun wierpen een roosachtigen gloed op haren glinsterenden haardos. threw a rose-like glow on her glittering head-of-hair (Corelli, Schat 220; Royen, 254)

door een jongen, blootsvoets en blootshoofds, by a boy bare-s-foot-s and bare-s-head-s liep, geleid werd walked, guided was (Scott, Zeerover 198; Royen 255)

hij kijkt over de baar he looks over the bier (v. der Woude 224; Royen, 254)

. Royen (1948: 256) gives one example (from older Dutch) in which the three variants of the absolute genitival construction occur in one sentence: (i)

Och lieve here, wilt blijsmoets zijn, al muegdy blootshooft ende bervoets sijn, . . . Oh good Lord, want-you happy-s-mind-s be, though might-you bare-s-head and bare-foot-s be ‘Oh good Lord, may you be good-tempered, even if you are bare-headed and bare-footed’

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

(18)

.

a.

Oude Williams, bloothoofds en in zijn hemdsmouwen Old Williams, bare-head-s and in his shirt-sleeves (Hall, 136; Royen 255)

b.

..trekt Horatius zonder iets te zeggen het natte bosch in, ..goes Horatius without something to say the wet woods into, bloothoofds met zijn regenjas los over de schouders bare-head-s with his rain-coat loosely over the shoulders (v. der Hallen: De aarde roept; Royen 255)

c.

Terwijl men openmonds staarde naar de weeldeverschijning While one open-mouth-s stared at the luxury-appearance (Couperus, 245; Royen 64)

d.

En de kinderen Israels wandelden droogvoets And the children Israel’s walked dry-foot-s van de zee of the sea

door het midden through the middle

Predicate displacement and –s as a nominal copula

I will start my analysis of –s prolepsis and –s-duplication (i.e. the multiple realization of –s) in absolute genitival constructions by addressing the question as to what kind of grammatical element –s really is. Historically, –s is a genitival case suffix that appeared on masculine and neuter singular nouns in Middle Dutch (1200–1500); see Stoett 1923, Van Loey 1980. It appeared in various functions, among which the partitive genitive (19a), the genitive of measure (19b), the possessive genitive (19c,d), and the absolute genitive (19e); examples taken from Stoett (1923). (19)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

een lepel honichs a spoon honey-GEN ‘a spoonful of honey’ Sijn aenscijn was eens voets breet His appearance was one- foot- broad ‘His appearance/shape was one foot broad’ die Gods genade that God- mercy ‘the mercy of God/ God’s mercy’ die sone Jacobs those sons Jacob- ‘Jacob’s sons’ gesonts lijfs healthy- body- ‘with a healthy body’

 Norbert Corver

Present-day Dutch is heavily deflected; in many environments, genitive case is no longer present. Compare, for example, (20a,b) with (19a,b): (20)

a.

b.

een lepel honing a spoon honey ‘a spoonful of honey’ Het was [een voet breed] It was one foot wide ‘Its width was one foot’

In constructions in which –s is still present, it displays a grammatical behavior which is different from the Middle Dutch genitival case suffix. In present-day Dutch, for example, the possessive –s only appears on prenominal possessors (21a); postnominal placement is impossible (21b). Furthermore, when it is in prenominal position, it cannot co-occur with a preceding determiner (21c). Finally, it can also occur on feminine nouns (21d): (21)

a.

Jacobs zonen Jacob-s sons b. *de zonen Jacobs the sons Jacob-s c. *de Jacobs zonen the Jacobs sons d. Maries zonen Mary-s sons

Also for absolutive genitives like blootshoofds (bare-s-head-s), there are reasons for saying that –s is no longer a genitival case suffix. In Middle Dutch, it typically appeared on masculine/neuter singular nouns. In the course of the development of Dutch, it was also found on nouns that used to be feminine in Middle Dutch. The pattern luid-s-keel-s (loud-s-throat-s; ‘with a loud voice’), for example, used to be luider kele (loud-gen.fem.sg throat.gen.fem.sg) in Middle Dutch. According to Royen (1948: 254), this pattern changed into the ‘transition form’ luider keels, which finally changed into the pattern luitkeels or luitskeels. In the latter example, we find the proleptic –s in between the adjective luit and the noun keel. In view of the above considerations, it seems fair to conclude that –s can no longer be analyzed as a genitival case suffix (see also Corver 1990, De Wit 1997, Weerman and De Wit 1999). The question therefore arises as to how to interpret this grammatical element. In recent years, the ‘possessive’ –s, which appears in constructions like (21a), has received a variety of analyses. It has been analyzed as a functional head D within the extended nominal projection, as in (22a) (cf. Corver

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

1990, De Wit and Weerman 1999, Van Kampen en Corver 2005). As an alternative, it has been proposed that –s is a possessive marker (i.e. a functional head Pos) heading a projection Pos(sessor)P(hrase); see (22b) (cf. Schoorlemmer 1998, Van de Craats et al 2000). (22)

a. b.

[DP Jacob [D’ –s [NP zonen]]] [DP D [PosP Jacob [Pos’ –s [NP zonen]]]]

These analyses do not seem to be extendable in a straightforward way to absolute genitival constructions like blootshoofds. For one thing, it is not immediately clear what a determiner-like element or a possessive marker is doing on an adjectival constituent (i.e. bloot-s). In Den Dikken (1998) an alternative analysis is proposed according to which –s is a nominal copula, i.e. a bound morphemic equivalent of the preposition-like element van (English: of; French de) that appears in nominal constructions featuring DP-internal predicate displacement (see also Corver 2000). A well-known case is the N of/van N construction in (23) (cf. Kayne 1994, Den Dikken 1995, 2006): (23)

a. b.

die [Pred idioot] van een [SU dokter] that [Pred idiot] of a [SU doctor]

Let us briefly dwell on the predicate displacement analysis of these constructions, as given by Den Dikken (see also Bennis, Corver and Den Dikken 1998), before we turn again to the possessive constructions featuring –s. Certain parts of this analysis will turn out to be relevant for my ultimate analysis of absolute genitive constructions in Dutch. Under a DP-internal predicate displacement analysis, a construction like (23a) can be assigned the derived representation in (24):9 (24)

[DP die [FP idiootj [F’ [F (= van) +Xi (= een)] [XP dokter ti tj]]]]

The structural representation in (24) is derived as follows: the predicate nominal idioot starts out as the predicate of a small clause XP, whose subject is dokter. The predicate nominal undergoes DP-internal movement to the specifier position of a functional projection FP, which is the complement of D (realized here by the demonstrative determiner). This predicate movement operation is considered to be of the A-movement type. Direct movement of idioot to Spec,FP appears to be

. As indicated, I assume that the raised small clause head is right adjoined to F. This adjunction structure is in line with the linear ordering of the nominal copula (van) and the raised small clause head (een).

 Norbert Corver

non-local, as the predicate skips an intermediate A-position, viz. the one occupied by the subject dokter. Movement of the predicate nominal is local, however, if one adopts Chomsky’s (1993) theory of equidistance: the moved predicate can cross the small clause subject as long as the two nominals are equally far away from the extraction site. This situation is obtained if domain extending head movement applies, i.e. X-to-F movement.10 A mininal domain is created that contains both the subject and the predicate. With Den Dikken (1995), I will assume that van in (24) is the surface reflex of the obligatory application of Xto-F raising in the derivation of N van een N constructions. In other words, the surface distribution of van is ruled by structural factors (domain extension); more specifically, the grammatical element van that appears in the N van een N construction is not a lexical primitive but the overt realization (i.e. Spell Out) of the functional head F. The appearance of this meaningless van in contexts of DP-internal predicate inversion is taken to be parallel to the obligatory appearance of the copula to be in contexts of clause internal predicate inversion (see Moro 1988, 1991): (25)

a. b.

I consider [John (to be) the best candidate] (straight order: subject – predicate) I consider [the best candidate *(to be) John] (inverted order: predicate – subject)

Thus, van is the nominal equivalent of to be. It is a ‘nominal copula’.11 With this analysis of the N of/van N construction in mind, let us return to the Dutch possessive constructions featuring –s. Den Dikken (1998) proposes that –s is another instance of the ‘nominal copula’; it is the bound morphemic equivalent of the nominal copula van (see also Corver 2000). Thus, it occurs in contexts of DP-internal predicate inversion. It is proposed then that possessive constructions like (21a), involving a prenominal possessor, feature predicate movement of the possessor. More specifically, the possessor starts out as a (dative) PP (headed by an empty P), which is the predicate of the small clause XP, and the possessed noun starts out as the subject of the predication relation. Predicate displacement involves fronting of the dative PP to Spec,FP; the P assigning dative case has been

. The derivation in (24) can also be captured under Chomsky’s (1995: 356–357) reformulation of equidistance. See Den Dikken (2006: 114) for discussion of Chomsky’s (1995) theory of equidistance in relation to predicate inversion structures. In this article, I will simply stick to Chomsky’s (1993) original definition. . I will get back to the grammatical status of the element een in the N van (een) N-construction in Section 4.1.

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

incorporated into the small clause head X, and this complex has subsequently been incorporated into F for reasons of domain extension. Schematically: (26)

a. b.

[DP Spec [D’ D [FP Spec [F’ F [XP POSSESSUM [X’ X [PP P POSSESSOR]]]]]]] [DP Spec [D’ D [FP [PP tk Jacob]i [F’ F (= –s)+Xj+Pk [XP zonen [X’ tj ti ]]]]]]

The question arises as to whether this analysis of –s as a nominal copula can be extended to the analysis of absolute genitival constructions in (10). An important characteristic of these constructions is, of course, the fact that we have an inverted order: the (adjectival) predicate precedes the subject. Remember that according to Den Dikken’s analysis the occurrence of the nominal copula –s is dependent on the application of predicate inversion within the noun phrase. Under a predicate inversion analysis of absolute genitival constructions, we would roughly have the ‘base structure’ in (27a) and the derived, inverted structure in (27b): (27)

a. b.

[XP hoofd [X’ X [AP bloot]]] [FP blootj [F F (= –s)+Xi [XP hoofd [X’ ti tj]]]]

(27b) surfaces as blootshoofd, which ìs a pattern that is attested; cf. (17). Notice, however, that this analysis does not predict the occurrence of the duplication pattern blootshoofds. If –s is the surface realization of F, then the appearance of –s after hoofd remains unexplained. Under this analysis, –s cannot possibly be analyzed as the phonetic instantiation of the trace of the small clause head X. The appearance of this second –s would be in need of an independent explanation. Notice also that the pattern bloothoofds, with –s appearing only at the end of the absolute expression, does not follow either from this analysis. If predicate inversion applied (with compulsory X-to-F raising), the appearance of the nominal copula –s in between bloot and hoofd would be expected. In conclusion, –s duplication cannot be accounted for if –s is interpreted as a nominal copula (i.e. the spell out of the functional head F).

. .

Predicate displacement and –s as a spurious definite article The spurious article een

In the previous section, we came to the conclusion that –s in absolute genitive constructions like blootshoofds cannot be interpreted as a nominal copula. If –s is the spell-out of the head F, then the appearance of –s on the noun is still unaccounted for. We would need an independent explanation for its appearance. In that case, blootshoofds would not instantiate a duplication pattern in which the two bound morphemes –s would be related to each other (more specifically: would be copies

 Norbert Corver

of the same lexical item). And, consequently, one could not interpret the first occurrence of –s as an instance of –s prolepsis. In what follows, I will explore an alternative analysis of –s which ìs compatible with a duplication interpretation of the absolutive pattern blootshoofds. Remember from my discussion of the N van N construction, that displacement of the predicate nominal (e.g. idioot in (24)) across the small clause subject (dokter in (24)) can only take place if the small clause head X undergoes head-movement to the functional head F into whose specifier the inverted predicate lands. This X-to-F movement operation was needed for reasons of locality (i.e. equidistance). As indicated by the representation in (28), the small clause head is taken to be the indefinite article een that precedes the second Noun (i.e. the subject noun) in the N van een N construction. Under a copy theory of movement (see Chomsky 1993), the representation in (24) would be as in (28), with the ‘traces’ being crossed, which indicates that they are not pronounced. (28)

[DP die [FP idiootj [F’ [F (= van) +Xi (= een)] [XP dokter [X’ eeni [idiootj]]]]]]

Suppose now that the –s that appears in the genitival absolute construction is a small clause head X as well. In that case, we would have the underlying structure in (29a). After application of predicate displacement with concomitant X-to-F movement, we end up with the structure in (29b), adopting the copy theory of movement.12 The surface pattern bloot-s-hoofd-s can be derived if the lower –s copy (‘the trace’) is able to ‘survive’ at PF and the lower copy of the displaced adjectival predicate bloot gets deleted. (29)

a. b.

[XP hoofd [X’ [X –s] [AP bloot]]] [FP blootj [F’ [X –s]i+F [XP hoofd [X’ [X –s]i blootj]]]]

In what follows, I will elaborate on the small clause head status of –s in absolute genitival constructions. Our starting point for this analysis of –s is the analysis of een in the N van een N construction as given in Bennis, Corver and Den Dikken (1998). As shown in Bennis, Corver and Den Dikken (1998), the indefinite article een that appears in contexts of DP-internal predicate displacement displays a special behavior; more specifically, een does not seem to ‘belong to’ the noun that follows it, nor in fact to the noun that precedes it. Normally, the indefinite article is compatible

. As indicated in (29b), I will assume that the small clause head –s left-adjoins to F. In this respect, it differs from the small clause head een in (28). As we will see later, though, there may be patterns in which –s also right-adjoins to F.

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

with singular noun phrases only (see (30a,b)). Furthermore, it does not cooccur with proper names and mass nouns (see (30c,d)).13 (30)

a.

Ik heb een boek gelezen I have a book read ‘I read a book’ b. *Ik heb een boeken gelezen I have a books read c. *Ik heb een Westertoren gezien I have a Westertoren seen d. *Ik heb een spinazie gegeten I have a spinach eaten

Notice now that the indefinite article een that appears in the N van een N construction displays a grammatical behavior which is different from that of the ‘normal’ indefinite article een. As illustrated in (31a ), the second noun of the N van een N construction may be plural (30a). As shown in (31b) and (31c), respectively, een may also precede proper names and mass nouns. That een does not belong either to the preceding noun (i.e. the displaced predicate) is shown by the existence of examples like (31d), in which the first noun (and also the second one) is plural (data drawn from Bennis, Corver and Den Dikken 1998). (31)

a. ?die ramp van een getalscongruentiefeiten that disaster of a number agreement facts b. die pracht van een Westertoren that beauty of a Westertoren c. een pracht van een spinazie a beauty of a spinach d. die schatten van een kinderen those darlings of a children

. The Examples (30b) and (30d) are well-formed when they have an exclamative intonation pattern: (i) Ik heb een boeken gelezen! I have a books read ‘How many books I read!’ (ii) Ik heb een spinazie gegeten! I have a spinach eaten ‘How much spinach I ate!’ Following Bennis, Corver and Den Dikken (1998), I will assume that een in these exclamative noun phrases is the spurious indefinite article and that there is an empty operator-like element present that has undergone DP-internal predicate fronting. Schematically: [DP OPj [D’ eeni [XP boeken/spinazie [X’ ti tj]]]].

 Norbert Corver

In view of its grammatical behavior, which is different from that of the regular indefinite article, Bennis, Corver and Den Dikken analyze the indefinite article in the Dutch N van een N constructions as a spurious indefinite article. They further point out that this spurious article shows up in other types of nominal constructions featuring predicate displacement, among which the wh-exclamative construction in (32):14 (32)

[Wat een boeken] heb jij gelezen! What a books have you read ‘Boy, did you read a lot of books!’

In (32), we have an exclamative DP, consisting of the wh-word wat, the indefinite article een and the plural noun boeken. The article een is interpreted as being spurious, since it does not seem to go with any of the surrounding nominal elements: the plural noun boeken normally does not combine with een (see (30b)) and the wh-word wat typically does not combine with any article. Bennis, Corver and Den Dikken analyze (32) as a noun phrase (DP) in which predicate displacement has applied. The exclamative noun phrase in (32) is assigned the derived structure in (33): The wh-word wat starts out as a predicate nominal and undergoes DP-internal predicate fronting (i.e. A-bar type predicate movement) to the specifier position of the functional head D, which carries the ‘force’ feature [+EXCL]. Bennis, Corver and Den Dikken (1998) argue that, quite analogously to the Verb Second effect in (main) clauses featuring wh-movement, movement of wat to Spec, DP requires the D-head to be lexical (i.e. phonetically realized) in exclamative DPs.15 The idea is that raising of the small clause head een to D provides the [+EXCL] D-head with lexical content. (33)

[DP watj [D’ [D[+excl] eeni] [XP boeken [X’ eeni watj]]]] what a books ‘how many books!’

. Another nominal construction in which the spurious indefinite article een shows up is the well-known wat voor-construction. See, for example (i): (i) [Wat voor een boeken] heeft Jan gelezen? What for a books has Jan read ‘What kind of books did Jan read?’ See Bennis, Corver and Den Dikken (1998) for discussion of this construction. . Thus, raising of the spurious indefinite article een to a higher functional head has a different function in the case of Predicate Inversion (Predicate movement of the A-type) and Predicate Fronting (Predicate movement of the A-bar type). In the former case, raising of een takes place for reasons of domain extension (equidistance), in the latter case, movement of een is a kind of Verb Second effect in the nominal domain. See Bennis, Corver and Den Dikken (1998) for discussion.

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

The question arises as to whether the –s that appears in genitival absolute constructions may also be analyzed as a spurious article that functions as a small clause head X that ‘mediates’ between a subject and a predicate. In the next section, we will see that the bound morpheme –s does display (definite) article-like behavior. Furthermore, its semantically impoverished meaning makes it a good candidate for a mediating small clause head. .

–s as a spurious definite article

A first indication of the article-like status of –s comes from its appearance on proper names and kinship terms that function as arguments of a lexical head in certain dialects of Dutch. Take, for example, the following expressions (cf. Van Haeringen1947, Overdiep 1937, Royen, 1948): (34)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Vaoders is ziek Father-s is ill ‘Father is ill’ [. . .] moeders vroeg, of ik met je praten wou . . . . mother-s asked, whether I with you (to)talk wanted ‘Mother asked whether I would like to talk with you’ Heb je d’r ook an Dominees niks van verteld? Have you there also to Vicar-s nothing about told ‘Didn’t you tell anything to the vicar either’ We kwamen Anna’s tegen We met Anna-s PRT ‘We met Anna’

Vaoders in (34a) carries what looks like a genitival suffix –s. In traditional Dutch grammars, these expressions are therefore called “genitival proper names/kinship terms” (cf. Overdiep (1937)). The question, though, arises as to why a genitival suffix would be present on these nouns. The noun phrase vaoders in (34a) has the grammatical function of subject and would consequently expected to be associated with (abstract) nominative case. Notice also that there is no way in which vaoders can be assigned the meaning of a possessor; there is simply no possessive relationship involved here. So, what could –s be in this case? A plausible line of thought one might explore is the following: Under the assumption that noun phrases functioning as arguments are always DPs, a proper name like Anna in (34d) must be analzyed as a DP whose determiner is lexically empty (cf. Longobardi 1994, Stowell 1991). As argued for in Longobardi (1994), the proper name receives an object-referring (i.e. referential) interpretation when it moves (overtly or covertly) to D (i.e. N-to-D raising). (35)

a. b.

We kwamen Anna tegen We met Anna  We kwamen [DP [D e] [NP Anna]] tegen

 Norbert Corver

Another way for the proper name expression to receive a referential interpretation is the presence of an overt definite article (as, for example, in Greek or certain dialects of Dutch: e.g. de Jan, the Jan, ‘Jan’). As Longobardi (2001) notes, such a definite article seems to have an impoverished semantic function. Following Vergnaud and Zubizarreta (1992), he calls this definite article an expletive article, since its role is essentially that of relating a noun (i.e. a proper name) to the functional head D, where it could have been, but was not, moved. Turning now to the examples in (34), the interpretation of –s seems straightforward: –s may be interpreted as an expletive, bound-morphemic definite article. I will assume that N-to-D raising takes place, so that the affixal –s gets attached to a host.16 Schematically: (36)

[DP [D [N Anna]i –s] [NP ti]]

Quite interestingly, as noted by Van Haeringen (1947; 255), –s only appears on bare proper nouns. It nevers appears on a noun like vader (father) when it is part of a complex DP introduced by a definite article. This contrast is illustrated by the following minimal pair taken from Van Haeringen (1947). (37)

a.

Laten we vaders daar nou maar buiten houden Let we father’s there but outside keep ‘Let’s keep father out’ b. *Laten we die arme vaders daar nou maar niet mee lastig vallen Let we that poor father’s there but not with bother ‘Let’s not bother poor father with this’

This complementarity of –s and the definite article de is also found with family names. In the Dutch dialect of Oerle, for example, expletive definite articles occur both with Christian names (e.g. de Jan, ‘the Jan’) and family names (e.g. de Munnikhof; ‘Munnikhof ’); cf. De Bont (1958: 376 ff.). Interestingly, besides the pattern ‘definite article + family name’ one also finds the pattern ‘family name + –s’. Patterns of the type ‘definite article + family name + –s’ do not seem to occur, which suggests that –s fulfils the same role as the definite article de: (38)

a. b. c. d.

de Mander den Börger den Danker de Sander

Manders *de Manders Börgers *den Börgers Dankers *den Dankers Sanders *de Sanders

. Obviously, this bound morphemic definite article reminds us of the enclitic articles in languages like Romanian and Norwegian: (i)

a. b.

hus-et (house-the, ‘the house’) lup-ul (wolf-the, ‘the wolf ’)

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

Evidence for the definite article-like status of –s is also available from present-day Dutch. Consider the following examples containing proper names expressing days of the week:17 (39)

a.

Dinsdag is een fijne dag voor mij om te komen Tuesday is a nice day for me  to come b. De dinsdag is een fijne dag voor mij om te komen The Tuesday . . . . . c. Dinsdags is een fijne dag voor mij om te komen Tuesday-s . . . . . d. *De Dinsdags is een fijne dag voor mij om te komen The Tuesday-s . . . . .

(40)

a.

Ik kom Maandag nooit thuis I come Monday never home b. Ik kom de Maandag nooit thuis . . . . the Monday . . . . c. Ik kom Maandags nooit thuis . . . . . Monday-s . . . . . d. *Ik kom de Maandags nooit thuis . . . the Monday-s . . . .

In the a-examples, we have a bare proper name, which arguably involves covert raising of the noun to D. The b-examples feature an expletive definite article. In the c-examples, we find the bound morphemic article –s. The d-examples, finally, show that de and –s are in complementary distribution, which suggests that these elements compete for the same structural position. A final illustration for the article-like status of –s comes from the exclamative expressions in (41), which are typically used as swear-words or strong phrases. (41)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Drommels! Deksels! Duivels! Mieters! Bliksems! Donders!

(Devil-s; ‘By Jove! By gum!’) (Deuced-s; ‘the Deuce!’) (Devil-s; ‘the Deuce!’) (Damned-s; ‘Super/Wizard!)’ (Lightning-s; ‘What the blaze!’) (Thunder-s; ‘The devil!’)

Interestingly, some of these expressions have the following equivalents: (42)

a. b.

.

te drommel! (also: de drommel!) the deuce te deksel! (also: de deksel!) the deuce

(40b) is used in colloquial/sub-standard Dutch.

 Norbert Corver

c.

te duivel! the devil!

(also: de duivel!)

The element te in these examples is an allomorph of the definite article de (cf. Royen 1948: Part II, 116). The dental consonant /d/ is ‘sharpened’ in this exclamative expression and becomes a voiceless dental stop /t/. Importantly, combinations like te drommels! are not attested, which suggests that te and –s fulfil a similar grammatical role within the noun phrase, viz. that of a definite article. An expression like Drommels! may then be derived by application of N-to-D movement. Importantly, –s in (41), just like te in (42), does not seem to have a referential interpretation. As such, it may be characterized as an expletive definite article; i.e. an article whose main grammatical function is to fill a structural position.18 Another example which is suggestive for the definite article-like status of –s comes from the dialect of Groningen (cf. Ter Laan 1953). In this dialect –s appears on nominal infinitives. As shown in (43) and (44), present-day standard Dutch uses the definite article in these constructions:19 (43)

a.

na [het eten] after the eat-inf; ‘after dinner’

(Standard Dutch)

. A potential argument against an analysis according to which the exclamative expressions in (41) and (42) are DPs headed by an expletive D might be the fact that, in a language like German, vocative proper names never occur with a definite article. Consider, for example, the following facts from German: (i)

a.

b.

[Der Karl] hat mich gesehen The Karl has me seen ‘Karl saw me’ (*Der) Karl, hast du den Peter gesehen? (The) Karl, have you the Peter seen ‘Karl, have you seen Peter?’

(argumental use of der Karl)

(vocative use of Karl)

On the basis of the facts, one might want to argue that –s in (41) and te in (42) is not an expletive D but rather a meaning-bearing element, possibly one related to the meaning property of exclamation. Further research is needed here. . In present-day Dutch, there are certain contexts in which –s shows up after an infinitive. First of all, they are found in expressions like (i), which have an archaic/literary flavor: (i)

a.

b.

Zij was tot schreien-s bewogen She was to cry-s moved ‘She was moved so much that she had to cry’ Ik heb die muziek tot vervelen-s toe moeten horen I have that music to bore-s PRT had-to hear ‘I had to listen to that music so often that I got bored with it’

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

(44)

b.

voor [het melken] before the milk-inf; ‘before the milking of the cows’

a.

noa etens (dialect of Groningen) after eatinf-s veur melkens; ‘after the milking of the cows’ before milkinf-s

b.

In view of the above phenomena, there seems to be a sufficient empirical basis for concluding that the bound morpheme –s is a definite article-like element. We further saw that in some of the structural contexts, –s behaved more like an expletive article; i.e. it does not ‘add’ referentiality to the noun phrase. In those contexts, its main role is that of relating a substantive lexical item (e.g. the proper name) to the functional D-position. The relational nature of –s and its ‘semantic emptiness’ (in certain environments) makes it a good candidate for playing a role which is similar to that of the spurious indefinite article een. The (other) relational role would be that, just like spurious een, it functions as an intermediary element (i.e. a small clause head) between a subject and a predicate. Its semantic emptiness is also a

Another context in which –s follows an infinitive is given by the following examples: stervens-benauwd (dieinf-s sultry; ‘very stuffy’), barsten-s-vol (burstinf-s-full; ‘very full’). The infinitive has a degree meaning in these examples; sterven-s-benauwd, for example, has the meaning: ‘so stuffy that one might die’. Interestingly, this –s also shows up after certain nouns that designate a degree and modify a gradable adjective: e.g. dood-s bang (death-s afraid, ‘very afraid’), hond-s brutaal (dog-s impudent; ‘very impudent’), bliksem-s goed (thunder-s good; ‘very well’), mieter-s lastig (damned-s difficult; ‘very difficult’), deksel-s mooi (deuced-s beautiful; ‘very beautiful’), drommel-s heet (deuced-s hot; ‘very hot’), duivel-s aardig (devil-s kind; ‘very kind’). In Corver (2004), these expressions are analyzed as adjectival phrases in which predicate inversion has applied triggering the appearance of a nominal copula –s. The modifying degree word (a predicate) is moved across the subject of the predication relationship (i.e. the gradable adjective), yielding the inverted order (see also Corver 2000). Schematically: (i)

[FP duivelj [F’ F (= -s) +Xi [XP aardig [X’ ti [AP t]j]]]] devil –s kind

(‘very kind’)

From the current perspective, according to which –s is more of a definite article-like element, these adjectival expressions may be reinterpreted as follows: –s starts out as a small clause head and undergoes head movement to the functional head Deg, into whose Spec the displaced predicate has moved via Predicate Fronting (i.e. predicate movement of the A-bar type). Schematically: (ii)

[DegP duivelj [Deg’ Xi (= -s)+Deg [XP aardig [X’ ti [AP t]j]]]]

It should, finally, be noted that –s does not always appear on the degree designating metaphorical noun: steen(*-s)koud (stone(-s)cold; ‘stone-cold’), dood(*-s)kalm (death(*-s)calm, ‘quite calm’), lijk(*-s)bleek (corpse(*-s)white, ‘deadly pale’).

 Norbert Corver

property which is shared by spurious een. This element, for example, can appear in a noun phrase like die etter van een Jan (that jerk of a Jan), where it clearly adds no indefinite meaning at all. .

Towards an analysis of –s prolepsis

Under the assumption that –s is a spurious (bound morphemic) definite article heading a small clause XP in the absolute genitival construction, can we account for the anticipatory occurrence of –s in absolute constructions (i.e. –s prolepsis) and for the phenomenon of –s-duplication? Our starting point is the small clause representation in (29a), repeated here, in which –s instantiates the X-head. (29)

a.

[XP hoofd [X’ [X –s] [AP bloot]]]

The inverted order in which the adjectival predicate bloot precedes the subject hoofd is obtained by moving the former element across the latter to a higher position, say Spec,FP. The –s that intervenes between the inverted adjectival predicate and the small clause subject may be the result of head movement of the small clause head –s to the higher head F in whose Spec the adjective bloot has landed. Notice now that under a trace theory of movement, the duplication of –s, as in blootshoofds, is not accounted for under this analysis. This is clear from (45). The pattern we derive is blootshoofd. (45)

[FP blootj [F’ -si+F [XP hoofd [X’ ti tj]]]]

Notice now that under a copy theory of movement, the duplication of –s follows directly: the –s that follows the small clause subject hoofd is a copy of the moved small clause head –s (see (46a)). Thus, both the head of the chain and the foot of the chain are phonetically realized. The inverted order, with the adjective preceding the noun is derived by predicate movement, which, under a copy theory of movement, also leaves behind a copy. In this case of movement, only the copy that forms the head of the chain is phonetically realized. The copy that constitutes the foot of the chain must be deleted in the phonological component, given the impossibility of the sequence blootshoofdsbloot. This is depicted in (46b). (46)

a. b.

[FP –si+F [XP hoofd [X’ –si bloot]]] (head movt. of –s, creating chain (-s,-s)) [FP blootj [F’ si+F [XP hoofd [X’ –si blootj]]]] (pred. displ. + chain reduction)

A question which obviously arises is the following: Why can the two chain links be phonetically realized in the case of the small clause head –s but not in the case of the inverted predicate bloot? Or to put it differently, why is it possible for –s to be pronounced twice, but not for bloot? My answer to this question is based on the theory of linearization of chains as proposed by Nunes (1995, 2004). Nunes’s proposal about the linearization of chains builds on Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), which states that a lexical item A precedes a lexical

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

item B iff A (or a phrase containing A) asymmetrically c-commands B. Thus, the hierarchical position of a lexical item in a syntactic structure determines its linear order with respect to other lexical items in that structure. Thus, in a structure like (47), Mary in Spec,IP precedes the verb kissed and the noun John, since Mary asymmetrically c-commands those lexical items. (47)

[IP Mary [I’ I [VP kissed [John]]]]

Consider next the passive construction in (48), where we have two copies of John. One copy (the head of the chain) is in Spec, IP and the other (the foot of the chain) occupies the direct object position. (48)

[IP Johni [I’ was [VP kissed Johni]]]

Under the assumption that the links of a chain count as nondistinct for purposes of linearization, we face a problem for linearization. Consider, for example, the relationship between the two copies of John and the verb was: The upper copy in Spec, IP asymmetrically c-commands was and should be linearized as <John,was> according to the LCA. The verb was, however, asymmetrically c-commands the lower copy of John, which yields the linear order <was John>. This gives us an unwanted and impossible situation: the verb was is required both to precede and and to be preceded by a single lexical element, viz. John. As Nunes notes, the structure in (48) poses another problem for linearization: the higher copy of John c-commands the lower copy, which — given that the two copies are nondistinct — would amount to saying that John should precede itself. In short, a syntactic structure containing a chain consisting of more than one copy yields a problem for linearization. The structure cannot surface (i.e. be pronounced). The only way to ‘rescue’ the structure is to delete a chain link in the phonological component, e.g. the lower copy in (48). After deletion of the lower copy by means of the operation Chain Reduction, the structure can be linearized in accordance with the LCA.20 Turning again to the pattern blootshoofds and particularly to the representation (46b), we now have an account for the deletion of the lower copy of bloot. It must be deleted in order to obtain a structure that can be linearized in consonance with Kayne’s (1994) LCA. If the lower copy is not deleted, we have a ‘conflict’ in the ordering of bloot and hoofd: given that the two instances of bloot are nondistinct, hoofd is required to precede and be preceded by the same element, viz. bloot. Let us turn next to the phenomenon of –s duplication in (46). If the two occurrences of –s are copies of a single lexical item, the question arises as to why the two . In Nunes (2004: 27), Chain Reduction is defined as follows: “Delete the minimal number of constituents of a nontrivial chain CH that suffices for CH to be mapped into a linear order in accordance with the LCA.”

 Norbert Corver

chain links can surface in this case. Nunes’ theory about linearization also provides an answer to this question. He argues that phonetic realization of multiple copies is found in structural contexts in which one of the copies has become part of a complex word as a result of morphological fusion, an operation that applies in the Morphological component (i.e. before the structure is interpreted phonologically). Under the assumption that the LCA is not operative at the word-internal level, the copy that has been fused with another lexical item into a complex word, is no longer visible for the LCA. Consequently, no conflicting linearizations of the chain links arise. One of the duplication phenomena Nunes discusses to illustrate how morphological restructuring exempts copies from being deleted via Chain Reduction is duplication of wh-words in long distance wh-movement constructions. Consider the following example from a German dialect: (49)

Wen glaubt Hans wen Jakob gesehen hat Whom thinks Hans whom Jakob seen has ‘Who does Hans think Jakob saw?’

(German: McDaniel 1986)

Nunes assumes that the wh-word has moved successive cyclically to the matrix Spec,CP via intermediate head adjunction of wen to C. As depicted in (50a), whmovement yields a wh-chain consisting of three copies of the lexical item wen. As shown by (50b), only the two higher copies (i.e. the proleptic occurrences of wen) can be realized phonetically; the copy in the base position (i.e. the tail of the chain) must be deleted. Nunes points out that the lowest copy must be deleted (through Chain Reduction), since it is c-commanded by the highest copy of the chain. If the lowest copy remained, the structure would not be able to linearize because of the LCA. We would, for example, have a conflicting linear ordering between wen and Jakob: the highest copy would precede Jakob whereas the lowest one would precede it. Under the assumption that the wh-copies are non-distinct, we would have a conflict in linearization. Deletion of the copy in the tail position via Chain Reduction is required for the structure to linearize in accordance with the LCA.21 (50)

a. b. c.

[CP weni [C’ glaubt Hans [CP [C weni [C]] [Jakob weni gesehen hat]]]]Copying [CP weni [C’ glaubt Hans [CP #weni+C# [Jakob weni gesehen hat]]]] Fusion [CP weni [C’ glaubt Hans [CP #weni+C# [Jakob weni gesehen hat]]]] Chain reduction

. The presence of a single wh-element in the long distance wh-movement example in (1) receives a straightforward account now. Under the assumption that successive cyclic movement goes through [Spec,CP] in (standard) English, the upper wh-copy (i.e. the one in the spec-position of the matrix CP) has c-command over the wh-copy in the spec-position of the embedded CP and the wh-copy in the base position. In order for the structure to linearize, the two lower copies must be deleted by Chain Reduction.

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

Consider next the wh-duplication phenomenon: i.e. the phonetic realization of the two ‘proleptic’ wh-elements. Why is it possible to have two phonetic realizations in this case? Nunes’s answer is that the intermediate copy becomes invisible to the LCA after morphological fusion of the intermediate wen and the C has taken place. Morphology converts the adjunction structure [C wen [C C]] into a single terminal element (as represented by “# . . . #”), and, as a result of that, wen is no longer visible to the LCA. Consequently, wen need not be deleted for the structure to linearize. Let’s turn now to phenomenon of –s duplication in the absolute ‘genitival’ pattern blootshoofds. How can this phonetic realization of multiple –s-copies be accounted for? A way to go would be the following: After the small clause head X (i.e. –s) has been raised and adjoined to F, the adjunction structure [F –s [F F]] undergoes fusion in the Morphological component and turns into a single lexical item #[F –s [F F]]#. As a result of this morphological restructuring, the proleptic –s (i.e. the higher copy) is no longer visible to the LCA, which means that the whole structure can be linearized: the higher copy –s does not “see” the lower copy –s. Schematically: (51)

[FP blootj [F’ #[F-si [F F]]# [XP hoofd [X’ –si blootj]]]]

Having provided an account of the duplication pattern, let us now turn to the variants of the absolute genitival construction in which only a single element –s is found, as in blootshoofd and bloothoofds. Let’s start our discussion with the first pattern. I propose that this pattern is derived along the same lines as the duplication pattern blootshoofds, with the only difference that morphological fusion of the displaced (i.e. proleptic) –s and the functional head F does not take place. Schematically: (52)

a. b. c.

[XP hoofd [X’ [X –s] bloot]] (small clause configuration) (move –s, creating chain {-si,-si}) [FP –si+F [XP hoofd [X’ –si bloot]]] [FP blootj [F’ [F –si [F]] [XP hoofd [X’ –si blootj]]]] (pred. displ. + chain reduction)

So, the adjunction structure is not converted into a single terminal element. As a result of that, the displaced –s-copy has c-command over the –s-copy that constitutes the tail of the chain. In order to circumvent a violation of the LCA, the lower copy must be deleted through Chain Reduction. Consider next the pattern bloothoofds, which has the –s only at the end of the absolute expression. One way to analyze this structure would be to say that, just like in the other absolutive genitival variants, two displacement operations are involved: (i) movement of the small clause head –s to F and (ii) movement of the adjectival predicate to Spec,FP. The latter movement yields the chain {blootj, blootj}, the lower copy of which (the tail link) would be deleted via Chain Reduction. Head movement of –s yields the chain {-si, -si}. If morphological restructuring of the adjunction structure [F -s [F]] does not take place, deletion of one of

 Norbert Corver

the –s-copies must take place in order for the structure to linearize. For the pattern bloothoofds this would imply that the upper copy (the head of the chain) is deleted by Chain Reduction. The lower copy (i.e. the tail of the chain) is pronounced. Schematically: (53)

[FP blootj [F’ [F –si [F]] [XP hoofd [X’ -si blootj]]]]

In recent years, the idea that lower copy pronunciation is possible in natural language has been proposed by various authors on the basis of a variety of phenomena (see among others Pesetsky 1997, Bošković 2001, Bobaljik 2002; see also Bošković and Nunes (this volume)). According to these proposals, pronunciation of the head of the chain sometimes causes problems in the phonological component. More specifically, pronouncing the higher copy would lead to a violation of some PFrequirement. In those cases, pronunciation of the tail of the chain is necessary to obtain a legitimate PF-representation. A nice illustration of this syntax-phonology interaction comes from Bošković’s (2002) discussion of multiple wh-fronting in Romanian. As pointed out in (54a), Romanian is a multiple wh-fronting language; hence the ill-formedness of the whin situ in (54b). As shown by the pair in (55), a wh-element may remain in situ, if it is homophonous with the first displaced wh-element. Rather than interpreting (55b) as an exception to multiple wh-fronting in Romanian syntax, Bošković argues that there is no syntactic difference between (54) and (55) as regards multiple wh-fronting; in both cases we have multiple wh-fronting. The difference relates to the phonological component: if the higher copy of the fronted object wh-phrase ce were phonetically realized, we would have a violation of a PF-requirement which rules out adjacent homophonous words. For this reason, the lower copy of the object ce is pronounced.22 (54)

a.

Cine ce precede? Who what precedes b. *Cine precede ce ? Who precedes what ‘Who precedes what?’

(55)

a. *Ce ce precede? What what precedes b. Ce precede ce What precedes what ‘What precedes what?’

. I refer to the reader to the article by Bošković and Nunes in this volume for elaborate discussion of other instances of lower copy pronunciation.

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

Returning to the absolute pattern bloothoofds, we should raise the question whether lower copy pronunciation might be due to some PF-requirement. What phonological reason could there be for not pronouncing the higher copy? At this point, remember that thus far I have given two analyses of the complex head [F –s [F F]]. First of all, it may be a complex syntactic head (i.e. a head with internal syntactic structure), to the effect that –s has c-command over the lower copy, which results into deletion of the lower –s copy, yielding the pattern blootshoofd. Secondly, the complex head [F –s [F F]] may have undergone morphological restructuring (i.e. fusion: #[F –s [F F]]#) with the effect that the lower copy may be realized (as in blootshoofds). As regards the pronunciation of the two patterns, remember that blootshoofd is pronounced as [bloots][hoofd] rather than [bloot][shoofd], and blootshoofds is pronounced as [bloots][hoofds] rather than [bloot][shoofds]. In other words, the intervening –s phonologically attaches to the element to its immediate left, i.e. the left-adjacent element. In blootshoofd (cf. (52c)), the small clause head –s, which is adjoined to F by head movement, phonologically cliticizes onto the left adjacent adjective bloot. In blootshoofds, it arguably is the phonologically single word #[F-si [F F]]# that phonologically cliticizes onto the left adjacent adjective bloot. Starting from the idea that phonological cliticization requires string-adjacency, I will assume, following a suggestion by Jairo Nunes, that the deletion of the higher –s copy results from its impossibility to phonologically cliticize onto the adjective. More specifically, suppose that the small clause head –s is able to either left-adjoin (56a) or right-adjoin (56b) to F.23 Schematically: (56)

a. b.

[FP blootj [F’ [F si[F]] [XP hoofd [X’ –si blootj]]]] [FP blootj [F’ [[F F] si] [XP hoofd [X’ –si blootj]]]]

The idea would be now that phonological cliticization of –s onto bloot is possible only in (56a), since the raised small clause head –s is adjacent to the head bloot. In this case, the higher copy –s survives (and the lower one gets deleted for reasons of linearization). So we get the pattern blootshoofd. Consider next (56b). In this structure, phonological cliticization of –s onto the adjective bloot is impossible, because bloot is not adjacent to the raised small clause head –s; the head F intervenes between bloot and –s. One way to ‘rescue’ this structure would be to delete the higher copy –s, in which case the lower copy –s can survive. Deletion of the lower copy of bloot (for reasons of linearization; see above) yields the surface pattern bloothoofds: (57)

[FP blootj [F’ [[F F] si] [XP hoofd [X’ –si blootj]]]]

. See also the N of N-construction in (24), where the small clause head X gets right-adjoined to F.

 Norbert Corver

Now that I have given an explanation for the various surface patterns of the absolute genitival construction, I would like to close off this section with some words about the triggers for the movement operations that take place in this construction type. Consider, first, the displaced adjectival predicate (bloot). An important characteristic of this constituent is that it must be a bare positive head (e.g. *erg blootshoofds; very bare-s-head-s; ‘with a very bare head’). Under a Bare Phrase Structure theory (Chomsky 1995), the adjective has an ambiguous categorial status: it is both a head (minimal) and a phrase (maximal). Given this, the small clause head –s and the bare adjectival predicate stand in a mutual c-command relationship in their ‘base structure’ (see e.g. (52a)). According to the LCA, this means that no linear order can be established between the two constituents. A way to obtain a structure that yields a linearization between the –s and the bare adjective in (52a) is to move the adjective to a higher position.24 This movement is adjectival predicate movement to Spec,FP. Notice that in this case the bare adjective behaves like a phrasal constituent. When it occupies Spec,FP bloot has asymmetric c-command over (the two instances of) –s. As for the trigger of –s movement: I will tentatively assume that predicate movement in this construction is of the A-bar type. If so, the movement of –s to the higher functional head may be interpreted as a kind of Verb Second effect (see my discussion of the exclamative noun phrase in (32)).25

.

–s prolepsis and duplication in prepositional contexts

Having provided an analysis of –s prolepsis and –s duplication in absolutive genitival expressions like blootshoofds, I will now discuss some further instances of this . See Uriagereka (1998: 220–221) for a similar account of the data in (i). In (ia), atom and split are in a mutual c-command relation. Consequently, no linear order can be established. In (ib), the adjective split can be linearized with respect to the noun, since it is part of a larger AP; the noun asymmetrically c-commands the adjectival head. Uriagereka points out that (ia) can be rescued by moving split to a higher position from where it asymmetrically c-commands atom. (i)

a. *an atom split b. an atom [split in three pieces] c. a split atom

See Larson & Marusic (2004), though, for a discussion of adjectives that can occur postnominally without any modification in English. . If FP is PP in the absolute genitival constructions (see (14)), then the spurious definite article, which functions as the small clause head X), is adjoined to (an empty) P. At this point, it is interesting to observe that adjunction of definite articles onto P is a more widespread phenomenon. See e.g. German zum, which may be obtained by head movement of the determiner dem to zu, followed by morphological restructuring: zum.

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

phenomenon. The first pattern can superficially be represented as “Preposition + -s + Noun + -s” and is exemplified in (58):26 (58)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Hij praat binnensmonds He talks inside-s-mouth-s ‘He talks between his teeth’ Jan gooide de bal boven(s)arms Jan threw the ball over(s)arm-s ‘Jan threw the ball overarms’ We bleven binnen(s)huis We stayed in-s-house(s?) ‘We stayed indoors’ We houden deze informatie binnen(s)kamers We keep this information in(s)house-s ‘We keep it a secret’ Zij bleven binnen(s)lands They stayed inside-s-land-s ‘They stayed in the country/within the boundaries of the country’ Ik heb u daarvan onder(s)hands kennis gegeven I have you there-of under(s)hand-s acqaintance given ‘I have acquainted you with it in secret’

As noted by Royen (1948, part II, p. 97), the question arises as to whether the bound morpheme that intervenes between the preposition and the noun historically relates to a genitival determiner des or whether it is really a proleptic –s that anticipates the occurrence of the –s that follows the noun. Thus, is an expression like binnensmonds in (58a) derived from a structure like binnen des monds (inside the- mouth-) or is the intermediate –s a grammatical morpheme that anticipates the occurrence of another –s. Under the latter interpretation, –s is often characterized as an ‘adverbial marker –s’ in traditional Dutch grammars (cf. Royen (1948, part II, p. 99). Royen (p. 101) remarks that even though certain expressions of the type “P+-s+N+-s” may be historically related to patterns featuring genitival case, it is quite clear that not all patterns have that origin. More specifically, patterns in which –s — which used to be a masculine/neuter genitival case suffix — combines with what used to be feminine nouns cannot possibly be interpreted as featuring a genitival case suffix –s (e.g. binnenskamers (inside-s-room-s, ‘in private’), binnenstents (inside-s-tent-s; ‘inside one’s tent’); cf. Royen, p. 102). In view of this, Royen concludes that from a synchronic perspective –s is an adverbial element in an expression like binnensmonds. More specifically, the final –s is an adverbial

. As indicated in (58), the pattern without –s prolepsis is also fine. For reasons of space, I will restrict my discussion to the pattern featuring prolepsis.

 Norbert Corver

marker and the intermediate –s is a proleptic (i.e. anticipatory) occurrence of this adverbial marker.27 Let us take a closer look at the structure of these prepositional ‘genitival’ patterns and let us try to find out what the exact nature of the two occurrences of –s in an expression like binnensmonds might be. The first thing I would like to point out is that these expressions often have near equivalents featuring a noun phrase introduced by a definite article. Compare, for example, the following minimal pairs: (59)

a. b.

(60)

a. b.

Zij verbleven ondergronds They stayed under-ground-s Zij verbleven onder de grond They stayed under the ground ‘They stayed underground’ Jan kwam binnenstijds terug Jan came within-s-time-s back Jan kwam binnen de tijd terug Jan came within the time back ‘Jan returned before the set time’

This reminds us of our analysis of –s in so-called absolute genitival constructions like blootshoofds. The element –s was analyzed as a spurious definite article that heads a small clause structure. The definite article-like status of –s in the examples in (60) is suggested by the impossibility of patterns such as (61a) and (61b), in which the definite article de co-occurs with –s: (61)

a. b.

*Zij verbleven [onder de gronds] *Jan kwam [binnen de tijds] terug

Another characteristic property of these constructions is that they can display a stress pattern that is also found in PPs consisting of a P and a noun phrase complement: stress falls on the noun.28 This is exemplified in (62) and (63): (62)

a. b.

boven de HAND above the hand bovenHANDs

(phrasal stress pattern)

. In Dutch traditional grammar, the element –s is called an adverbial marker in examples such as (i) and (ii): (i)

A: Vind je het mooi? A: Consider you it pretty ‘Do you like it?’

(ii)

Jan spreekt zachtjes Jan speaks soft--s ‘Jan speaks softly’

B: Zekers!(colloquial speech) B: certain-s B: Certainly!

. Dutch dictionaries indicate that patterns like binnensmonds permit two ways of pronunciation as regards stress: (i) BINNENsmonds and (ii) binnensMONDs. The latter stress pattern

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

(63)

a. b.

Onder de GROND under the ground OnderGRONDs

(phrasal stress pattern)

In this respect, the patterns (62b) and (63b) crucially differ from superficially similar expressions like bovenhand and ondergrond in (64) and (65), respectively. Here, we have the stress pattern that is typically found with Dutch compounds. That is, (word) stress typically falls on the left member of the composite noun. (64)

de BOVENhand hebben over iets (compound stress pattern) the upper-hand have over something ‘to have the upper hand over something’

(65)

de ONDERgrond the underground/subsoil

(compound stress pattern)

From the stress pattern in (62b)–(63b), we may conclude that linguistic expressions such as binnensmonds, bovenhands, et cetera can be phrasal expressions (i.e. XPs). The next question to be answered is: What is their internal syntax? If we follow our analysis of the absolute genitival expression blootshoofds, we might hypothesize that binnensmonds involves head movement of a small clause head –s and displacement of a predicative XP. One possible implementation of such an analysis might start from a structure like (66a), in which mond is the subject of the predication relationship and the (intranstive) preposition binnen the predicate.29 The surface order would be derived by head movement of –s (66b) and subsequent predicate movement of the PP binnen to Spec, FP (66c). The two copies of the chain {-si, -si} are able to survive at PF. The lower copy of binnen, however, has to be deleted for reasons of linearization (i.e. in order to circumvent a violation of the LCA). (66)

a. b. c.

[XP mond [X’ [X –s] binnen]] [FP [-si+F] [XP mond [X’ –si binnen]]] [FP binnenj [F’ [-si+F] [XP mond [X’ –si binnenj]]]]

Although this analysis may give the right surface outcome, there is a good reason for rejecting it. The proposed predication relationship does not give us the right interpretation: an expression like binnensmonds in (58a) does not mean: ‘(He talks with) the mouth inside’. Or take binnen(s)huis in (58c). It does not have the meaning: ‘with the house inside’. It rather means something like: ‘inside the house’.

is similar to that of syntactic phrases, the former stress pattern is the one found in compounds (see discussion in the main text). See also Note 3. . The preposition binnen can be used intransitively, as in: Marie is binnen (Mary is inside; ‘Mary is inside the house’). See Van Riemsdijk (1978).

 Norbert Corver

Is there an alternative analysis combining predicate displacement and head movement of –s that captures the right meaning? I would like to propose that the expressions in (58) involve a possessive relationship. Binnensmonds in (58a), for example means: ‘inside his mouth’. In this case, the clausal subject determines the way the empty possessor — which for the sake of analysis I will simply consider to be a pro — is interpreted. The phrase binnenshuis in (58c) has the interpretation: ‘inside our house’ or ‘inside someone’s house (e.g. the host’s house)’. In this case, the reference of pro is determined by the clausal subject we or its reference is arbitrary (i.e. ‘inside someone’s house’). I will assume that the possessive relationship is configurationally defined in terms of the small clause structure in (67a), which informally reads as: “mouth (is) to+Possessor”. In other words, the possessed noun is the subject of the predication relationship and the empty possessor (POS) is the predicate.30 (67)

a. b. c. d. e.

[XP mond [X’ [X-s] POS]] (i.e. “mouth is [to POS]”) [FP F [XP mond [X’ [X-s] POS]]] [FP [-si+F] [XP mond [X’ –si POS]]] [FP POSj [F’ [-si+F] [XP mond [X’ –si POSj]]]] [PP binnen [FP POSj [F’ [-si+F] [XP mond [X’ –si POSj]]]]]

The phenomena of –s prolepsis and –s duplication as found in this construction type are the result of movement and copying. The small clause head –s undergoes movement to a higher functional head F and leaves behind a copy. After morphological restructuring has applied to the adjunction structure [F –s [F F]], yielding #[F –s [F F]]#, the lower copy –s is no longer c-commanded by the upper copy –s. The two copies can now be realized phonetically without resulting into a violation of LCA.31

. This analysis is reminiscent of Den Dikken’s analysis of possessive constructions like Jacobs zonen (see (26b)). In (67), I abstract away from the presence of a dative P. . The phrase binnensmonds is (slowly) pronounced as [binnens][monds] (and not: [binnen] [smonds]). Thus, the proleptic –s phonologically attaches to the lexical element to its left. Remember from the previous section that I proposed that phonological attachment of –s to a preceding host was only possible if the two elements were adjacent. In (56b), for example, –s and bloot are not adjacent (due to the intervening head F) and, consequently, phonological cliticization of –s onto bloot was impossible. Given this approach, one might wonder why phonological cliticization is not blocked in (67e). Since POS (i.e. pro) intervenes, one might think that –s (or maybe better: #[-si+F]#) is unable to cliticize onto binnen. I will tentatively assume that, by sitting in a Spec position, POS does not count as an intervening head for purposes of adjacency.

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

.

–s Prolepsis and duplication in ‘adverbial expressions’

In this section I will discuss a few other expressions from Dutch displaying the phenomenon of –s prolepsis. These expressions are typically used adverbially. A first example is given in (68): (68)

a.

b.

insgelijks in-s-similarity-s ‘likewise/in the same way’ U wenst het en ik insgelijks You wish it and I in-s-similarity-s ‘You wish it and I wish it too’

(present-day Dutch)

The expression insgelijks superficially consists of the following elements: P + -s + N + -s. The question arises as to how to interpret the two occurrences of –s. Can this pattern of –s prolepsis (and -s-duplication) be analyzed along the same lines as the one we found in absolutive genitival expressions like blootshoofds and prepositional patterns like binnensmonds? That is, can –s in (68a) be interpreted as a definite article-like element that functions as a small clause head which undergoes head movement (and copying)? Or should a different analysis be assigned to this pattern of –s prolepsis and duplication? As will become clear, I will take the latter route. Let us start our analysis by pointing out that the expression insgelijks has become a fixed, unanalyzed word for present-day speakers of Dutch. Historically, however, it relates to the forms in (69) and (70) from Middle Dutch, which, as a matter of fact, also had the variant insgelycs: (69)

in gelike des (Middle Dutch) in similarity that-; ‘likewise/in the same way’

(70)

in des gelike in that- similarity; ‘likewise/in the same way’

(69) and (70) are PPs headed by in. The complement noun phrase is headed by gelike, which combines with the genitival element des. Middle Dutch des is a weak/ clitic genitival form of the demonstrative pronoun ‘dat’/’die’ (thatneuter/masc) and has the meaning: ‘of that’. The full genitival form of the demonstrative pronoun (masculine/neuter) is: dies. Observe that (69) and (70) differ from each other in the placement of the genitival demonstrative: in (69) it follows the head noun, whereas in (70) it precedes the head noun. Given the fact that in Middle Dutch complements generally follow the head noun, I will assume that the order in (70) is a derived order obtained by movement of des to some noun phrase-internal functional projection. Schematically: (71)

in [FP desi [F’ F [NP gelike desi]]]

 Norbert Corver

Under a copy theory of movement, movement of des leaves behind a copy in the ‘trace’ position. As indicated in (71), this lower copy is deleted in a string like (70). Following Nunes’s theory of chain realization, I will assume that the lower copy is deleted in order to circumvent a violation of the LCA. What is interesting is that we also find the pattern desgelijks; i.e. des + gelijk + –s (Middle Dutch: desgelikes) (72)

desgelijks that--similarityNoun-s ‘likewise/in the same way’

What I would like to propose now is that in older variants of Dutch this pattern was derived by leftward movement of the weak demonstrative pronoun des, as in (73a). As a next step in the derivation, the lower copy of des and the adjacent noun undergo morphological restructuring (73b). This morphological restructing results into a further reduction of the weak pronoun des to –s. After morphological restructuring, the lower copy is no longer visible for the upper copy. Both copies can be realized phonetically without violating the LCA. (73)

a. b.

[FP desi [F’ F [NP gelijk desi]]] (copying) [FP desi [F’ F [NP #[N gelijk+-si]#]]] (fusion and phonological reduction of des into –s)

I propose that this analysis was also at the basis of the formation of expressions such as those in (74a) and (75a), which in present-day Dutch are no longer felt to be composite words: (74)

a.

b. (75)

a.

b.

desondanks that.-spiteNoun-s ‘in spite of that’ des2 ondank des1 → des [ondank+des] → [desondanks] desnoods that.-needNoun-s ‘if necessary’ des2 nood des1 → des [nood+des] → [desnoods]

Getting back to the pattern insgelijks, we may plausibly assume that in this pattern the displaced demonstrative des has also undergone phonological reduction to –s. The following derivation may have been at the basis of this pattern: First, the weak demonstrative pronoun des undergoes movement from the complement position to gelijk to a higher functional position. Suppose now that this position is not Spec,FP (cf. (73)) but a position adjoined to F, as in (76a). Under the assumption that the lower copy des cliticizes onto the noun, we get the representation in (76b). Morphological restructuring gives us the final representation in (76c).

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

(76)

a. b. c.

in [FP [F des2+F] [NP gelijk des1]] in [FP [F des2+F] [NP gelijk+des1]] in [FP #[F -s+F]# [NP #[N gelijk+-s]#]]

(copying + adjunction to F) (cliticization of lower copy to N) (fusion)

I now turn to another remarkable instance of –s prolepsis, namely –s prolepsis in temporal expressions like those in (77): (77)

a.

b.

[’s Zondags] ga ik naar huis -s Sunday-s go I to home ‘This sunday I go home’ [’s Ochtends] vertrok zij -s Morning-s left she ‘She left this morning’

(‘des’ = ‘of this/that week’)

(‘des’ = ‘of this/that day’)

Here, too, we have an expression featuring two occurrences of –s. Interestingly, we also find temporal expressions such as those in (78): (78)

a.

b.

[Des zondags] reed de familie gezamenlijk per wagen naar de kerk That. sunday-s drove the family together by car to the church ‘That sunday, the family drove to church together’ (Royen 1948: 354) [Des ochtends] was het vliegtuig uit Bulawayo vertrokken That. morning-s had the plane from Bulawayo left ‘That morning the plane had departed from Bulawayo’

I would like to propose now that an expression like des zondags has the meaning: ‘(at) the sunday of-that’. Des (i.e. of-that) refers to a (situationally given/ presupposed) time period (e.g. ‘this week’). Thus, des zondags in (78a) means ‘the sunday of this/that week’, and des ochtends in (78b) means ‘the morning of this/ that day’. A pattern like des zondags can now be derived as follows : des is moved from its complement position to a position to the left of the head noun (say: Spec,FP) and leaves behind a copy (cf. (79)). The lower copy cliticizes onto the head noun, yielding the representation in (79b). Morphological restructuring yields the pattern in (79c): (79)

a. b. c.

[FP des2 [F’ F [NP zondag des1]]] (copying) [FP des2 [F’ F [NP [N zondag+des1]]]] (cliticization) [FP des2 [F’ F [NP #[N zondag+-s1]# ]]] (fusion : zondag+des = zondag-s)

Consider next the derivation of an expression like ’s zondags in (77a). I will assume that in this pattern, des is not moved to Spec,FP but rather adjoins to the head F, yielding the representation in (80a). The lower copy of des gets cliticized onto the noun. Morphological restructuring gives us the representation in (80c): (80)

a. b. c.

[FP [F des2+F] [NP zondag des1]] (copying + adjunction to F) (cliticization to N) [FP [ des2+F] [NP [N zondag+des1]]]] [FP [ #des2+F# [NP #[N zondag+des1]# ]]] (fusion : des+F zondag+des = -s zondag -s)

 Norbert Corver

Thus far, I have argued that expressions such as desnoods, desondanks, desgelijks and des zondags are derived by leftward movement of a weak demonstrative pronoun des and cliticization and morphological restructuring of the copy that constitutes the tail of the chain. I would like to close off this section with a brief discussion of a very similar phenomenon in the prepositional domain in certain dialects of German. Consider the following examples from German dialects (see Oppenrieder 1990, Fleischer 2002): (81)

a.

b.

[Da damit] will ich übrigens nichts zu tun haben that that-with want I by-the-way nothing to do have ‘I don’t want to be involved in that.’ [Dodrone] denkt er nicht (Schlesisches Wörterbuch I: 179) there-there-of thinks he not ‘He does not think of that.’

In these examples, we find a doubling of the pronominal element that is selected by the preposition. In standard German, we have a single pronoun, e.g. damit (thatwith; ‘with that/with it’). As has been shown by Van Riemsdijk (1978) for the Dutch equivalent of damit, viz. daarmee, the pronoun originates as a right branch complement of the preposition and undergoes leftward movement to [Spec, PP]. In Dutch, the demonstrative pronoun dat converts into daar when it occupies this specifier position; see (82). (82)

a. *Jan rekende [op dat] Jan counted on that b. Jan rekende [daarop] Jan counted there-on ‘Jan counted on that.’

This PP-internal movement of the demonstrative pronoun is schematically represented in (83a). This movement operation has been reinterpreted by Zwarts (1992) as an operation shifting the demonstrative pronoun to the spec-position of a functional head within the extended prepositional projection (see (83b)): (83)

a. b.

[PP daari [P’ op ti]] [RP daari [R’ R [PP op ti]]]

(Van Riemsdijk 1978) (Zwarts 1992)

Under a copy theory of movement, leftward movement of daar leaves behind a copy. Schematically: (84)

[RP daari [R’ R [PP op daari]]]

As indicated, the lower copy daar must be deleted; otherwise the structure cannot be linearized in consonance with the LCA.

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon 

Consider now again the PP-internal doubling patterns in (81). I propose that, just like in the derivation of expressions like desnoods and des zondags, a demonstrative element is moved leftward across its selecting lexical head and leaves behind a copy that, for purposes of linearization, undergoes morphological restructuring with the preposition. In (85), the derivation of the sequence da damit is given: (85)

a. b. c.

[RP [R’ [R [PP [P mit] da]]]] [RP dai [R’ [R [PP [P mit] dai]]]] (movement of da to Spec, RP plus copying) (morphological restructuring) [RP dai [R’ [R [PP #[P dai+ mit]# ]]]]

In (85b), the demonstrative da is moved to Spec,RP, which is an instance of phrasal (i.e. DP) movement. A copy of da is left behind in the ‘trace position’. In (85c), mit and the da-copy in the complement position undergo morphological restructuring. After morphological restructuring, the lower copy has become invisible for the upper copy. Both instances of da can be phonetically realized. The word order da+mit (rather than mit+da) of the complex preposition in (85c) should be understood as a reflex of fusion.

.

Conclusion

In this article, I have investigated the phenomenon of –s prolepsis in Dutch, i.e. the anticipatory occurrence of the bound morpheme –s in linguistic expressions such as blootshoofds (an absolute genitival construction), binnensmonds (a PP-like construction), insgelijks and ’s zondags (adverbial expressions). An interesting property of these constructions is that they feature two instances of the bound morpheme –s. I argued that this duplication phenomenon should be analyzed in terms of movement and copying. In constructions like blootshoofds and binnensmonds, the element –s is a (spurious) definite article-like element that is the head of a small clause XP. This head is raised to a higher head in contexts of predicate displacement. In constructions like insgelijks and ’s zondags, the bound morpheme ’s is analyzed as a weak/reduced demonstrative pronoun that has been moved from the complement position of the noun to a position preceding the noun. In all four constructions, the leftmost –s is the proleptic (i.e. displaced) element. The –s that follows is the copy left behind after movement. The possibility of phonetically realizing the two copies was explained in terms of Nunes’s theory about the linearization of chains. I hope to have shown that an intriguing phenomenon observed in Dutch traditional grammar may receive a new syntactic analysis by using the ‘linguistic tools’ (in casu: copy theory) made available by generative grammar.

 Norbert Corver

Acknowledgments This paper was presented at the workshop The Copy Theory of Movement on the PF-side held at Utrecht University in November 2004. I am grateful to Peter Ackema, Marcel den Dikken, Norbert Hornstein, Jairo Nunes, and the members of the DP-reading group at Utrecht University for helpful comments on the material presented in this paper. Responsibility for any errors is entirely mine.

References Bennis, Hans, Corver, Norbert den Dikken, Marcel. 1998. Predication in nominal phrases. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 85–117. Beukema, Frits & Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Extractions from with-constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 689–698. Bobaljik Jonathan David. 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 197–267. Bont, A.P. 1958. Dialekt van Kempenland. Meer in het bijzonder d’Oerse taol. Deel 1. Klank- en vormleer en enige syntactische bijzonderheden. Assen: Van Gorcum. Bošković, Zeljko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Carstens, Vicky. 2003. Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with a case-checked goal. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 393–412. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step. Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Corver, Norbert. 1990. The syntax of left branch extractions. PhD Dissertation, Tilburg University. Corver, Norbert. 2000. Degree adverbs as displaced predicates. Rivista di Linguistica 12(1): 155–191. Corver, Norbert. 2004. Some notes on emphatic forms and displacement in Dutch. In Triggers, Anne Breitbarth & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Corver, Norbert. 2006. Proleptic agreement as a good design property. In Studies on agreement, Joao Costa & Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva (eds), 47–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Craats, Ineke van de, Corver, Norbert & van Hout, Roeland. 2000. Conservation of grammatical knowledge. On the acquisition of possessive noun phrases by Turkish and Moroccan learners of Dutch. Linguistics 38(2): 221–314. Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & van Koppen, Marjo. 2002. The locality of agreement and the CP-domain, Handout GLOW 2002, Amsterdam. Dikken, Marcel den. 1995. Copulas. Paper presented at GLOW 18, TromsØ, Ms, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam/HIL.

Dutch ’s-prolepsis as a copying phenomenon  Dikken, Marcel den. 1998. Predicate inversion in DP. In Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase, Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder (eds), 177–214.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dikken, Marcel den. 2006. Relators and linkers. The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Fleischer, J. 2002. Preposition stranding in German dialects. In Syntactic microvariation, Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips & Susanne van der Kleij (eds). Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut. (http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/synmic/). Haeringen, C.B. van. 1947. Naamvallen bij eigennamen van personen en bij verwantschapsnamen. Nieuwe Taalgids 40. Kampen, Jacqueline van & Corver, Norbert. 2005. Diversity of possessor marking in Dutch child language and Dutch dialects. Ms. UiL-OTS, Utrecht. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Laan, Kornelis ter. 1953. Proeve van een Groninger spraakkunst. Winschoten. Larson, Richard K. & Marusic, Franc. 2004. Indefinite pronoun structures with APs. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 268–287. Loey, A. van. 1980. Middelnederlandse spraakkunst. I. Vormleer. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Longobardi, Guiseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665. Longobardi, Guiseppe. 2001. The structure of DPs: Some principles, parameters and problems. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds). Malden MA: Blackwell. McDaniel, Dana. 1986. Conditions on wh-chains. PhD Dissertation, CUNY. Moro, Andrea. 1988. Per una teoria unificata delle frasi copulari. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 13: 81–110. Moro, Andrea. 1991. The raising of predicates: Copula, expletives and existence. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15: More papers on Wh-movement, Lisa Cheng and Hamida Demirdache (eds), MIT, 193–218. Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalist program. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Oppenrieder, Wilhelm. 1990. Preposition stranding im Deutschen? – Da will ich nichts von hören! In Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien, Gisbert Fanselow & Sacha Felix (eds), 159–172. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Overdiep, G.S. 1937. Stilistische grammatica van het moderne Nederlandsch. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink. Paul, Hermann. 1904. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 6th edn. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Pesetsky, David. 1997. Optimality theory and syntax: Movement and pronunciation. In Optimality theory: An overview. Diana Archangeli & D.Terrence Langendoen (eds), 134–170. Malden MA: Blackwell. Riemsdijk, Henk C. van. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness. Dordrecht: Foris. Royen, Gerlach. 1948. Buigingsverschijnselen in het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche uitgevers maatschappij. Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 1998. Possessors, articles and definiteness. In Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase, Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder (eds), 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 Norbert Corver Stoett, F. 1923. Middelnederlandsche spraakkunst. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Stowell, Tim. 1983. Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2: 285–312. Stowell, Tim. 1991. Determiners in NP and DP. In Views on phrase structure, Katherine Leffel & Denis Bouchard (eds), 37–56. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and reason: An introduction to minimalist syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger & Zubizaretta, Maria-Luisa. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 23(4): 595–652. Vooys, Cornelis Gerrit Nicolaas de. 1967. Nederlandse spraakkunst. 7th edn. Revised by Dr. M. Schönfeld. Groningen: J.B. Wolters. Weerman, Fred & Petra de Wit. 1999. The decline of the genitive in Dutch. Linguistics 37(6): 1155–1192. Wit, Petra de. 1997. Genitive case and genitive constructions. PhD Dissertation UiL-OTS, Utrecht. Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. PhD Dissertation, University of Groningen. Zwarts, Joost. 1992. X’-syntax – X’-semantics. On the interpretation of functional heads and lexical heads. Doctoral dissertation, OTS, Utrecht University.

 

On lower copy realization

Free word order and copy theory of movement Sandra Stjepanović West Virginia University

This chapter discusses the derivation of certain cases of free word order in SerboCroatian, in particular those involving new information focus and neutral intonation patterns. The chapter starts by examining an apparent paradox concerning the position of the subject in Serbo-Croatian. While there are data indicating that the subject must raise to the highest position of the split IP in overt syntax, there are also data indicating that it appears in [Spec,VP] on the surface. Based on work by Franks (1998) and Bošković (2001, 2002), among others, the chapter argues that the subject does indeed raise to the highest position of the split IP in overt syntax, but when the subject represents new information focus, a lower copy is pronounced at PF to satisfy requirements on sentential stress assignment (see Zubizaretta 1998). The proposed analysis captures the extremely free word order of Serbo-Croatian as well as discourse effects of scrambling, and sheds light on how copy deletion works on the PF side.

.

Introduction

In this paper I discuss the derivation of certain cases of free word order in SerboCroatian (SC), in particular those involving new information focus and neutral intonation patterns. I show that in order to derive these word orders and at the same time account for their discourse effects, a joint work of syntactic and PF components is necessary. I do not, however, argue that the PF operation that plays a role in determining these word orders is a movement operation. Rather, I propose that they are a result of how the copy deletion mechanism works at PF. The mechanism entails that PF has a preference for pronunciation of the highest copy of elements moved in syntax, but that a lower copy can be pronounced in order to avoid a PF violation. I show that in Serbo-Croatian, a PF factor that can induce pronunciation of lower copies is the default stress assigning mechanism. More precisely, the lowest copy of a focalized element is pronounced to satisfy a requirement on sentential stress assignment. The proposed analysis captures extremely free word order of SC as well as discourse effects of scrambling. The paper also provides evidence for the copy and deletion theory of movement (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001).

 Sandra Stjepanović

.

Free word order in SC

It is well-known that SC is characterized by a great freedom of word order. So, in a sentence with a subject, a verb and a complement, as in (1) all six logically possible orders are attested: (1)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Petar čita knjigu. Petar reads book Petar knjigu čita. Petar book reads Knjigu Petar čita. book Petar reads Knjigu čita Petar. book reads Petar Čita knjigu Petar. reads book Petar Čita Petar knjigu. reads Petar book “Petar is reading a book.”

As we will see below, although all of these word orders are grammatical, not every word order is felicitous in every context. In this paper I will be concerned with the derivation of different word orders only when they contain new information focus, and not contrastive focus. New information focus is found in out-of-the-blue contexts (for example, in an answer to the question What happened? - John saw Mary, where the whole sentence is new information), and also as the part of a sentence that answers a wh-question (for example, in the sentence John bought a book, as an answer to the question What did John buy?, a book is a new information focus). Contrastive/emphatic focus is associated with a negation (contrastive focus) or assertion (emphatic focus) of a presupposition (e.g. MARY bought a book, not Peter, or Yes, JOHN did it.). Furthermore, I will consider these word orders when they involve neutral intonational patterns, where the rightmost element in the sentence bears the sentence accent.1 In the following section I describe how new information focus is expressed in the sentences in (1).

. I will not be concerned with the so called ‘emotive’ intonation patterns, where the sentence accent is not on the rightmost element, as for example, in the following sentence, where it falls on the subject. (i)

PETAR kupuje auto. Petar buys car ‘Petar is buying a car.’

Free word order and copy theory of movement 

.

New information focus and word order

If the whole sentence presents new information, which is the case when it is an answer to a question such as What is happening?, and involves a neutral intonation pattern, then the word order in the sentence is a canonical one, for example, SVO in case of sentences containing a transitive verb. So, (1a) is a felicitous response to this question, and none of the other word orders in (1) are. (1a) is also a felicitous answer to the questions What is Peter doing? and What is Peter reading?, which require VP and the object respectively to be new information focus. (1b–c) are felicitous in contexts where the verb is new information focus, as answers to the question What is Peter doing with the book?. (1d) is a felicitous answer to the question Who is reading the book?, which requires the subject in the answer to be new information focus. The word orders in (1e–f) are possible word orders in SC, but these cases do not seem to contain new information focus. These V-initial sequences are felicitous if there is a heavy stress on V signaling emphasis or contrast, and can be used in contexts requiring the verb to be contrastively focused.2 Thus, by looking at the examples in (1), the following generalization emerges: (2)

In a SC sentence with a neutral intonation pattern, the constituent bearing new information focus follows elements that represent old information.

In what follows, I will be concerned with the question of how we derive these different word orders and at the same time account for their discourse effects. Given the generalization in (2), we can break this question into several subquestions: (3)

a. b. c.

Why is the constituent that represents new information focus in the final position? How do focalized elements get into the final position? What is the position of old information elements?

. None of the speakers I have tested accepted these word orders with new information focus under neutral intonation. However, Godjevac (2000) reports that it is possible to use them in such contexts: VOS can be used as an answer to a question requiring S to be new information focus, and VSO requiring O as new information focus (as well as the whole sentence). These findings are actually what the analysis proposed later in this paper predicts. To derive VOS, all elements move out of VP (V to T/Pred, O to SpecAgrO, S to SpecAgrS). The NSR assigns stress to the lowest copy of S, so this copy is pronounced. For VSO, S moves to SpecAgrS, and O to SpecAgrO. Given the structures proposed below, we can get V in front of S, if we assume that VP is fronted to the beginning of the sentence, after S and O move out of it. Once the NSR applies, it assigns stress to the lowest copy of O (in the lower copy of the fronted VP), and this copy of O is pronounced, while the highest copies of V and S are pronounced. Similar derivations can occur for V-initial ditransitive structures as well, that, according to Godjevac, allow new information focus under neutral intonation patterns.

 Sandra Stjepanović

I will first consider the question in (3b). .

How do focalized elements get into the final position?

There are several possibilities with respect to how the new information focus constituent might end up in the final position. One possibility is that the constituent is right-adjoined, the second possibility is that it moves out of VP and then the remnant containing old information elements is fronted over it. The third possibility is that the constituent is in-situ, with all other elements moving over it. There is evidence showing that the third possibility is the right one. The evidence is based on the behavior of subjects that represent new information focus in transitive sentences such as (1d). There are data showing that these subjects are not right adjoined and that they can stay in a low position in a tree. I give these arguments in the following sections. .. The subject is not right adjoined There are several possibilities as to what the potential right adjoined position of the subject in a sentence such as (1d) might be. One possibility is that the subject first moves to AgrSP in overt syntax, and then it is rightward moved, possibly adjoined to AgrSP. The other possibility is that the subject is rightward moved from its original position in SpecVP and adjoined to VP without undergoing overt movement to AgrSP first. The third possibility is that the subject is base-generated in an adjoined position on the right, and it is coindexed with a pro-like element fulfilling all the roles that the subject itself normally does in syntax (checks features, binds elements, etc.). However, as also shown in Stjepanović (2004), none of these options is the right one. First, the information structure properties of these sentences do not seem to be compatible with the hypothesis that the subject is right-adjoined here. This is because cross-linguistically, the right dislocated material tends to represent old information, and not new information focus. Second, there are data that argue against the hypothesis that the subject is in the rightward position in (1d). Consider the following sentences from Bošković (1997), containing stacked adverbs: (4)

a.

b.

Jovan je namerno dva put oborio Petra. (SC) Jovan is deliberately twice failed Petar “Jovan deliberately twice failed Petar.” namerno > dvaput Jovan je oborio Petra namerno dva put. Jovan is failed Petar deliberately twice “Jovan failed Petar deliberately twice.” namerno > dvaput *dvaput > namjerno Petra je namjerno dvaput oborio Jovan. Petar- is intentionally twice failed Jovan- “Jovan intentionally twice failed Petar.” namjerno > dvaput *dvaput > namjerno

In (5a), the scope of adverbs is unambiguous: namjerno takes scope over dvaput, just as is the case with the scope of adverbs when they precede the participle in (5b). This means that namjerno c-commands dvaput. The structure that permits namjerno to c-command dvaput in (5a) is the one where the adverbs are leftadjoined. The structure in which dvaput c-commands namjerno is not allowed. Such a structure would be the one where the adverbs are right adjoined. The question is why this structure is not allowed. If the subject in this sentence is right adjoined, it would be possible for the adverbs to be right adjoined, and the reading where

 Sandra Stjepanović

dvaput takes scope over namjerno would be possible. Since this reading does not obtain, it means that the subject cannot be right-adjoined. ..

Subjects are not first moved out of VP with the remnant moving over the subject In the previous section, we have seen that the subject in sentences such as (1d) is not right adjoined, but is in a Spec position. There are two possibilities as to what that Spec position is. It may be the case that the subject stays in-situ in SpecVP, or it undergoes movement to some Spec position high in the tree. In the latter case, in order to obtain the right linear order, the remnant phrase out of which the subject has moved must move over the subject. There are reasons to doubt that this analysis is the right one, though. Consider the following sentence: (6)

Petra je nesumnjivo oborio Jovan. Petar- is undoubtedly failed Jovan- “Jovan undoubtedly failed Petar.”

Under the remnant movement analysis, the resulting structure for this sentence would be the following: (7)

[tk Petra je nesumnjivo oborio]i [Jovank] ti. Petar- is undoubtedly failed Jovan-

The question is what the position to which the subject moves prior to the remnant movement would be, and what the remnant would be. Given that the remnant contains the sentential speaker-oriented adverb, the remnant cannot be VP, since sentential adverbs tend to occur much higher in the tree. Bošković (1995a, b, 1997) and Watanabe (1993) assume that sentential adverbs are adjoined to TP (or to a position slightly lower than TP). Given this, suppose then that the subject is in SpecAgrsP and the moved remnant is TP (with Petra scrambled to TP adjoined position first) adjoined to AgrSP or CP: (8)

[[TP Petra je nesumnjivo oborio]i [AgrsP [Jovan] ti.] Petar- is undoubtedly failed Jovan-

This could certainly work for this type of sentence, although one must be cautious when it comes to the driving force of TP movement here, since it is not clear what it would be. But, even if one disregards the question of the driving force, this cannot be the right analysis, since it is bound to yield undesirable results in case of a complex clause such as the following: (9)

[AgrsP Marija [TP danas tvrdi da je Jovan oborio Petra]] Marija today claims that is Jovan failed Petar “Marija claims today that Jovan failed Petar.”

Free word order and copy theory of movement 

If, indeed, it is TP moving in the sentence in (8), then one should expect that the matrix TP could move in the sentence in (9) as well. The result of this movement, however, is ungrammatical:3 (10) *[TP Danas tvrdi da je Jovan oborio Petra]i [AgrsP today claims that is Jovan- failed Petar- [Marija] ti] Marija- “Marija claims today that Jovan failed Petar.”

Therefore, we must conclude that there is no remnant TP movement in sentences such as (8) either.4 Another possibility is that the relevant subject moves to a position out of CP, possibly a CP adjoined one, and then the whole CP moves as a remnant. It is easy to see that this type of analysis would suffer from the same problem as TP remnant movement, when it comes to sentences of the type in (9). To summarize, in Sections 2.2.1. and 2.2.2., we have seen that the position of subjects in sentences such as (1d) is not a rightward adjoined position. Furthermore, the surface position of the subject in such sentences is not a result of movement of the subject to a specifier (or leftward adjoined position), with the subsequent movement of the remnant phrase out of which the subject has moved. Therefore, the only possibility we are left with is that the subject is in a specifier position

. An anonymous reviewer points out that Spanish counterparts of SC (10) are also ungrammatical. But if a sharp break immediately precedes a heavy subject (rendered heavy either by a very high pitch or by length), the outcome does improve, which might indicate that the remnant movement is still an option. In SC, however, the example, although slightly improved, is still ungrammatical. The example is crucially also not characterized by neutral intonation, which is the pattern considered in this paper. (i) *[[tp Danas tvrdi da je Jovan oborio Petra]i [AgrsP [neka njihova prijateljica] ti] today claims that is Jovan-nom failed Petar- some their friend- “One of his friends claims today that Jovan failed Petar.” . It is not impossible to have Marija as new information focus in the final position in an example of this type. The following example is a marked improvement over (10). (i)

oborio Petra]i [tp danas tvrdi [vp Marija ti ] [cp [cp Da je Jovan that is Jovan-nom failed Petar- today claims Marija- “Marija claims today that Jovan failed Petar.”

This example is in line with the derivation of different word orders discussed below. It involves scrambling of the non-Focalized embedded clausal object to the front of the sentence, which leaves the in-situ copy of Marija available to receive stress assigned to it by a default stress assigning mechanism discussed below. As a result, this copy of Marija is pronounced.

 Sandra Stjepanović

low in the tree, possibly SpecVP, or a Spec of a functional projection low in the tree just above VP. Adverb scope facts in Section 2.2.1. have provided evidence for this conclusion. The old information elements must then be moving separately to higher positions. While in this section I have shown that the subject representing new information focus can stay in situ or in a low position in the tree, with old information elements occupying a higher position, this is not the whole answer to the question in (3b). There is a rather complicating fact – there are data showing that subjects must move to a high position in a sentence. I discuss the evidence for this in the next section. .. Subjects must move Bošković (1995a, 2001) shows that the following contrast obtains in SC: (11)

a. *Vjerovatno Marko tuče Petra. probably Marko beat Petar “Marko is probably beating Petar.” b. Marko vjerovatno tuče Petra Marko probably beat Petar “Marko is probably beating Petar.”

In (11a), the sentential adverb vjerovatno ‘probably’ precedes the subject, and the sentence is ungrammatical. When the subject precedes the sentential adverb, as in (11b), the sentence is good. As mentioned above, Watanabe (1993) and Bošković (1995a, 1997) argue that, when they follow the subject, sentential adverbs are adjoined to TP.5 Given this assumption, the contrast between these two examples indicates that subjects in SC have to move overtly obligatorily to a position higher than TP. Therefore, the data in Section 2.2.2 on one hand, and the data in this section on the other, present a paradox. The data in Section 2.2.2 show that subjects can stay low in the tree, but the data in this section show that they must move. To complicate things even further, there are data indicating that when the subject appears in a low position on the surface, it also behaves as if it were in an A-position high in the tree.

. The argument is based on the data in (i). According to Watanabe (1993) and Bošković (1995a, 1997), if sentential adverbs are TP-adjoined, the paradigm in (i) can receive a simple explanation. (ia–b), containing an unambiguously sentential adverb, can be accounted for by assuming that English modals can either remain in T or move to Agrs in the overt syntax. (i)

a. b.

John can probably play the guitar. John probably can play the guitar.

Free word order and copy theory of movement 

.. Low subjects are also high at the same time In this section, I present data that show that subjects can be in two places at the same time. Consider the following sentence: (12)

Mariju je protiv svoje volje oborio Jovan. Marija- is against his will failed Jovan- “Jovani failed Marija against hisi will.”

In this sentence, the subject NP Jovan binds a reflexive in the adverb that precedes the subject. Since the adverb precedes the subject, the adverb must be left adjoined (or in a specifier) of a maximal projection above the subject. However, if, as Lasnik (1995) argues, formal feature movement cannot license binding relations, then the subject in (12) behaves as if it were in an A-position higher than the position of the adverb is. A similar conclusion can be reached from data involving weak crossover: (13)

Mariju je protiv svoje volje oborio svaki profesor. Marija- is against his will failed every professor “Every professori failed Marija against hisi will.”

In this sentence, there is no violation of weak crossover, the quantified subject can bind a variable in the adverb preceding the subject. The data in this section indicate that even when they appear low on the surface, subjects behave syntactically as if they were in an A-position higher than that of the adverb. The data about reflexive and variable binding show that low subjects can at the same time be in a high position in the tree as well. However, the following example involving the binding Condition C indicates that even when they appear low on the surface, subjects must be in a high position as well. (14) *Mariju je protiv Jovanovei volje oborio oni. Marija- is against Jovan’si will failed hei- ‘Hei failed Marija against Jovan’si will.’

If it were possible for the subject not to move overtly to a position higher than the position of the adverb, then the sentence in (14) would be good, i.e., no Condition C violation would be expected. We must conclude then that the subject in this sentence is in an A-position high in the tree, from which it ccommands the coindexed NP Jovanove in the adverb. What would this position be? Well, it is plausible to assume that this position is the one that standardly hosts the subject in sentences where the subject appears high in the tree on the surface, namely, the highest position of the split IP, which I will assume is SpecAgrsP. Thus, even when it appears low on the surface, the subject must be in AgrsP in overt syntax.

 Sandra Stjepanović

Going back to the question in (3b), we have the following answer to it: (15)

a. b. c.

when the subject appears in the sentence final position on the surface, this position is a low Spec position. when the subject is in the sentence final position, which is a low Spec position, it can also be in an A-position high in the tree. the subject must move to a high position

(15) begs an answer to the questions of how the subject can be in a low and high position in the tree simultaneously, and how it can stay low, when it must move high. I will argue that this paradoxical situation can be resolved if the following assumptions are true: (i) movement leaves copies, and (ii) under certain well-defined conditions, a lower copy of the subject can be pronounced at PF. Given these assumptions, the subject moves in overt syntax even in cases where it is low on the surface. The subject appears low because a lower copy of the subject is pronounced in PF. Let me justify these assumptions next.

.

Copy and deletion theory of movement and pronunciation of lower copies

The first assumption is that movement leaves copies, rather than traces. At PF, all copies, except the one in the head of the chain are deleted, and the highest copy is pronounced (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001). I will assume the copy and deletion theory of movement, but will depart from Chomsky with respect to how the copy deletion mechanism works. In particular, I will assume that under well-defined conditions, a lower copy of a moved element can be pronounced. Several authors have recently argued that PF does not require pronunciation of the highest copies (Groat and O’Neil 1996, Bobaljik 1995, 2002, Richards 1997, Hiramatsu 1997, 1999, Roberts 1997, Franks 1998, Bošković 2001, Nunes 1999, 2004, Bošković and Nunes, this volume, among others). In particular, Bobaljik (2002), Bošković (2001, 2002), Franks (1998), Pesetsky (1997), Hiramatsu (1997, 1999), as well as Bošković and Nunes (this volume), have shown that lower copies may be pronounced in order to avoid some PF violation. This has lead Franks (1998), Bošković (2001, 2002), and Bošković and Nunes (this volume), in particular, to propose the view under which PF has only a preference for the pronunciation of the highest copies, and that in cases where this would lead to a PF violation, a lower copy can be pronounced as well. Bošković and Nunes (this volume) provide a plethora of evidence for this proposal. Suppose now that this is also the case with the subject in sentences such as (1d). In syntax, the subject moves overtly to AgrSP, as shown above. Then, at PF a lower

Free word order and copy theory of movement 

copy of the subject is pronounced. Two questions immediately arise at this point. One is what would force a lower copy of the subject to be pronounced at PF? This is actually a restatement of the question in (3a). The other is a restatement of the question in (3c) – if in these sentences, it is a lower copy of the subject that is pronounced, and if the lowest copy that can be pronounced is in SpecVP, then all other (old information) elements must move out of VP. The question is whether this is true. As far as direct objects in transitive sentences are concerned, Bošković (1997) has already shown convincingly that they do undergo object shift.6 Also, finite and non-finite verbs have been claimed to undergo overt movement in SC by Stjepanović (1997, 1999) and Bošković (1995a, 2000, 2001).7 Thus, since the object and verb can move out of VP in SC, then we have a lower copy of the subject available that could be pronounced. The question that needs to be answered at this point is what forces the pronunciation of a lower copy of the subject in cases like (1d)? In the following section I will show that an answer to this question is closely tied to the prosodic and pragmatic properties of such sentences.

. One of his arguments is based on stacked adverb data already provided above, which show that both the participle and the object move out of VP. As far as the position to which the object moves is concerned, Bošković shows that it is an A position, based on the following example involving quantifier float: (i)

Jovan je oborio studente sve. (SC) Jovan is failed students all “Jovan failed all students.”

Following Sportiche (1988), who proposes an analysis of quantifier float on which floating quantifiers are associated with traces of movement, and Deprez (1989), who shows that A-movement, but not A’-movement, can float quantifiers, Bošković (1997) concludes that since the object studente floats a quantifier sve ‘all’ in (i), the object must have moved to an A position. .

One argument for finite V raising is based on examples such as (i). (i)

a.

b.

Marko mudro savjetuje Mariju Marko wisely adivises Marija “Marko is advising Marija in a wise manner.” “It is wise of Marko that he is advising Marija.” Marko savjetuje mudro Mariju. Marko advises wisely Marija “Marko is advising Marija in a wise manner.”

In (ia) the verb savjetuje ‘advises’ in the present tense form follows the adverb mudro ‘wisely’. The sentence is ambiguous. The ambiguity arises from the possibility of interpreting the adverb as either a subject-oriented or a manner adverb. On the former reading, mudro is a sentential adverb, and adjoined to TP (or a lower maximal projection, but crucially is in a position higher

 Sandra Stjepanović

. .

The Nuclear Stress Rule and copy deletion The nuclear stress rule

Of a particular interest here is an observation made by Cinque (1993) that languages with freer word order options may find a way to express more focus structures with neutral stress. Cinque (1993) revived Chomsky’s (1970) and Jackendoff ’s (1972) view of relationship between focus and stress. The basic idea about this relationship put forth in these works was that the main sentential stress was assigned autonomously by phonological rules, and that the main stress in languages such as English was an idenitifier of focus. The focus of a sentence was defined as any constituent containing the main stress of the sentence. Going back to the question of what would force the pronunciation of a lower copy of the subject in cases like (1d), suppose that the Nuclear Stress Rule is a factor in deciding which copy should be pronounced in languages such as SerboCroatian. In particular, suppose that in such languages, the NSR applies before copy deletion. In order to get the correct information structure for a sentence, the focused constituent must contain the main sentential stress. Since the subject is focused in sentences such as (1d), it must receive the stress. Furthermore, suppose that the NSR is formulated in such a way that it assigns the stress to the most embedded copy of the focused element. Not pronouncing this copy would cause a PF violation, i.e., no main stress would be assigned. In order to avoid this violation, then, this copy is pronounced, while the other higher copies are deleted. This was a brief sketch of an answer to the question of what would force the pronunciation of a lower copy of the subject in sentences such as (1d). In what follows, I present a version of the main sentential stress assignment algorithm that can achieve this result, and show how it interacts with copy deletion. As for the main sentential stress assignment mechanism, I will adopt here Zubizarreta’s (1998) version of the Nuclear Stress Rule. In particular, she argues that the NSR is sensitive to asymmetric c-command and selectional ordering relations, and puts forth a formulation of a modular NSR, which consists of two parts: one

than a VP adverb is). On the letter reading, it is a VP adverb, adjoined to VP (or a higher maximal projection, but crucially lower than a TP adverb). In (ib), the verb savjetovati precedes the adverb mudro. The sentence is not ambiguous. The adverb mudro can only be interpreted as a VP (manner) adverb in this case. The fact that in contrast to (ia), in (ib) mudro can only have a manner reading indicates that finite verbs in SC can move across VP adverbs, but not across sentential adverbs. If, as Bošković (1995a, 1995b, 1997) and Watanabe (1993) argue, sentential adverbs are adjoined to TP, then, in sentences such as (ib), SC finite verbs move overtly out of VP, but they do not cross TP. I will conclude that they can move overtly to T. Bošković (1995a, 1995b, 1997) provides similar arguments for non−Finite verbal forms.

Free word order and copy theory of movement 

sensitive to asymmetric c-command relations (C-NSR), and the other sensitive to selectional ordering (S-NSR). The C-NSR and S-NSR are formulated as in (16): (16)

C-NSR: Given two nodes Ci and Cj, that are metrical sisters, the one lower in the syntactic asymmetric c-command8 ordering is more prominent. S-NSR: Given nodes Ciand Cj, that are metrical sisters, if Ci and Cj are selectionally ordered, the one lower in the selectional ordering is more prominent.9

Metrical sisterhood is defined as follows: (17)

Constituents X and Y are metrical sisters = there exist two constituents Z and W such that (a) Z and W are sisters and (b) Z (resp. W) is metrically nondistinct from X (resp. Y).

. The joint requirement of sisterhood and of asymmetric c-command in the structural description of the C-NSR is contradictory if the classical definition of asymmetric c-command is assumed. This is why Zubizarreta (1998) revises the definition of ‘c-command’ for the purpose of application of the C-NSR: (i)

A c-commands B = A and B are visible to the syntactic computation (i.e., are either heads or maximal projections (excluding segments)) and (a) A and B are sisters of (b) there exists a X such that A and X are sisters and X dominates B.

She also introduces the following convention: (ii)

If A c-commands B, then A c-commands X, X a projection of B that does not contain A.

Although these definitions allows a specifier to asymmetrically c-command its sister, Zubizarreta contends that in the case of a head and its complement, the contradiction entailed in the formulation of the C-NSR is not removed. This means that in such cases, the C-NSR could not apply, unless the complement is metrically nondistinct from some constituent that it dominates. In this case, the structural requirement of asymmetric c-command and sisterhood will be met. She takes advantage of this, since in her analysis, only such situations would arise, and not those where a head and a complement are directly considered. However, she contends that ‘it might suggest that the ordering relation ‘asymmetric c-command’ should be defined not in terms of asymmetry, but in some other terms. Perhaps asymmetric c-command should be defined to hold primitively between a head and the constituents c-commanded by that head.’ (p.171, fn. 9). I will, nevertheless, assume Zubizarreta’s formulation of the C-NSR, keeping in mind this point. If a situation arises where a head and its complement are considered by the C-NSR, I will simply assume that the complement is lower than its head for this purpose. .

Selectional order is determined as follows: (i)

(C, T, V1, …, Vi, P/Vm, Dm), with possibly m=1 (C, T, …, Vi, Di), for i = 1,2, …., m-1 (for cases where m>1)

where Di, i = 1, 2, …, m-1 is the nominal argument of Vi (for the cases where m>1) and Dm is the nominal argument of the lowest (possibly only) verb or prepositional predicate (V/Pm) in the selectional ordering.

 Sandra Stjepanović

where metrically non-distinct means: (18)

Constituents A and B are metrically nondistinct = A and B dominate the same set of metrically visible heads.

The main phrasal prominence is then computed by the rule in (19). (19)

The terminal element dominated solely by prominent constituents within a phrase is designated as the rhythmically most prominent one within that phrase.

The NSR is thus formalized as a local rule that applies to a pair of metrical constituents and assigns relative prominence to one of them. The relative prominence between two constituents is established by the NSR iff they are both metrically visible. According to Zubizarreta (1998), metrical sisterhood is a less restricted version of syntactic sisterhood, in the sense that it may ignore intervening syntactic constituents which are metrically invisible.10 Zubizarreta shows that languages may vary with respect to whether both parts of the NSR apply, and with respect to the relative ordering of the two parts of the rule. In particular, she shows that both C-NSR and S-NSR are active in German and English. In German, S-NSR takes precedence over C-NSR. In English there is no relative ordering in the application of C-NSR and S-NSR, at any point any of them can apply if the relevant conditions are met. In French, Italian and Spanish only the C-NSR is active. As an illustration of how her system works, consider the following example: (20)

[CP Karll [hat [e1 [v1 [ein Buch2 [V2 gekauft [ e2 ]]]]]]] Karl has a book bought ‘Karl bought a book.’

According to Zubizarreta, the italicized material in German is metrically invisible, so it will be disregarded by the NSR. Recall that in German S-NSR applies before CNSR. According to the conventions given above, the metrical sisters Karl and [ein Buch2 [V2 gekauft [ e2 ]]], metrically non-distinct from [ ein Buch2 [V2 gekauft] are not selectionally ordered, so S-NSR will not apply. On the other hand, they are

. According to Zubizarreta, typically constituents which are phonologically silent, such as traces in her system, are metrically invisible. In addition, in some languages certain types of phonologically realized constituents may also be metrically invisible. This is the case with constituents with reduced or null stress. These are functional categories such as determiners, light lexical categories such as auxiliaries and certain prepositions, defocalized and anaphoric constituents.

Free word order and copy theory of movement 

ordered with respect to asymmetric c-command, so the C-NSR applies and assigns prominence to the rightmost constituent, namely [ein Buch2 [V2 gekauft [ e2 ]]]. The algorithm reapplies to the metrical sisters Buch2 (metrically nondistinct from ein Buch) and [V2 gekauft ], metrically nondistinct from [V2 gekauft [ e2 ]]. These are ordered selectionally, hence the S-NSR applies, assigning stress to ein Buch, the nominal argument of the last V in the selectional chain. The stress is then assigned correctly. In addition to the NSR, Zubizarreta (1998) introduces the following rule, which she calls the Focus Prominence Rule (FPR): (21)

Focus Prominence Rule (FPR) Given two sister categories Ci (marked [+F] and Cj (marked [−F]), Ci is more prominent than Cj.

The purpose of this rule is to capture the relationship between the F-structure of a sentence and prosody. F-structure is the articulation of a sentence into focus and presupposition, which in Zubizarreta’s system is done through the presence of feature [+/−F]. The focused constituents in a sentence are marked with a feature [+F], while the presupposed ones are marked with the feature [−F]. If a constituent dominates both [+F] and [−F] constituents, it is unmarked for the feature [F]. The syntactic structure annotated with the feature [F] is F-structure. The FPR captures the view that F-structure is constrained by the location of main stress. The coexistence of the NSR and the FPR in grammar sometimes leads to cases where the output of the NSR contradicts the output of the FPR. Zubizarreta shows that languages employ different strategies to resolve the conflict. German, English and French resolve the conflict by treating the defocalized ([−F]) constituents as metrically invisible for the NSR. In Spanish and Italian, according to Zubizarreta, it is done through the prosodically motivated movement (p-movement), whose purpose is to move the defocalized phrase away and leave the focused phrase in the position to receive the main sentential stress through the NSR. .

Stress assignment in SC

Let us consider how the copy deletion and the Nuclear Stress Rule might interact in SC to yield an output in which the subject appears in the low position on the surface, although it is in a higher position in syntax. I will adopt the same algorithms and conventions for the Nuclear Stress Rule as in Zubizarreta (1998). Let us first consider the stress assignment situation in SC. First of all we have to determine whether in SC, both C-NSR and S-NSR apply or just one part of the

 Sandra Stjepanović

rule. The relevant examples in German and English, which indicate that both SNSR and C-NSR are active in these languages, are the following: (22)

(23)

a.

Es heisst, dass der/ein JUNGE kommt. it is-said that the/a boy comes b. #Es heisst, dass der/ein Junge KOMMT. a. Es heisst, dass ein Junge GETANZT hat. it is-said that a boy danced has b. Es heisst, dass ein JUNGE getanzt hat. it is-said that a boy danced has

(24)

a. b.

TRESPASSERS will be prosecuted. Trespassers will be PROSECUTED.

(25)

a. b.

MARY is dancing. Mary is DANCING.

The German examples in (22) show that with an unaccusative verb, the stress can fall only on the subject. Based on this, Zubizarreta concludes that S-NSR applies in German. If only C-NSR applied in this case, the stress would fall always on the verb, contrary to the fact. Based on the acceptability of both examples in (23) which contain an intransitive verb, Zubizarreta argues that in addition to S-NSR, C-NSR also applies in German. Based on the contrast in (22) with an unaccasative verb where the stress cannot fall on the verb, Zubizarreta (1998) concludes that S-NSR applies before C-NSR. In English, based on the examples in (24) and (25), Zubizarreta concludes that both S-NSR and C-NSR are active, but there is no relative ordering among them, as in German. Now, let us look at the SC examples in (26-), containing unaccusative and intransitive verbs: (26)

a.

Stigla je OPREMA. arrived is equipment “Equipment arrived.” b. #STIGLA je oprema. arrived is equipment

(27)

a. #DJECA pjevaju. kids sing “Kids are singing.” b. Djeca PJEVAJU. kids sing

As the data in (26) show, in sentences with unaccusatives in an out-of-the-blue context, the stress falls unambiguously on the subject. As far as the German data are concerned, this was enough to conclude that S-NSR is active in German. However, one difference between German and SC is that in SC, the subject follows the verb, and depending on the structure of these sentences, the verb might c-command the

Free word order and copy theory of movement 

subject here, so we would not be able to conclude whether the stress on the subject is due to S-NSR which is based on selectional ordering, or C-NSR, which is based on c-command ordering. As I will show below, there is a c-command relation between the verb and subject here, so these examples indicate nothing conclusive in this respect. As far as the examples with intransitives are concerned, they are felicitous in an out-of-the-blue context, if the stress falls on the verb. This indicates that C-NSR, and not S-NSR is active in SC. The stress cannot fall here on the subject, which, according to Zubizarreta, in German and English examples was an indication that S-NSR is active in these languages. .

Deriving different word orders and their discourse effects

Having determined the mechanism of stress assignment in SC, we are closer to being able to see how different SC word orders can be derived with correct pragmatic properties. Consider the OVS sentence in (28b), as an answer to the question in (28a) (28)

a. b.

[Who is catching a mouse?] Miša hvata mačka. mouse catches cat “A cat is catching a mouse.”

With Zubizarreta (1998), who follows Hale and Keyser (1993), I will assume the structures of VP given in (29). (29) sub V V

obj

Furthermore, the following examples show that the object NP miša is in a position higher than the position of a speaker-oriented adverb nesumnjivo, which we might assume is TP adjoined. (30)

Miša nesumnjivo hvata mačka. mouse-acc undoubtedly catches cat-nom “The cat is undoubtedly catching the mouse.”

For the purpose of this paper, it suffices to say that miša is in a position higher than the position of the TP adjoined adverb. For ease of exposition, I will assume that miša is adjoined to AgrsP, although below we will see that it might actually be in SpecAgrsP.

 Sandra Stjepanović

This means that at the output of syntax, the structure of the sentence in (28b) is as in (31), where the syntactic movement of the verb, subject and object leaves a copy. I also indicate the value of feature F for each element.11 (31)

[AgrsP miša [AgrSP mačka [TP mačka hvata [AgrOP miša hvata −F +F +F −F −F −F [V1 mačka hvata [V2 hvata miša]]]]] +F −F −F −F

If it is true that the assignment of sentential stress in some languages affects the decision of which copies to pronounce, then copies cannot be deleted before the NSR applies in these languages. This would mean that the NSR applies very early in the mapping of syntactic to phonological structure in these languages. This conclusion was also reached by Zubizarreta, who actually assumes that the NSR applies even before the spell-out. She was driven to this conclusion by the formulation of the NSR which is sensitive to the syntactic structure (c-command, and selectional ordering). However, I will assume that the NSR applies just after spellout. It has been shown in the literature that at this stretch of derivation PF rules can be sensitive to syntactic structure (see, for example, Chen 1990, who shows the relevance of the distinction between arguments and adjuncts with respect to creation of tone groups in Xiamen, and Fuzhou, a northern Min dialect of Chinese, and Truckenbrodt 1995).12 . Stjepanović (1999, 2003) and Bošković (2002) argue that in SC contrastively focused elements, as well as multiple wh-phrases undergo focus fronting. These elements undergo movement to functional projections to check a [focus] feature. This focus fronting procedure is, clearly, different from the focus-in-situ of new information focus elements discussed here. Also, the focus feature that drives focus fronting is a formal feature, different from the [+/−F] feature involved in determining the F-structure of the sentence. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out. . If the NSR applies at PF and if the assignment of stress is necessary for identification of focus, then the semantic notion of focus seems to be related to phonology without having clear roots in syntax. In the standard T-model of grammar, however, there is no direct connection between PF and LF (i.e., the sound and meaning), so the question is how we relate semantic focus to phonological prominence. One way out is to assume that the F-structure of the sentence is determined in syntax (i.e., before Spell-Out), as in Zubizarretta’s system, which is then available to both PF and LF. This, however, violates the Inclusiveness Condition of Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001), since the feature F is not an inherent feature of lexical items. Another possibility is that focus is a notion pertaining not to sentence grammar, but to the grammar of discourse. In other words, it is a byproduct of syntactic computation (a pair of PF and LF representation). Its location within the sentence, however, can still be predictable from the clausal architecture of the language, as argued in this paper. This is also a conclusion reached by Donati and Nespor (2003) (see also Szendroi (2001), among others).

Free word order and copy theory of movement 

Suppose now that SC is a language in which stress assignment can affect a decision about which copy of an element to pronounce. Then, given the formulation of the NSR adopted here, the following situation obtains for the structure in (31). If we adopt Zubizarreta’s (1998) formulation of the NSR, the first metrical sisters the algorithm considers are the AgrsP adjoined object miša and AgrsP. The object is [−F], while AgrsP dominates elements with contradictory specifications for the feature [F]. So, according to Zubizarreta, AgrsP is unspecified for feature [F]. Recall that the FPR applies only in cases where the metrical sisters under consideration have contradictory specifications with respect to the feature [F], i.e., only if one of them is [+F], and the other one is [−F]. So, in this case the FPR does not apply. The C-NSR applies and assigns prominence to AgrsP. The next pair of metrical sisters that the mechanism considers are the subject mačka and the whole TP. The subject is +F, while the TP dominates elements with contradictory specifications for the feature [F]. So, TP is unspecified for the feature [F]. Since TP is unspecified for the feature [F], the FPR does not apply. The NSR applies and assigns prominence to TP. The next pair of metrical sisters the NSR and the FPR consider are mačka in the SpecTP and T’. Since mačka is [+F] and T’ [F], the FPR does not apply. The NSR applies and assigns prominence to T’. The algorithm keeps reapplying until it reaches the point when it considers the sisters mačka in VP1 and V1’. Mačka is [+F], while V1’ is [−F], since it dominates all [−F] elements. The FPR, which says that of the two sisters, one [+F] and the other one [−F], the [+F] constituent is more prominent than [−F], assigns prominence to mačka. The NSR, however, wants to assign prominence to the [−F] V’, the outcome of which would clash with the FPR. Now, if V’ could be rendered invisible to the NSR, the outcome would be compatible with the FPR. In fact, the NSR would not be able to apply in that case, since as mentioned above, the NSR applies only in cases where both sisters are metrically visible. Only the FPR would apply and assign the main prominence to mačka. As mentioned above, according to Zubizarreta, whenever a conflict situation between the FPR and the NSR arises, languages resort to different ways to resolve the conflict. According to Zubizarreta, languages such as English, French and German resolve the conflict by rendering the defocalized [−F] elements extrametrical for the application of the NSR. Other languages such as Spanish and Italian employ prosodically driven p-movement, which moves the defocalized constituent over the focused element and thus produces a good input for the application of both the FPR and the NSR. I will show that the former way of resolving the conflict is sufficient for SC, and that there is no need for positing p-movement, given the system developed here. In other words, in SC, the conflict between the NSR and FPR is resolved by rendering the [−F] element extrametrical for the application of the NSR. Since V’ is [−F], it is metrically invisible to the NSR, so the NSR will not apply (recall that the NSR applies only in case both sisters are

 Sandra Stjepanović

metrically visible). The FPR applies and assigns prominence to the lowest copy of mačka. So, the output of the NSR and the FPR has decided that this copy of the subject be pronounced. If it is not pronounced, no stress could be assigned, and the result will be a PF violation.13 As mentioned above, empirical evidence points to a tendency to pronounce the highest copies of moved elements in most cases. However, there is also a growing body of evidence showing that lower copies of moved elements can be pronounced, in cases where pronouncing the highest copies would lead to a PF violation. This is exactly the situation in sentences such as (28b). Not to produce a PF violation, the lowest copy of the subject is pronounced, while all other copies of this element are deleted. What about the remaining copies of the verb and the object? Under the theory of copy pronunciation we are pursuing here, in cases where there are no PF requirements dictating it otherwise, the highest copies will be pronounced. Nothing goes wrong here if the highest copies of the object and the verb are pronounced, so this is what happens. The result is the OVS order. The reader can easily verify that other word orders in transitive sentences with new information focus and under neutral intonation patterns can be derived in the system. This also goes for unaccusative and intransitive sentences, bearing in mind the distinction in the structure between the two. The distinction is manifested in the fact that the sole argument of an unaccusative starts out as its complement, with the canonical word order being VS, while the canonical order in intransitive sentences is SV. The situation in ditransitive sentences is really interesting because such sentences contain more arguments, which yields more word order possibilities. However, they can also be accommodated in the system, given two facts. The first one is the fact that, as argued in Stjepanović (1999), both ACC DAT and DAT ACC orders are available as underlying orders in SC (see Miyagawa (1997) for a similar conclusion for Japanese). The second fact is that, as argued in Stjepanović (1999), both objects as well as the verb undergo raising out of VP in SC. Given these facts, let us examine how some of the ditransitive orders are derived. First of all, all possible permutations of verb and its arguments in ditransitive sentences are allowed in SC. However, just as in case of intransitive, unaccusative and transitive sentences, these word orders have different information properties and are not all used in the same contexts. The neutral word order that can appear in an out-of-the-blue context, for example, as an answer to the question in (32a) is either S V ACC DAT in (32b) or S V DAT ACC in (32c). . If a higher copy of the subject is pronounced and if stress erroneously falls on the verb or object, the FPR is violated, and the derivation crashes.

Free word order and copy theory of movement 

(32)

a. b.

c.

[What is happening?] Ivana predstavlja Petra Mariji. Ivana introduces Petar- Marija- “Ivana is introducing Petar to Marija.” Ivana predstavlja Mariji Petra. Ivana introduces Marija- Petar- “Ivana introduces Petar to Marija.”

After the FPR and NSR apply, they assign stress to the lowest copy of DAT in (33a), and the lowest copy of ACC in (33b), so these copies of DAT and ACC are chosen to be pronounced, with the rest of the copies of these elements deleted. As far as the copies of other elements are concerned, since there are no PF requirements dictating otherwise, the highest copies of these elements will be pronounced, with the rest of the copies deleted, resulting in the S V DAT ACC or S V ACC DAT orders, as illustrated in (33). (33)

a.

b.

[AgrSP Ivana [TP Ivana predstavlja [AgrOP Mariji predstavlja [AgrOP Petra +F +F +F +F +F +F [V1 Ivana predstavlja [V2 Marijii predstavlja Petra ]]]]] +F +F +F +F +F [AgrSP Ivana [TP Ivana predstavlja [AgrOP Petra predstavlja [AgrOP Mariji +F +F +F +F +F +F [V1 Ivana predstavlja [V2 Petra predstavlja Mariji.]]]]] +F +F +F +F +F

These word orders can also be used as neutral focus answers to the questions requiring DAT and ACC to be in focus, as answers to the questions: Kome Ivana predstavlja Petra? ‘Whom is Ivana introducing Petar?’ and Koga Ivana predstavlja Petru? ‘Who is Ivana introducing to Petar?’ I leave it to the reader to work out their derivation. They can also be used in a context where everything but a subject is focused, i.e., when what traditionally constitutes a VP is a focus, as answers to the question šta Ivana radi? ‘What is Ivana doing?’ The rest of the word orders in ditransitive sentences cannot be used in out-of-theblue contexts. Some of them can be used in new information focus contexts, but some of them cannot. The IO S V DO and DO S V IO word orders could be used as answers to a question requiring DO and IO respectively to be new information focus. In this respect, these word orders could be used to answer some of the same questions for which S V IO DO and S V IO DO answers could be used. This is illustrated in (34) and (35). (34)

a. b.

[Who is Ivan introducing to Petar?] Petru Ivan predstavlja Mariju. Petar- Ivan introduces Marija- ‘Ivan is introducing Marija to Petar.’

 Sandra Stjepanović

(35)

a. b.

[Who is Ivan introducing Petar to?] Petra Ivan predstavlja Mariji. Petar- Ivan introduces Marija-DAT “Ivan is introducing Petar to Marija.”

If AgrsP need not host only subjects in SC, but can also host other elements capable of serving as topics, as it has been claimed for Finnish by Holmberg and Nikkane (2002), then it is not surprising that these sentences can be used as answers to the given questions. When the NSR and FPR apply, they assign stress to the lowest copy of Mariju in (34b) and Mariji in (35b), so these copies will be pronounced, while the rest of the copies of these elements are deleted. Since there are no PF requirements imposed on other elements in the sentence, copy deletion will leave the highest copies of these elements to be pronounced, and delete the rest of the copies. The resulting order is DO S V IO and IO S V DO, as illustrated in (36). (36)

a.

b.

[AgrSP Petru [TP Ivan predstavlja [AgrOP Mariju predstavlja [AgrOP Petru −F −F −F −F −F +F [V1 Ivan predstavlja [V2 Mariju predstavlja Mariju.]]]]] −F −F −F −F +F [AgrSP Petra [TP Ivan predstavlja [AgrOP Petra predstavlja [AgrOP Mariji −F −F −F −F −F +F [V1 Ivan predstavlja [V2 Petra predstavlja Mariji.]]]]] −F −F −F −F +F

Given these structures and the system adopted here, one would predict that no other word orders are possible as answers to the questions in (34a) and (35a). However, the order S DO V IO can also answer the question in (34a), while S IO V DO could be used as an answer to the question in (35a), as illustrated in (37) and (38). (37)

a. b.

(38)

a. b.

[Who is Petar introducing to Marija?] Petar Mariji predstavlja Marka. Petar Marija- introduces Marko- “Petar is introducing Marko to Marija.” [Who is Petar introducing Marija to?] Petar Mariju predstavlja Marku. Petar Marija- introduces Marko- “Petar is introducing Marko to Marija.”

These word orders do not follow from the structure assumed so far. In Section 3, I have shown that verbs in SC raise out of their VP, but that they do not cross TP. This means that the final landing site for verb raising could in principle be any head between TP and VP. So far I have assumed that main verbs in SC are in T. However, the data in (37b) and (38b) lead me to conclude that the verb is not

Free word order and copy theory of movement 

actually in T and that the structures assumed so far are not complete. To account for these data, I would like to suggest that there is a maximal projection between T and AgrOPs which is the final landing site of the verb and which can host topic elements. (For more evidence for existence of a maximal projection between AgrOP and TP which hosts the verb, see Bošković (2001)). I will label this phrase PredP and will leave a precise description of its nature open.14 I will assume for now that apart from hosting the verb, this phrase can also host topic elements just as AgrSP can. This means that possible structures of an answer to the questions in (34a) and (35a) could be all of these in (39). (39)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

[AgrSP Ivan [TP Ivan [PredP Ivan predstavlja [AgrOP Petra predstavlja [AgrOP −F −F −F −F −F Mariji predstavlja [V1 Ivan predstavlja [V2 Petra predstavlja Mariji]]]]] +F −F −F −F −F −F +F [AgrSP Ivan [TP Ivan [PredP Ivan predstavlja [AgrOP Mariji predstavlja −F −F −F −F −F −F [AgrOP Petra predstavlja [V1 Ivan predstavlja [V2 Mariji predstavlja Petra]]]]] +F −F −F −F −F −F +F [AgrSP Petra [TP Ivan [PredP Ivan predstavlja [AgrOP Petra predstavlja −F −F −F −F −F [AgrOP Mariji predstavlja [V1 Ivan predstavlja [V2 Petra predstavlja +F −F −F −F −F −F Mariji]]]]] +F [AgrSP Mariji [TP Ivan [PredP Ivan predstavlja [AgrOP Mariji −F −F −F −F −F predstavlja [AgrOP Petra predstavlja [V1 Ivan predstavlja [V2 Mariji −F +F −F −F −F −F predstavlja Petra]]]]] −F +F [AgrSP Ivan [TP Ivan [PredP Petra predstavlja [AgrOP Petra predstavlja −F −F −F −F −F −F [AgrOP Mariji predstavlja [V1 Ivan predstavlja [V2 Petra predstavlja +F −F −F −F −F −F Mariji.]]]]] +F

. I have shown in this paper that the functional structure above VP should clearly be much more articulated than the one assumed in Chomsky (1995). However, the labels I have assumed (AgrS, AgrO, etc.) are tentative. It might well turn out that they correspond to the range of functional projections proposed in Cinque (1999), for example.

 Sandra Stjepanović

f.

[AgrSP Ivan [TP Ivan [PredP Mariji predstavlja [AgrOP Mariji predstavlja −F −F −F −F −F −F [AgrOP Petra predstavlja [V1 Ivan predstavlja [V2 Mariji predstavlja Petra.]]]]] +F −F −F −F −F −F +F

No other word order could be used to answer the questions in (34a) and (35a). This is a welcome result for the system advanced here. In this system, no other order is permitted because there is no movement of the verb and its arguments other than to the functional projections above VP in overt syntax. The remaining word orders with constituents bearing new information focus include those where the subject is new information focus and those where the verb is new information focus. It is easy to see that the system proposed here can account for both types of sentences, so I will not dwell on them here. To sum up, we have seen that word orders in unaccusative, intransitive, transitive and ditransitive sentences and their discourse effects can be derived in the same way, if one assumes copy and deletion theory of movement, and if under well-defined conditions, a lower copy of an element can be pronounced at PF. However, do we have evidence that the lowest copy in these cases is really pronounced? Fortunately, we do. Evidence is provided by some examples containing floating quantifiers, which I discuss in the next section. .

Evidence for the pronunciation of the lowest copy

Consider first the example in (40) containing an unaccusative verb. (40)

Studenti dolaze svi. students come all “All the students are coming.”

The sentence in (40) shows that it is possible to float a quantifier associated with the subject in a position lower than the verb, with the subject in AgrSP. However, this sentence cannot be used in a context requiring the subject to be new information focus. It is felicitous only in a context requiring the quantifier to be the focus. For example, it cannot be used as an answer to the question Who is arriving?. A good answer to this question is the one given in (41). (41)

Dolaze svi studenti. come all students “All students are coming.”

The contrast between (40) and (41), when used in the context of this question follows naturally from the system advanced here. Consider the input structures

Free word order and copy theory of movement 

for the sentence where both the quantifier and the subject NP are required to be focused. (42)

[AgrSP studenti [TP studenti dolaze [VP dolaze svi studenti]]]] +F +F −F −F +F +F

After the NSR and FPR apply to this structure, they assign the main stress to the lowest copy of the subject NP, so this copy is chosen to be pronounced, as illustrated in (43). (43)

[AgrSP studenti [TP studenti dolaze [VP dolaze svi studenti]]]] +F +F −F −F +F +F

Thus, if the subject NP is focused, i.e., if it is [+F], then even if it moves away from the quantifier in an attempt to float it, as shown in these structures, there is no way for it to be pronounced in its shifted position in AgrSP, its lowest copy simply must be pronounced. Thus, there cannot be any quantifier float in this case. The shifted subject copy is pronounced only if the quantifier svi is focused, but the subject NP is not, as illustrated in (44). (44)

[AgrSP studenti [TP studenti dolaze [VP dolaze svi studenti]]]] −F −F +F +F +F −F

The same result obtains in the cases where the object NP is new information focus. As it was shown above, object shift over a quantifier is possible in SC: (45)

Petar je oborio studente sve. Petar is failed students all “Petar failed all students.”

However, this sentence cannot be used as an answer to the question in Who did Peter fail?. A good answer to this question is given in (46), which on the surface does not involve object shift. (46)

Petar je oborio sve studente. Petar is failed all students “Petar failed all students.”

Again, the contrast between (45) and (46) in this context follows naturally from the system advanced here. Consider the input structures for the sentence with quantifier float, where both the quantifier and the object NP are required to be focused: (47)

[AgrSP Petar je [TP Petar je oborio [AgrOP studente oborio −F −F −F +F −F [V1 Petar oborio [V2 oborio sve studente]]]]] −F −F −F +F +F

After the NSR and FPR apply here, they assign the main stress on the lowest copy of the object NP, so this copy is chosen to be pronounced, as illustrated in (48).

 Sandra Stjepanović

(48)

[AgrSP Petar je [TP Petar je oborio [AgrOP studente oborio −F −F −F +F −F [V1 Petar oborio [V2 oborio sve studente]]]]] −F −F −F +F +F

If the object NP is focused, as is the case in (48), there is no way for it to be pronounced in its shifted position in AgrOP, its lowest copy simply must be pronounced. That is why the sentence in (45) is infelicitous in the given context. The object shifted copy is pronounced only if the quantifier sve is focused, but the object NP is not, as illustrated in (49). (49)

[AgrSP Petar je [TP Petar je oborio [AgrOP studente oborio −F −F −F −F −F [V1 Petar oborio [V2 oborio sve studente.]]]]] −F −F −F +F −F

Cases like these are a strong piece of evidence that the lowest copy of the element representing new information focus is pronounced. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why sentences such as (40) and (45) are infelicitous in contexts requiring the subject NP and object NP respectively to be new information focus. The system proposed here seems to be successful in deriving different SC word orders with new information focus and their discourse effects.

.

Cross-linguistic variation

To the extent that the analysis proposed in this paper is on the right track, it makes certain predictions about cross-linguistic variation with respect to languages identifying focus through stress. Languages can vary with respect to what happens in syntax or PF or both. SC is a type of a language that has overt movement to the functional projections in syntax, and the stress assigning mechanism applies before copy deletion. That is, PF has a preference for pronunciation of the highest copies, but a lower copy can be pronounced, if the stress assignment requires it. On the other hand, there may be languages in which copy deletion cannot interact with the stress assignment mechanism. One such language seems to be English. If copy deletion interacted with stress assignment in English, then, given what I have said for SC, sentences such as (50b) would be allowed as answers to the question in (50a), which requires the whole sentence to be new information (i.e., all elements should be [+F]). (50)

a. What happened? b. *Was arrested John.

Similarly, (50b) cannot be an answer to the question requiring the subject to be new information focus, such as the one in (51).

Free word order and copy theory of movement 

(51)

Who was arrested?

The only good answer to both questions in (50a) and (51) is the one with the subject in AgrsP: (52)

John was arrested.

This forces us to conclude that in languages such as English, the copy deletion does not interact with the stress assignment mechanism. A natural way to instantiate this is to assume that in English, the copy deletion applies before the NSR applies, unlike in SC. It should also not be a surprise to find languages in which copy deletion can apply either before or after the application of NSR.15 Such languages would

. Actually, SC itself may be a language that has the two distinct patterns: both the pattern with new information focus in the final position (the Romance pattern), and the English pattern, with non-rightmost focus, found under emotive intonation mentioned above. The Romance pattern is then derived with the NSR applying before copy deletion, and the English pattern is derived with the NSR applying after copy deletion. As mentioned earlier, I limited the discussion in this paper to the Romance pattern only. However, Godjevac (2000) points out that examples such as (i), for instance, are felicitous answers to a question requiring the subject to be new information focus: (ii)

[Who is buying a computer?]

MARIJA kupuje kompjuter. MARIJA buys computer ‘Marija is buying computer.’

The syntax of such sentences needs to be carefully examined, as it may turn out to be different from those involving neutral intonation patterns. But, under the assumption that it is the same, SC follows exactly the English pattern here. Copy deletion would apply first and delete all the lower copies of the elements. The NSR would then apply, treating the defocalized V and O as metrically invisible, just like in English, and would assign the prominence to the subject. Note also the following example, reported by Godjevac (2000): (i)

a. b.

[What’s new?] KIŠA pada. rain falls ‘It’s raining.’

This example also involves the English pattern with respect to the ordering of copy deletion and the NSR. Copy deletion applies first and deletes the lower copy of S and V. The NSR then applies and assigns prominence to the subject. However, the prominence can be assigned to the subject here only by S-NSR. Thus, this example may be showing us that S-NSR is also operative in SC. Furthermore, prominence is not allowed on V in these cases, indicating that SC behaves like German in this respect, with the S-NSR applying before the C-NSR (note that nothing changes in the outcomes of the word order derivations discussed above, if S-NSR is also operative in SC). In order to explain why SC then does not allow prominence on the subject in intransitive sentences, we would crucially have to say that in SC an auxiliary assumption that Zubizarreta had to assume to allow it in English and German, does not apply in SC. I leave an examination of these patterns for future research.

 Sandra Stjepanović

exhibit both English patterns as well SC patterns discussed in this paper. Whether there are languages that require prosodic movement of Zubizarreta (1998) remains to be seen. Such languages would, for example, be languages which do not move elements out of VP in overt syntax, and which cannot render the defocalized [−F] material invisible to the NSR.

References Andrews, Avery. 1983. A note on the constituent structure of modifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 695–697. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002. A-chains at the PF interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 197–267. Bošković, Željko. 1995a. Participle movement in Serbo-Croatian and related issues. Lingua 96: 245–266. Bošković, Željko. 1995b. Principles of economy in nonfinite complementation. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Bošković, Željko. 1997. The syntax of non-finite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Bošković, Željko. 2000. Second position cliticisation: Syntax and/or phonology? Clitic phenomena in European languages, Frits Beukema & Marcel den Dikken (eds), 71–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bošković, Željko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. London: Elsevier. Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple Wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383. Chen, Matthew. 1990. What must phonology know about syntax? The phonology-syntax connection, Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec (eds), 19–46. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In Studies in general and oriental linguistics: Presented to Shiro Hattori on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, Roman Jakobson & Shigeo Kawamoto (eds), 52–91. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–298. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York NY: OUP. Deprez, Viviane. 1989. On the typology of syntactic positions and the nature of chains. PhD Dissertaion, MIT. Donati, Catarina. & Nespor, Marina. 2003. From focus to syntax. Lingua 113: 1119–1142.

Free word order and copy theory of movement  Franks, Steven. 1998. Clitics in Slavic. Position paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, June 5–7, Bloomington IN. (http://www.indiana.edu/~slavconf/linguistics/ index.html) Groat, Erich O’Neil., John. 1996. Spell-out at the LF interface. In Minimalist Ideas, Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson C. Jan-Wouter Zwart, 113–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Godjevac, Svetlana. 2000. Intonation, word order and focus projection in Serbo-Croatian. PhD Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The View from building 20: A festschrift for Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser, 53–108. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Hiramatsu, Kazuko. 1997. A roduction/judgment asymmetry in children’s negative questions. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. Hiramatsu, Kazuko. 1999. What did move didn’t delete? In UConn Working Papers in Linguistics 10, Dave Braze, Yutaka Kudo & Kazuko Hiramatsu (eds), 75–109. Storrs CT: Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut. Holmberg, Anders & Nikanne, Urpo. 2002. Expletives, subjects and topics in Finnish. In Subjects, expletives, and the EPP, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 71–105. New York NY: OUP. Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga. 1990. The phonology-syntax connection. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1997. Elementary operations and optimal derivations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Lasnik, Howard. 1995. A note on pseudogapping. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27, 143–163. Cambridge MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Nunes, Jairo. 1999. Linearization of chains and phonetic realization of chain links. In Working minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein, 217–249. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Pesetsky, David. 1989. The earliness principle. Ms., MIT, Cambridge MA. Pesetsky, David. 1997. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the best good enough, Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinniss & David Pesetsky (eds), 337–383. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press and MITWPL. Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where when in which language. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Roberts, Ian. 1997. Restructuring, head movement, and locality. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 423–460. Sportiche, Dominic. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449. Stjepanović, Sandra. 1997. VP-ellipsis in a verb-raising language. In Proceedings of ESCOL ’97. Department of Linguistics, Cornell University, Ithaca NY. Stjepanović, Sandra 1999. What do second position cliticization, scrambling, and multiple Wh-fronting have in common. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Stjepanović, Sandra. 2003. Multiple Wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian matrix questions and the matrix sluicing construction. In Multiple Wh-fronting, Cedric Boeckx & Kleanthes Grohmann (eds), 255–284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 Sandra Stjepanović Stjepanović, Sandra. 2004. A word order paradox resolved by copy deletion at PF. In The Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2003, Oierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds), 139–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Szendroi, Kriszta. 2001. Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. PhD Dissertation, University College London. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Watanabe, Akira. 1993. Agr-based theory and its interaction with the A’-system. PhD Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA. Zubizarretta, M. 1998. Word order, prosody, and focus. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ Chris H. Reintges CNRS, UMR 7110/University Paris 7

Examining data from Coptic Egyptian, the last descendant of the Ancient Egyptian language, this chapter argues for a new type of wh-in-situ, in which the copy privileged for phonological realization is the lowest member of the wh-chain, while the head of the chain as well as the intermediate copies are left unpronounced. Coptic can be described as a wh-in-situ language in which wh-clefting and wh-fronting are available as marked wh-interrogative strategies. The wh-insitu pattern is marked morphologically by “relative tenses”, so called because a relative marker appears in front of the tense-aspect-mood inflection. Based on their parallelism in scope and interpretation, the chapter argues that wh-in-situ and wh-fronting structures in Coptic are both derived by applications of wh-movement in the narrow syntax, before Spell-Out. Under this perspective, Coptic relative tenses are interpreted as a morphological instantiation of “wh-agreement”. It is proposed that the simultaneous pronunciation of the topmost wh-copy and the relative marker are prohibited by an economy filter on the morpho-syntactic encoding of wh-dependencies, which is reminiscent of the “Doubly-filled Comp” Filter in English. Deletion of the wh-element or the relative marker is then what yields the apparent distinction between wh-movement and wh-in situ constructions at the surface. Lower copy pronunciation of wh-elements is of particular theoretical interest, since it shows that the PF wing of the grammar permits the same range of realization sites for wh-chains at LF (Bošković and Nunes, this volume).

.

Introduction

A fundamental aspect of the language faculty is the displacement property, i.e. the association of constituents with more than one position in the hierarchical structure of the clause. Movement operations provide a locus of syntactic variation, which makes it possible to express the same propositional content in somewhat different ways. According to Chomsky (2001, 3), the property of displacement has “(at least) plausible motivation in terms of distinct semantic interpretations and

 Chris H. Reintges

perhaps processing. If so, displacement is only an apparent imperfection of natural language, as are the devices that implement it”. Within the Government-and-Binding framework, each step of a movement operation was thought of as being tracked down by special derivational elements that had all the relevant interpretational properties of the moved constituent, but lacked phonetic content. The resulting syntactic object, a chain consisting of an antecedent and co-indexed “traces”, was subject to licensing conditions like the “Empty Category Principle”, which thus ruled out an over-application of the transformational operation “Move-α” (see Chomsky 1981; Rizzi 1990; and much related research). A new conception of movement transformations has emerged within the Minimalist research program. Under the “copy theory of movement”, movement is an operation that does not introduce a trace, but rather leaves behind a complete copy of the constituent being moved. As a result, structures formed by movement exhibit multiple copies of the displaced constituent along the path of movement, all of which are transferred to the morpho-phonology (Chomsky 1993, 40; 1995, 251ff.; 2000, 114ff.; 2005, 13f.). The reader is referred to Nunes (2004, 10ff.) and Bošković and Nunes (this volume) for a detailed comparison between the trace theory and the copy theory of movement. So far, the empirical domain of the copy theory of movement has been largely restricted to questions of scope and binding at LF, leaving many questions open that concern the mapping of syntactic structures to the morpho-phonology and their conversion into phonological representations. Looking at crosslinguistic variation, we find robust evidence for the null hypothesis that any link of an operatorvariable chain is susceptible for phonological pronunciation. The wh-copying construction in German, Frisian, Afrikaans and Passamaquoddy represents a particularly clear case, since identical copies of the moved wh-phrase occur in each specifier of CP position along the path of wh-movement (see Fanselow and Mahajan 2000; Felser 2004; and Bruening 2004 for representative studies). The wh-copying strategy is exemplified by the German long-distance wh-question in (1).1

. The following abbreviations are used in the glosses: 1 ‘first person’; 2 ‘second person’; 3 ‘third person’;  ‘accusative Case’,  ‘agreement’;  ‘auxiliary verb’; C ‘finite subordinating complementizer’; CQ ‘interrogative complementizer’; C ‘relative complementizer’; .  ‘causative infinitive’;  ‘Conditional mood’;  ‘definite article’;  ‘demonstrative article’;  ‘Conjunctive’;  ‘pronominal copula’;  ‘future’;  ‘Habitual’;  ‘infinitive’;  ‘local morphological case’;  ‘negation’; . ‘Negative Perfect’; . ‘Negative Habitual’;  ‘nominative Case’;  ‘objective Case’;  ‘oblique morphological case’;  ‘particle’;  ‘Perfect’;  ‘plural’;  ‘preposition’;  ‘present tense’; Q ‘question

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

(1)

Wh-copying structure with spellout of the intermediate copies meint Wen denkst du, [CPwen sie who. think.2 you. who. she. believes Harald wirklich liebt (*wen)]? [CP wen who. Harald. really loves ‘Who do you think that she believes that Harald really loves?’ (Adapted from Fanselow and Mahajan 2000, 219, (61b))

German

The present paper explores a pronunciation option that is diametrically opposite to the wh-copying construction, namely that the copy privileged for phonological realization is the lowest member of the wh-chain, while the head of the chain as well as all intermediate copies are left unpronounced. The possibility of lower copy pronunciation figures prominently in current research on the syntax-morphology interface (see, among various others, Brody 1995; Groat and O’Neil 1996; Pesetsky 1997, 1998, 2000; and Bobaljik 2002). It is of considerable theoretical interest, because it provides not only further evidence for the validity of the copy theory of movement, but has implications for the architecture of grammar. If the lowest wh-copy can be shown to be an equally well-suited candidate for pronunciation as the head of the chain, the PF wings of grammar would permit the same range of realisation sites for chain links as LF. To support the central hypothesis of variable pronunciation sites, one has to look for “apparent” wh-in-situ cases, which are derived by wh-movement in the narrow syntax, followed by the pronunciation of the lowest wh-copy. Moreover, one has to ensure that the in-situ pronunciation of the moved wh-phrase is not a last resort option, which is available only when the pronunciation of the head of the chain would violate a morphological constraint (see Franks 1998; Bošković 2002; Nunes 2004; Bošković and Nunes, this volume). Elaborating on Reintges, LeSourd and Chung (2006), I will argue in what follows that Coptic Egyptian, the last descendant of the Ancient Egyptian language (from about the 3rd to the 11th century CE), meets this profile.2 Coptic wh-questions

particle’;  ‘relative marker’;  ‘singular’;  ‘Wh-agreement’. Glosses are given in parentheses for morphemes that have no surface-segmental shape. . The modern term Coptic derives from Middle Arabic qubt∙ῑ, itself a corruption of the Greek adjective (ai)gypt(ios) ‘Egyptian’. It designates both the members of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt as well as the indigenous language of late-antique and early medieval Christian Egypt, which is now extinct. Coptic is actually a dialect cluster with at least six regional varieties, two of which gained supra-regional importance: Sahidic Coptic, the vernacular of Upper Egypt, and Bohairic Coptic, the vernacular of Lower Egypt. The data in this study are exclusively taken from Sahidic Coptic, which, due to its early records and rich literature represents the main reference dialect.

 Chris H. Reintges

can be formed by leaving the wh-phrase in-situ, as in (2a), or by moving it to the left periphery of the clause, as in (2b). (The language’s surface word order is SVO.) The canonical position for questioned adverbs is clause-final, whereas the fronting of the wh-adverb represents the marked alternative in the sense that it is less frequently attested in the written documentation. (2)

a.

b.

Adverbial wh-in-situ adverb question with relative marker awo nt-a-u-ei eβol tn ? and --3-come  where ‘From where did they come?’ (Apoc. 7, 13; ed. Budge) Adverbial wh-fronting question without relative marker eβol tn a-tetən-ei e-pei-ma ?  where -2-come to-..-place ‘From where did you come here?’ (Budge, Martyr. 220, 8)

Coptic

Based on the parallelism in scope and interpretation, I will argue that wh-in-situ and wh-fronting structures are both derived by an application of wh-movement in the narrow syntax, before Spellout. On this analysis, the word order contrast between wh-in-situ and wh-ex-situ questions are reduced to different pronunciation sites of the moved wh-phrase. In the canonical wh-in-situ strategy, the tail of the wh-chain is targeted for phonological interpretation. By contrast, the head of the wh-chain is phonologically realized in the marked wh-fronting strategy. There are two indications that the movement operation that derives Coptic whin-situ takes place in the narrow syntax prior to the mapping of syntactic structures to PF. Firstly, Coptic wh-in-situ displays a different set of characteristics than whin-situ questions that involve LF movement, after Spellout; in particular, it lacks argument-adjunct asymmetries and intervention effects with quantifiers. Secondly, covert wh-movement has overt morphological effects. As illustrated in (2a) above, wh-in-situ structures are marked morphologically by “relative tenses”, so-called because a relative marker appears in front of the tense-aspect-moods () inflection; in our example, the marker of the relative perfect is the prefix nt–. Relative tenses will be analysed as an instance of “wh-agreement”, which is widely believed to provide a record of wh-movement in the narrow syntax (see Zaenen 1983; Chung 1994, 1998; Hukari and Levin 1995; Watanabe 1996 for representative views). If Coptic wh-in-situ arises as the consequence of syntactic wh-movement, the presence of the “morphology of extraction” falls into place. The application of wh-movement provides a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the introduction of relative tenses into the structure, witness the absence of the relative marker nt– in the corresponding wh-fronting question in (2b) above. To account for this distributional pattern, I will argue that two pronunciation issues are interrelated when wh-chains are converted into linear order: firstly, which copy is pronounced and secondly, whether wh-dependencies are identified

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

by relative tenses. To be more precise, spellout operations are constrained by morphological economy, which prevents the simultaneous pronunciation of the highest chain link and the relative marker. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 lays out the main theoretical assumptions that the analysis of Coptic wh-in-situ in the reminder of this study is based on. Section 3 is concerned with the categorial status and morphological properties of relative TAMs, which will be identified as a morpho-syntactic flagging device for wh-constructions. Section 4 reviews the main syntactic characteristics of wh-in-situ questions. Section 5 presents arguments against a syntactic analysis of Coptic wh-in-situ in terms of unselective binding and LF movement. It is therefore necessary to expand the typology of wh-interrogatives with a new wh-in-situ type, which emerges from an application of covert wh-movement in the narrow syntax, followed by the pronunciation of a lower wh-copy in the phonology. Section 6 presents a configurational analysis of “apparent” wh-in-situ in terms of covert wh-movement in the narrow syntax and lower copy pronunciation. Syntactically invisible movement feeds overt morphology in the form of relative tense marking, but this morpho-syntactic flagging device is itself constrained by morphologically driven economy. Section 7 summarises the main findings of this paper.

.

Theoretical preliminaries

This section reviews the main assumptions concerning the mapping of syntactic structures to the morpho-phonology, with particular attention to the spelling out of chain links and the conversion of hierarchical to linear order. Section 2.1 addresses the question of whether the pronunciation of the head of the chain is more economical than that of the tail. Section 2.2 presents an insertion view on Spellout operations, which captures the dependency between copy pronunciation and other morphological processes in a straightforward way. .

Lower copy pronunciation as last resort

In Nunes’ (1999, 2004) system, the deletion of copies in the phonology operates in tandem with Kayne’s (1994) “Linear Correspondence Axiom” (LCA), according to which linear order is completely determined by phrase structure (i.e. asymmetric c-command). Take, for instance, the structure in (3b), which is based on the initial numeration N in (3a) and arises as the result of passivisation. The upper copy John2 in the subject position asymmetrically c-commands the auxiliary verb was and thus precedes it in linear order, as in (3c). Since the auxiliary was asymmetrically c-commands the lower copy John1, it should also precede that copy, as in (3d). Given that the two occurrences of John are non-distinct, it is impossible to linearly

 Chris H. Reintges

order the partial sequence in (3e), because the same element would have to simultaneously go before and after the auxiliary was. Consequently, one copy must be deleted when the hierarchical structure is transformed into a linear order. (3)

PF deletion of copies as a consequence of the LCA a. N = {arrested, was, John} b. [John2 [was [arrested John1]]] c. < John2, was> d. <was, John1> e. < John2, was, John1>

It is generally assumed that different copies are available for interpretation at LF (Chomsky 1993, 37ff.). The contrary holds at PF, where only the highest chain link is singled out for pronunciation. In Nunes’ (1999, 228ff., 2004, 30ff.) analysis, this follows from the fact that higher copies are involved in more checking relations than lower ones. Having checked and erased its formal features, the topmost copy qualifies as the optimal candidate for pronunciation. On the other hand, the optimal pronunciation option can be overridden by morpho-phonological constraints. When the convergence of the derivation at PF is at stake, a lower member of the wh-chain is targeted for pronunciation (see also Franks 1998; Bošković 2002; Bošković and Nunes, this volume). The exceptional wh-in-situ in multiple wh-fronting languages is a well-studied example for the last resort flavour of lower copy pronunciation. In Serbo-Croatian, for instance, all wh-phrases must move to the left periphery of the clause, even if another wh-phrase has been fronted. As shown by the grammaticality contrast between examples (4a) and (4b) below, the in-situ pronunciation of the wh-object šta ‘what’ is prohibited. (4)

Obligatory multiple wh-fronting Ko šta kupuje ? who what buys ‘Who buys what?’ b. ?*Ko kupuje šta? (Bošković 2002, 355, (13))

Serbo-Croatian

a.

There are, however, phonological exceptions to the pervasiveness of multiple wh-fronting, such as the prohibition against two string-adjacent homophonous wh-words. To comply with the anti-homophony constraint, the first wh-phrase is pronounced in the head of the chain, and the second wh-phrase in the tail position, as in the following example (Bošković 2002, 364ff.). (5)

Forbidden sequence of homophonous wh-phrases Kakvo obuslavlja kakvo? what conditions what ‘What conditions what?’ (Bošković 2002, 364 (39a–b))

Bulgarian

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

When an adverb like neprestano ‘constantly’ intervenes between two homophonous wh-phrases, the obligatory fronting rule applies in full force and the in-situ pronunciation of the wh-phrase becomes, again, ungrammatical. Thus, compare (6a) with (6b) below: (6)

Wh-fronting of non-adjacent homophonous wh-phrases Šta neprestano šta uslovljava? what constantly what conditions ‘What constantly conditions what?’ b. ?*Šta neprestano uslovjava šta? (Bošković 2002, 364 (38))

Serbo-Croatian

a.

On the assumption that chain reduction proceeds in a top-down fashion, targeting first the highest wh-copy, then the second highest, and so on, morpho-phonological filters come into play after the entire derivation has been transferred to PF. As Bošković (2002, 368f.) points out, it is only at that point in the derivation when it becomes evident where a forbidden sequence of homophonous wh-phrases could arise. Despite the fact that the lowest copy would appear to be the least favourable candidate for pronunciation, the above mentioned case of exceptional wh-in-situ are fully grammatical. I interpret this to mean that the relation between formal feature elimination and copy pronunciation is more indirect than previously assumed. It rather looks as if the checking procedure is part of the movement derivation itself. Once a formal feature is checked in a particular link of the chain, that feature is valued for all members of the wh-movement chain. Since all copies of the chain are non-distinct with respect to the valuation or checking of the formal features that drive the derivation, they are equally well-suited for realization at PF or LF. In other words, there is no a priori optimal candidate for interpretation at both interfaces. This view leads one to expect languages in which lower copy pronunciation instantiates an entirely regular strategy for question formation. Coptic Egyptian can be shown to be such a language. .

A late insertion view on chain link pronunciation

For Nunes (1999, 226ff., 2004, 17ff.) and Nunes and Uriagereka (2000, 29f.), the deletion of chain links is required for operator-variable chains to be linearized in accordance with the LCA. My analysis of variable pronunciation sites for whmovement structures follows a different lead. Adopting the late insertion view of “Distributed Morphology” (Halle and Marantz 1993; Marantz 1997), I consider the syntactic component of grammar to be essentially phonology-free. The elements that enter the syntax are feature bundles that correspond to substantive categories (roots) and functional heads. The core task of the syntax is to create structural dependencies through syntactic operations, while Spellout operations are confined to the morpho-phonology (see Bobaljik 2002 and van Koppen 2005

 Chris H. Reintges

for related views). Spellout operations fall into two classes, viz. (i) the insertion of lexical material and the phonological realization of copies, and (ii) the conversion of a hierarchical structure into a linear order. It is not immediately evident or obvious whether chain realization should be interpreted as deletion or insertion. The spelling out of the moved wh-phrase in different syntactic positions seems to favor a insertion view on copy pronunciation. This seems to be the case in the wh-copying construction, in which the head and all intermediate copies of the wh-chain are phonologically realized, while the tail of the chain is not. For Nunes (1999, 232ff., 2004, 38ff.), the medial wh-copies are not located in the specifier position, but are head-adjoined to the non-interrogative complementizers. The adjoined wh-copy and its host undergo a process of morphological reanalysis in the course of which both heads are turned into a single word. On the assumption that the LCA is blind to word-internal structure, the C0 + wh-copy complex becomes invisible for the purpose of linearization. However, as pointed out by Felser (2004, 556), it should be impossible for a headadjoined copy to undergo further movement to the specifier of the highest CP. Moreover, the copying of phrasal constituents like prepositional wh-phrases is difficult to reconcile with a head adjunction analysis.3 Further evidence for the insertion view comes from resumptive pronouns in wh-subject questions (see Engdahl 1985; Tuller 1986, 157ff.; Rizzi 1990, 60ff.; Shlonsky 1992 for relevant discussion). As we can see in (7a), the movement of the wh-subject to the left-periphery goes together with the presence of a resumptive pronoun in the preverbal subject position. Resumptive pronominalisation is enforced by (i) an active EPP feature, requiring the preverbal subject position to be projected and (ii) the unavailability of pro-drop, which necessitates the spelling out of an overt subject pronoun (Reintges 2001). Evidently, the EPP requirement is met by the corresponding wh-in-situ subject question in (7b) below. (7)

a.

Wh-fronting question with resumptive subject pronoun e-pei-ma? nimi a-fi-ent-k who -3.-bring-2. to-..-place ‘Who brought you here?’ (KHML I 3, 7–8)

Coptic

. In my dialect of German (North-Rhine-Westphalia), the copying of wh-PP in examples like (i) is fully acceptable. Felser (2004, 550, fn.5) notes some degree of speaker variation (indicated as %). (i) Copying of wh-PPs in long-distance wh-question German % An wen glaubst du, an wen sie denkt? of whom.ACC believe you of whom.ACC she thinks ‘Who do you believe that she thinks of?’ (Felser 2004, 550 (ib))

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

b.

Wh-in -situ subject question ere nim na-na na-n? (-) who -have.mercy for-1 ‘Who will have mercy upon us?’ (Shenoute, Paris 13154v, a14)

Further, note that the resumptive subject pronoun 3rd person singular masculine –f in (7a) above is a reduced copy of the interrogative pronoun nim ‘who’, which spells out only its phi-feature content. Leaving open the question how deletion view would deal with pronominal “traces” of wh-movement, I conclude for now that both wh-copying and resumptive pronominalization can be accommodated by the insertion view of chain realisation in a straightforward and intuitively plausible way. In short, nothing gets deleted, but not everything gets pronounced.4

.

The morpho-syntax of Coptic relative tenses

This section surveys the basic morpho-syntactic facts about Coptic relative tenses. Relative TAMs will be analysed as a special kind of inflectional morphology that groups together classical wh-constructions (relative clauses, wh-questions, focus constructions) and sets them apart from neutral declarative clauses. In Chamorro special inflection registers the application of overt wh-movement. In Coptic Egyptian, on the other hand, it accompanies a wh-phrase that seems to be frozen in place. Although relative tenses are morphologically derived by adding a relative complementizer to the  marker, this relativization morphology is not located in the highest functional node of the clause (C0 or Force0), but rather surfaces on the head of a designated focus projection below C0. .

Introducing special inflection: Chamorro “wh-agreement”

The use of special inflectional morphology is attested cross-linguistically as one of the options for the structural encoding of features associated with the standard

. My proposal bears a resemblance to Groat and O’Neil’s (1996) account, in which chain formation results in copying of all syntactic features of the moved constituent without copying its phonetic content. The constituent’s phonological matrix either moves to its new position or fails to do so. Interestingly, the authors consider the movement of phonological features to the head of a chain as more costly than leaving them in the tail of the chain. My analysis differs, however, from Groat and O’Neil’s (1996) account in that it distinguishes two types of covert movement operations, namely those that apply in the narrow syntax, prior to Spellout, and those that apply at LF after Spellout.

 Chris H. Reintges

inventory of operator-variable constructions (see, among various others; Zaenen 1983; Hyman and Watters 1984; Chung and Georgopoulos 1988; Haïk 1990; Watanabe 1996; Reintges, LeSourd and Chung 2006). To illustrate the workings of this special type of inflectional morphology, I will briefly discuss its manifestation in Chamorro, an Austronesian VSO language spoken on the Mariana Islands. The language has a standard inventory of whconstructions, including wh-questions, relative clauses, focus constructions, and comparatives, all of which exhibit the hallmarks of wh-movement (displacement of the wh-phrase to the left periphery, obligatory gap at the extraction site, sensitivity to islands). The application of wh-movement feeds two distinct morphological operations. One operation triggers the introduction of “wh-agreement” marking on finite verbs and adjectives. The other operation involves alternations in the form of the lexical complementizer, which may lack phonetic content (indicated as [C Ø]). This “operator-C0 agreement” indicates the categorial features and thematic content of the moved operator in its specifier position. Compare the simple declarative clause in (8a), in which the clause-initial verb appears in neutral form with the constituent questions in (8b-d), where the wh-interrogative phrase has moved overtly to the left of the verb. In (8b), the nominative Case of the moved wh-subject is flagged by the wh-agreement morpheme -um-, while the objective Case of the wh-object is registered by the wh-agreement morpheme -in- plus possessor agreement in (8c). In (8d), on the other hand, the C0 element ni is in a local (specifier-head) relationship with the left-adjacent wh-phrase manu ‘where’ and registers both its nominal features and locative semantics (Chung 1982, 1994, 1998).5 (Wh-agreement marking is highlighted.) (8) a.

b.

Special inflection surfacing on V and C in wh-questions Neutral declarative clause Ha-faɁgasi si Juan i kareta. -wash Juan the car ‘Juan washed the car.’ Wh-agreement; wh-subject with nominative case i kareta ? Hayi [C Ø] fumaɁgasi who CQ [].wash the car ‘Who washed the car?’

. In registering the categorical features and thematic content of the moved operator, the complementizer alternations in Chamorro provide more information than the well-studied complementizer effects in Modern Irish, which simply mark a contrast between a movement and a non-movement option, the latter involving resumptive pronominalisation. See McCloskey (1990, 2001) for a detailed analysis.

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

c.

d.

Wh-agreement; wh-object with oblique case si Henry pära hagu? Hafa [C Ø] finaɁgsése-nña [].wash.- Henry for you what CQ ‘What is Henry washing for you?’ (Chung 1998, 236, (52)–(53a–b)) Operator-C agreement, wh-adverb Manu ni mañ-ásaga siha? where CQ .live. they ‘Where are you living?’ (Chung (1998, 58, (80a))

Despite the absence of an overt operator, both types of agreement can also be found in Chamorro relative clauses, which can either precede or follow the external relative head. Since relative clauses display all the other diagnostics for wh-movement, Chung (1994, 1998) analyses them as null operator constructions. (Op indicates the null relative operator). (9) a.

b.

c.

Special inflection surfacing on V and C in relative clauses Wh-agreement; relativized subject with nominative case Kao un-liɁiɁ i palaoɁan [Op ni bumendi i kareta] ? Q -see the woman C [].sell the car ‘Did you see the woman who sold the car?’ (Reintges, LeSoud and Chung 2006, 168, (5a)) Wh-agreement; relativized object with oblique case Hu-fahan i kareta [Op ni bininde-nña si Maria]. -buy the car C [obj].sell- Maria ‘I bought the car that Maria sold.’ (Reintges, LeSoud and Chung 2006, 168, (5b)) Operator-C0 agreement, relativized adverb Hu-liɁiɁ i gimaɁ [Op änai sumásaga si Maria]. Maria -see the house C .live. ‘I saw the house that Maria is living in.’ (Reintges, LeSoud and Chung 2006, 169, (7))

In long-distance wh-constructions, complementizer effects show up only on the highest C0. By contrast, wh-agreement must surface on the most deeply embedded finite verb, but may appear on every verb along the path of wh-movement. (10)

Long-distance wh-question with multiple occurrence of wh-agreement si Juan Hayi [C Ø] sinangane-nña who Q [2].say.to- Juan malagoɁ-ña pära u-bisita ? [].want.  [].-visit ‘Who did Juan tell (us) that he wants to visit?’ (Chung 1998, 211 (8a))

In Chamorro, relative aspects pattern together with the displacement of a constituent from a clause-internal position to the left periphery of the clause.

 Chris H. Reintges

The morphological effects of wh-agreement are induced by the copy of the moved wh-phrase, which thus behaves just like any overt nominal in that it must be casemarked by the inflected verb. .

Coptic relative tenses as a morpho-syntactic flagging device

Comparing Coptic relative tenses with Chamorro wh-agreement, we seem to be dealing with the diametrically opposite pattern of special inflection, since its presence is required in wh-in-situ contexts. Thus, consider the following sentence pair, in which both the declarative clause and the corresponding wh-questions employ the Perfect marker a, which appears in front of the subject. But while pragmatically neutral declaratives like (11a) are well-formed with the tense-aspect word alone, wh-questions like (11b) require the presence of the relative marker әnt- besides the  marker to be grammatical. (11)

a.

b.

Neutral declarative clause (general s) aw a ruhe špe ero-f hәm pә-ma әn-Taβenεse and  night happen to-3. in ..-place of-Tabenêse ‘And night-fall surprised him in the area of Tabenêse.’ (V. Pachom. 136, 24–25) Wh-question (relative s) әnt-a u špe әmmo-k pa-čoeis p-әrro - what happen to-2. ...1-lord ..-king ‘What happened to you, our lord and king?’ (Eudoxia 36, 24)

Just like in Chamorro, Coptic relative s appear in relative clauses, wh-questions and focusing sentences. (12) a.

b.

c.

Presence of relative s in classic wh-constructions Relative clause әnhεt-f ] e-pә-ma [nt-a-k-kynt-f to-..-place --2.-find-3. inside-3. ‘the place where you found it’ (Acts of Andrew and Paul 204,145–146) Wh-in-situ question әnt-a u βk e-pe.k-hεt ? - what come to-..-2.-heart ‘What has come into your heart?’ (Apophth. Patr., Chaîne 139, 31:7) Declarative focus-in-situ clause әmmᴐn alla әnt-a-u-sәβtot-f әm-pә-diaβolos no but --3-prepare-3. for- ..-devil mәn ne.f-aggelos with .-3.-angels ‘(Is the Purgatory prepared for us?) Not at all! It is rather prepared      .’ (Budge, Hom. 14, 19–21)

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

In contrast with the focus/wh-in-situ pattern, special inflection is not a feature of the corresponding focus/wh-fronting constructions, as (13a–b) below exemplifies. The complementary distribution between relative tenses and overt wh-movement is reminiscent of Cheng’s (1991, 30) “Clause Typing Hypothesis”, according to which a clause is typed a wh-question by either a wh-particle in C0 or else by fronting a wh-word to the Spec of C0. (13)

a.

b.

Wh-fronting with general  etβe u ti-hmoos hәm pa-manšpe ti-hlәplp ? for what (-)1-sit in ...1-room (-)1-be.weary ‘Why am I sitting in my room being weary? (Apoph. Patr. Chaîne 6, 2, 24–25) Focus-fronting with general  anon de etβe ne.n-noβe mar-әn-opt-әn mawaa-n we  for ..1-sin -1-lock.up-1 -1 ‘As for us,    , let’s lock ourselves up!’ (Apoph. Patr. Chaîne 41, 8, 28–29)

There is, however, reason to believe that the special relativization morphology that surfaces at the left edge of Coptic wh-in-situ questions is not a clause-typer in the strict sense. First, relative s have a broad syntactic distribution, appearing not only in classical exemplars of wh-constructions, but also in a range of operator-variable constructions that have not been included in Chomsky’s (1977) original taxonomy. These are yes/no questions, broad focus constructions (with VP or IP focus), temporal adjunct clauses, conditionals, and secondary predicates, to mention a few examples (see Reintges 2004, chapter 7, 2006 for a more detailed survey). It seems feasible to provide a uniform analysis of these sentence patterns in terms of operator-variable constructions, but not in terms of uniform speechact semantics. Second, Coptic has a variety of dedicated interrogative particles, which are compatible with wh-in-situ as well as wh-fronting structures, as (14a–b) illustrates. (14)

a.

b.

Wh-in-situ question with interrogative particle eye ere ne.tәn-šεre nutše eβol hәn nim ? Q (-) ..2-son cast  in who ‘In whom are your sons casting out (demons)?’ (Luke 11, 19) Wh-fronting question with interrogative particle eye etβe u tetәn-yrәm әns-n hs әnt-a-әr Q for what (-)2-gaze at-1 as.if --1-make ε ten-mәnt-euseβεs ? pai hәn te.n-kyom .. through ...1-power or ....1-piety ‘For what reason do you gaze at us as if we have done this (thing) out of our (own) power or piety?’ (Acts 3, 12; ed. Horner)

 Chris H. Reintges

Question particles must be inserted in the topmost position of the clause, thereby preceding fronted wh-phrases, as (14b) above shows. This positional restriction receives a straightforward explanation, if we assume with Rizzi (1997, 283), that such particles are merged into in the C0-node, which constitutes the locus of illocutionary force. From this it follows that the relative marker ere in (14a) above must be located below C0 and above the preverbal subject position in a syntactic position that Green and Reintges (2004, 2005) and Reintges and Green (2004) identify with the X0-head of a left-peripheral focus phrase. Although interrogative particles like eye type a clause as a question, they do not seem to be involved in any kind of licensing relationships, since they can modify wh-in-situ, wh-fronting, as well as wh-cleft constructions. Moreover, in none of these wh-questions is their presence obligatory to bring about the interrogative semantics. Reintges (2003, 373ff.) relates the optional presence of interrogative particles to their rich semantic structure, conveying positive or negative presuppositions as well as corroborative (“verum”) focus readings (see Simpson and Wu 2002 and Li 2006 for comparable phenomena in varieties of Chinese). In triggering evidentiality effects, such particles are closely connected to the evaluative modal domain (cf. Cinque 1999). Therefore, their presence is motivated by discourse factors rather than by clause typing considerations alone. Taken at face value, it looks as if as the distinctiveness of relative tenses from clause-typers as well as the optional presence of question particles seem to challenge the cross-linguistic validity of the Clause Typing Hypothesis. On the movement analysis of wh-in-situ, the Coptic facts are, however, in accordance with the typological predictions of the Clause Typing Hypothesis, since both wh-in-situ and wh-fronting questions are derived by wh-movement in the narrow syntax, which thus serves as the relevant clause typing mechanism. .

Categorial status and surface syntactic position

The categorial properties and syntactic placement of relative s will be illustrated with the example of relative clause constructions, in which the presence of this morphological pattern is obligatory. Coptic relative clauses are externally headed and contain no relative pronoun or other subordinator besides the relative  marker. In expressing the core functions of relativization (attribution, subordination), such relative markers can be classified as [+finite] relative complementizers (see de Vries 2002, chapter 5). As exemplified in (15) below, the relative marker itself does not encode any nominal-functional features of the relative head; all these features are present on the resumptive pronoun inside the embedded clause. (The anaphoric relation between the relative antecedent and the resumptive pronoun is indicated by indexes.)

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

(15)

Externally headed relative clause with relative  [e-ša-u-βi n-toot-ui m-pe.ui-šs] nei-esowi .-sheep --3-take from-3 -...3-shepherd ‘(like) sheep from which their shepherd is taken away’ (V. Pachom 92, 30–93, 1)

It is possible to combine the relative marker e– with the relative complementizer et, as the following example of “complementizer doubling” shows. Further note that the relative marker e– assumes a longer form ere in the context of DP subjects (see Reintges 2004, 414ff. §11.1.2). (16)

Complementizer doubling in relative clauses [ et-ere pei-šεre šεm mowt әnhεt-fi] p-εii inside-3. ..-house C- ..-boy little die ‘the house where this little boy died’ (Acts of Andrew and Paul 206, 163–164)

Complementizer doubling shows that Coptic relative clauses have an articulated left-periphery. While the initial complementizer et is merged into the C0-node, the default relative marker e- occupies a lower functional position, which can be identified with the head of the focus projection. Further empirical support for a lower left-peripheral position of relative  markers comes from clitic left-dislocation structures within relative clauses. In the next example, the topicalized pronoun anok ‘I’ precedes the relative marker e-. See Shlonsky (1988) for a “low” position of the complementizer še ‘that’ in Modern Hebrew. (17)

p-mai [ anok e-ti-na-βk ero-fi ] ..-place I ---go to-3. ‘the place where I am going to’ (John 8, 21)

The phonological alternations in the form of the relative marker are dependent on the following  inflection. The marker әnt–, for instance, is selected in the context of the (affirmative) Perfect, while the allomorph ete– is selected in the context of the Negative Habitual mere, as illustrated in examples (18a–b) below. The relative marker e–, by contrast, is an ‘elsewhere’ form, which is spelled out in all other contexts. The reader is referred to Reintges (2004, 416f. §11.1.2.3) for a detailed discussion of Coptic complementizer alternations. (18) a.

b.

Complementizer alternations әm-pa-čoeisj [әnt-a-fj-taa-si na-i] t-irinεi ..-peace of-...1-lord --3.-give-3. to-1 ‘the peace of my lord which he has given me’ (Testament of Isaac 230, 10-11) pai [ete-mere laau šᴐpe ečnt-fi] pә-nutei ..-god .. -. something happen without-3. ‘God, the one without whom nothing happens’ (Zenobius 202, 3)

 Chris H. Reintges

Reintges (2003, 400f.) views these complementizer allomorphy as a morphological reflex of moving and incorporation the  auxiliary into the relative marker in Foc0. This is shown in tree diagram (19) below. (O stands for the abstract relative operator.) (19)

The left periphery of Coptic relative clauses CP OP

CP C0

FOCP

etFOCP FOC0

FINP

ereFIN0 TAM

MODP SU

T0-FOC0-movement

MODP MOD0

VP

T(ense)0-to-F(us)0 movement seems to be a upshot of T0-to-C0 movement (see Rizzi 1996; Pesetsky and Torrego 2001). Since the morphological effects of incorporation surface on the F0 head, it acts as the attracting category or probe, presumably because it has unvalued tense/finiteness features that need to be checked. .

Coptic wh-in-situ questions

In this section, I will review the basic facts about Coptic wh-in-situ, with particular attention to its unrestricted nature. Besides the presence of morpho-syntactic flagging, the genuine question interpretation and availability of matrix scope readings of embedded wh-in-situ phrases provides compelling evidence for the “hidden” movement configurationality of wh-in-situ pattern. .

Syntactic distribution

In Cheng’s (1991) typological framework, Coptic Egyptian can be classified as an optional fronting language, in which wh-fronting is available as a marked alternative

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

to the canonical wh-in-situ pattern. Wh-in-situ has a broad syntactic distribution, appearing in main and in embedded finite clauses, as exemplified by the following sentence pair.6 (20)

a.

b.

Matrix wh-in-situ question әnt-a u šᴐpe әmmo-k pa-čoeis p-әrro - what happen to-2. ...1-lord ..-king ‘What happened to you, our lord and king?’ (Eudoxia 36, 24) Embedded wh-in-situ question n-ti-sowәn an [če nt-a u špe әmmo-s] -(-)1-know  C - what happen to-3. ‘I don’t know what happened to her.’ (Hilaria 7, 30–31)

Multiple wh-in-situ questions like (21) below are only marginally attested and display a pair-list reading; in our example, pairs of informers and people informed about (see, among various others, Pesetsky 1987, 2000; Dayal 2002; Aoun and Li 2003).

. As illustrated in (i), subject wh-phrases with human referents are typically associated with focus, which is why they are rather common in wh-clefts. The subject-predicate relationship is mediated by a deictic copula that links the clefted constituent and the relative clause. (i)

Wh-subject clefts nim tenu p(e) [et __ sorm әm-pә-mεεše]? misguide -..-crowd who now .. C ‘Who (is it) now that is misleading the crowd?’(Acts of Andrew and Paul 212, 231)

Based on the order of topics, complementizers and question particles, Reintges, Lipták and Cheng (2005) argue that nominal clefts have an articulated left-periphery, in which the clefted DP occupies the specifier position of the designated focus phrase. From this position, it precedes various types of elements: left-dislocated personal pronouns, as in (iia), emphatic reflexives, as in (iib) below, topicalized time adverbials like tenu ‘now’, as in (i) above. (ii) a. Clefted wh-phrase >> left-dislocated pronoun u nttn p(e) [ete-tәn-weš tre-n-aa-f nnahrn nai]? what you. .. (-)-2-want .-1-do-3. about these ‘(As for) you, what (is it) that you want us to do about these (things)?’ (Cambyses 11, 9–10) b. Clefted wh-phrase >> emphatic reflexive h– ‘self ’ u hn on p(e) [etә-n-na-aa-f]? what self-1  .. (-)-1--do-3. ‘What (is it) that we, on our part, shall do?’ (Luke 3, 14) Reintges, Lipták and Cheng (2005) furthermore show that the clefted DP/wh-phrase is not merged directly into the specifier position of the left-peripheral focus phrase, but rather undergoes focus-fronting to this position.

 Chris H. Reintges

(21)

Multiple wh-in-situ question with pair-list reading әnt-a nim tsabo-f e-nim ? - who teach-3. about-who ‘Who taught him about whom? (Shenoute, Wess. 9, 110a:9f)

Further, neither wh-arguments nor wh-adjuncts show any resistance to wh-in-situ, as the following set of examples illustrates. (22) a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Argument/adjunct non-asymmetries Wh-in-situ subject nt-a nim әn- šs eneh ka n-esow - who of-shepherd ever leave .-sheep hәm p-ohe aw t-šaire hәm trә-f-mu ? in ..-stable and ..-fold in .-3.-die ‘Which shepherd ever left sheep in the stable and the fold when he died?’ (Shenoute, Amél. 2, 18) Wh-in-situ object e-i-na-tše u na-k ? (--)1--say what to-2. ‘What shall I say to you?’ (Apophth. Patr., Chaîne 28, 5:25) Wh-locative adverb e-k-nεu tn, pa-son ? (-)- 2.-come where ...1-brother ‘Where are you coming from, my brother?’ (Acts of Andrew and Paul 198, 64-65) Wh-locative/directional PP e-k-šne e-u ? (--)2. from-what ‘From what do you suffer?’ (Budge, Martyr. 208, 28–29) Wh-manner adverb әnt-a-k-ei e-pei-ma әn-aš әn-he ? --2.-go to-..-place in-what of-manner ‘How did you get here?’ (Budge, Martyr. 206, 29)

The data considered so far clearly indicate that Coptic wh-in-situ does not come for free, but requires the presence of morpho-syntactic flagging. Once the relative marker is spelled out, wh-in-situ produces grammatical outcomes, no matter what the status of the wh-phrase is. As will be shown next, the interrogative interpretation of wh-in-situ disappears in the absence of relative  marking. .

Wh-movement and interrogative interpretation

As already noted in traditional grammars (Till 1966, 108 §232; Layton 2000, 61 §73), wh-expressions may have a non-interrogative, indefinite reading. Consider the following triplets of examples, involving the wh-words nim ‘who’, u ‘what’ and

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

partitive aš әn-N ‘which (of) N’. In the a-examples, the wh-word remains in-situ and the entire clause is flagged by relative tense marking. As we can see from the comparison with the b-examples, it receives the same non-echo question interpretation as its fronted counterpart. This contrasts with the c-examples where the whin-situ constituent assumes a specific indefinite reading. The minimal difference with wh-in-situ interrogatives concerns the absence of relative marking. Further note that such a specific indefinite reading is not available for wh-fronting structures (see Reintges 2003, 381f.; Green and Reintges 2005).7 (23) a.

b.

c.

(24) a.

b.

Interrogative versus specific indefinite interpretation of wh-subjects әnt-a nim šp na-f n-tei-hypomenε ? - who achieve for-3. -..-endurance ‘Who has achieved for himself such endurance?’ (Hilaria 12:29) nim a-f-ent-k e-pei-ma ? who -3.-bring-2. to-..-place ‘Who brought you here?’ (KHML I 3:7–8) ša-u-eime [če a nim pә-šεre әn-nim čr -3-know C  who ..-child of-who win hәm p-agn ]. in ..-contest ‘They know that so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, won the contest.’ (Budge, Apocr. 134, 14–15) Interrogative versus specific indefinite interpretation of wh-objects e-i-na-ti u na-k ? (--)1--give what to-2. ‘What shall I give you?’ (Genesis 30, 31) u se- tši wa ero-i what (-)3-speak malice against-1 hәm p-et-šәp in ..-C (--)1-take

. A similar contrast holds for the adverbially used DP tә-nau ‘the hour’, which is interpreted as an interrogative time adverbial ‘when’ in wh-in-situ contexts with relative tense morphology, as in (ia), or when fronted to the left edge of the clause, as in (ib). (i) a.

b.

Interrogative interpretation of the time adverb tә-nau ‘the hour’ ere nai na-špe tә-nau? (-) these -happen when ‘When are these (things) going to happen?’ (Mark 13, 4) ša tә-nau kә-fi әm-pe.n-hεt? until when (-)2.-carry -the...1-heart ‘Until when (lit. the hour) are you carrying our heart?’ (John 10, 24)

 Chris H. Reintges

c.

(25) a.

b.

c.

hmot anok haro-f ? grace I for-3. ‘What could they say maliciously against me because of what I give thanks (lit. take grace) for?’ (1 Cor. 10, 30) a-i-ti u mәn u ehun e-pei-ma. -1SG-give what and what  to-..m-place ‘I gave such and such a thing to this place.’ (Shenoute IV 105, 16) Interrogative versus specific indefinite interpretation of wh-adjuncts e-u-sεr eβol hәn әn-aš әn-topos? (--)3-spread  in what of-place ‘In which places are they spread out?’ (Pistis Sophia 3, 6) әn-aš әn-he әn-ten-rokh an hen tei-epitymia in-what of-manner -1--burn  in ..-desire әm-pneumatikon ehun e-ne-pahre [et __ ti kβo әn-nә-psikhε]? of-spiritual  to-.-remedy CREL give solace to-.-soul ‘How shall we not burn in this spiritual desire for the remedies that give solace to the souls?’ (Hilaria 1, 20–21) әn-aš әn-time әnte Kεme wәn u-kosmikos әmmau in-what of-village of Egypt be .-layman there [e-pe.f-ran pe Eukharistos]. -the..-name .. Eucharist ‘In village so-and-so in Egypt, there was a (certain) layman, whose name was Eucharist.’ (Apophth. Patr., Chaîne 241, 73, 20–21)

Since both wh-fronting structures and relative-marked wh-in situ constructions in Coptic are associated with an interrogative interpretation, there is compelling evidence for equating the co-occurrence of wh-in situ and special inflectional morphology with a movement configuration. By contrast, the specific indefinite interpretation of in-situ wh-words instantiates the non-movement option.8

. As quantificationally underspecified expressions, Coptic wh-words bear a close resemblance to Chinese wh-expressions, which receive an interrogative, existential or universal interpretation (see Cheng 1991, 137ff. for a detailed discussion of the licensing conditions on the non-whreadings in Chinese). They differ, however, from their Chinese counterparts in the somewhat marginal status of the indefinite reading. This seems to be due to the presence of a competing set of existential quantifiers, which can be used as specific indefinites or negative polarity items, but never as interrogative pronouns. (ii) Coptic indefinites hme әn-how әn-at-wm әn-at-s (. . .) a. a won hәn n-et-waaβ әr  one from .-saint make forty of-day of-.-eat of-.-drink ‘One of the saints spent forty days without eating and drinking.’ (KHML II 35, 18–20)

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

.

Wh-movement and scope

The scope of an overtly moved wh-phrase is contingent on its landing site. When the wh-phrase undergoes long-distance wh-movement across a clause boundary, it takes matrix scope and the resulting interpretation is that of a direct question, as (26) below shows. (26)

Matrix scope of the overtly moved wh-phrase әn-aš әn-he әntok kә-č әmmo-s in-which of-manner you.. (-).-say -3. [če tet(n)-na-әr rәmhe]? C (-)--do free.man ‘How do you say that you will become free?’ (John 8, 33)

If, on the other hand, the wh-phrase moves overtly to the embedded focus position to the right of the subordinator če ‘that’, as in (27) below, it takes embedded scope and the entire construction is interpreted as an indirect question. (27)

Embedded scope of the overtly moved wh-phrase ti-tšәnu әmm-tәn [če hәn u әn-šače a-tentәn-mute (-)1-ask -2 C with what of-word -2-say ero-i (. . .)] about-1 ‘I ask you with which reason do you say about me (. . .)’ (Acts 10, 29)

Parallel facts can be observed for embedded wh-in-situ questions. In finite complement clauses, the in-situ wh-phrase generally takes the embedded scope, which yields an indirect question interpretation. In this context, the relative tense marker surfaces in the left periphery of the embedded clause, as shown in (28a–b). (28) a.

b.

Embedded scope of wh-in-situ in [+finite] complement clause әmpe-f-čoo-s [če әnt-a-f-kaa-f tn] .-3.-say-3. C --3.-place-3. where ‘He did not tell where he had put it’ (Apophth. Patr., Chaîne 235, 65, 18)

awo әmpe won әmmo-n tolma e-әr p-әnt-a-k-aaf and . one from-1 dare to-do(-) ..---2.-do-3. ‘No one of us dared to do what you have accomplished.’ (Acts of Andrew and Paul 198, 70–71)

A more detailed discussion of the relation between existential quantifiers and wh-words which are interpreted as an indefinite falls outside the scope of the present paper (but see Reintges 2004, chapter 4 for a comprehensive overview of the Coptic quantifier system). The main point to emerge here is that wh-words are quantificationally underspecified expressions, which may receive either an interrogative or an indefinite interpretation depending on the application of wh-movement.

 Chris H. Reintges

b.

a-s-tamo-f [če әnt-a-s-čh ero-f -3.-inform-3. C --3.-touch at-3. etβe u әn-hβ әm-p-emto eβol әm-pә-laos tεrә-f] for what of-thing in-..-front  of-..-crowd all-3. ‘She let him (Jesus) know why she had touched him in front of the whole crowd.’ (Luke 8, 47)

However, there are also attested examples where the in-situ wh-phrase scopes out of the embedded finite clause and the resulting interpretation is that of a direct question.9 When this happens, the relative tense marker surfaces at the left edge of the matrix clause, as seen in (29a–b) below. (29) a.

b.

Matrix scope of wh-in-situ in [+finite] complement clause eye әnttәn e-tetәn-č әmmo-s ero-i [če ang nim]? Q you. (-)-2-say -3. about-1 C I who ‘Who are you saying of me that I am?’ (Mark 8, 29) ere әm-mεεše č әmmo-s [če ang nim]? (-) .-crowd say -3. C I who ‘Who is the crowd saying that I am?’ (Luke 9, 18)

A different situation obtains in embedded infinitival wh-in-situ questions of the kind in (30a–c) below, where only a direct question interpretation seems to be available. Once again, relative tense marking occurs in the highest clause over which the wh-in-situ takes scope. (30) a.

b.

c.

Obligatory matrix scope of infinitival wh-in-situ әnt-a-tetәn-ei eβol e-t-erεmos [e-nau e-u]? --2-come  to-..-desert to-see. at-what ‘What have you come out to the desert to see?’ (Luke 7, 24) e-tetәn-wš [e-tra-ka nim nε-tәn eβol (--)2-want to-..1-place who for-2  hәm pe-snau]? from ..-two ‘Who do you want me to release to you out of the two?’ (Matthew 27, 21) e-k-wš [e-tre-n-sβte na-k tn (-)-3.-want to-.-1-prepare for-2. where әm-pә-paskha e-wom-f]? -..-Paskha.meal to-eat.-3. ‘Where do you want to let us prepare the Pasha-meal for you to eat?’ (Matthew 26, 17)

. The possibility of taking matrix scope out of an embedded finite clause distinguishes Coptic wh-in-situ from its counterpart in Iraqi and Lebanese Arabic, in which tense and finiteness block the wide scope construal of the embedded wh-phrase (see Wahba 1991; Ouhalla 1996; and, more recently, Aoun and Li 2003).

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

Following McDaniel (1989) and Dayal (1991), Green and Reintges (2005) propose to derive the obligatory wide scope reading of infinitival wh-in-situ from syntactic conditions. As defective tense categories, infinitival clauses do not project an articulated left periphery. Since there is no topic/focus layer, there is no designated scope position that the wh-phrase could move to. In order to be interpreted, the embedded wh-in-situ phrase will undergo covert movement to the matrix clause. .

The diversity of wh-in-situ

Comparative syntactic research in the aftermath of Huang’s (1982, 1984) seminal work disclosed an impressive amount of evidence for the diversity of wh-in-situ (see, among various others, Cole and Hermon 1994, 1998; Ouhalla 1996; Watanabe 2001; Cheng and Rooryck 2002; Simpson and Bhattacharya 2003). Some types of wh-in-situ do not participate in any kind of movement relations at all (Reinhart 1998), while others are derived by covert phrasal movement at LF (Nissenbaum 2000; Richards 2001). Yet another type of wh-in-situ involves the separation of the operator element from the rest of the category. In recent studies, this operation is conceptualised either as (null) operator movement (Watanabe 1992; Kishimoto 2005), or as independent wh-feature movement (see Pesetsky 2000; Cheng 2000; Cheng and Rooryck 2000, 2002; Soh 2005).10 In this section, I will argue that none of the movement or movement-like relations underlies the type of wh-in-situ documented here. The argument-adjunct non-asymmetries as well as the matrix scope reading of embedded wh-in-situ constituents provide prima facie evidence against an unselective binding approach. Since wh-in-situ does not show any intervention effects with focus and quantifiers, we do not seem to be dealing with an LF operation either. Rather, the typology of wh-in-situ has to be expanded with a new type, which arises as a consequence of wh-movement in the narrow syntax, followed by the pronunciation of a lower wh-copy. This covert movement operation leaves a footprint in the spelling out of special inflection in the form of relative tenses. . Feature movement involves the separation of the operator feature from the rest of the category. Subsequently, the wh-feature moves independently to the attracting category, viz. the C0 node with unchecked interrogative features. According to Chomsky (1995, 262–5), feature movement represents the core computational operation, while overt phrasal movement is not part of the feature checking procedure, but rather involves some kind of generalized pied-piping required for PF-convergence: the derivation crashes at PF when the relevant feature complex is dissociated from the rest of the phrase. Chomsky (2004a, 108) gave up on the idea of feature movement as “a complex operation, requiring some notion of ‘feature occurrence’ that is not very clear”.

 Chris H. Reintges

.

Evidence against an unselective binding account

In Reinhart’s (1998) system, in-situ wh-arguments contain a nominal head, which provides a variable that can be bound by a phonologically null question operator via choice functions. Due to the lack of such a nominal head, wh-adverbs cannot be interpreted via unselective binding. In English, it is therefore never possible to leave adverbial wh-phrases in situ. In Malay, nominal wh-phrases, which include locative arguments, can occur in-situ, in the scopal Spec,CP and in the intermediate Spec,CP position. By contrast, adverbial wh-phrases must undergo movement and cannot remain in situ, as the following grammaticality contrast shows (see Cole and Hermon 1998, 225ff., 2000, 105ff.). (31)

Ungrammaticality of wh-in-situ adjuncts a. Kenapa Fatimah menangis ? why Fatimah cry ‘Why did Fatimah cry? b. *Fatimah menangis kenapa? Fatimah cry why ‘Why did Fatimah cry? (Cole and Hermon 1998, 226, (4a–b))

Malay

As we have seen in Section 4.1, no such argument-adjunct asymmetries arise in Coptic Egyptian, where there are many examples of adverbial wh-in-situ questions. Thus, as opposed to their Malay counterpart, Coptic cause/reason wh-in-situ structures are fully grammatical. Notice, however, that there are subtle differences in meaning between the wh-in-situ and the wh-fronting pattern. When the cause adverbial etβe u, occurs in situ in clause-final position, it assumes a purpose reading (‘for what purpose, to what ends’), as seen in (32a), but receives a cause or reason interpretation (‘why’) when it appears in the fronted position, as seen in (32b) below. See Tsai (1999b) for related phenomena in Mandarin Chinese. (32)

a.

b.

Wh-in-situ question with cause adverb (purpose reading) Coptic aw nt-a-k-ei e-pei-ma etβe u ? and --2.-go to-..-place for what ‘And for what (purpose) did you get here?’ (KHML I 143, 6–7) Wh-fronting question with cause adverb (cause reading) etβe u te-rime n-nau nim ? for what (-)2.-weep in-hour every ‘Why are you (woman) weeping all the time?’ (Apoph. Patr. Chaîne 225, 65, 22)

Further evidence against an unselective binding approach to Coptic wh-in-situ comes from the multiple occurrences of relative s in long-distance relative clauses like (33) below. The appearance of the relative marker on every C0 flags the path of successive-cyclic wh-movement of a null relative operator.

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

(33)

Multiple occurrences of relative s in long-distance relative clauses ne.k-sβowe [et--nanu-u ..2.-teachings CREL--be.good-3 [ nt-a-k-tsaβo-i ero-u ]] --2.-teach-1 about-3 ‘your teachings which are excellent that you have taught me’ (V. Pachom. 86, 14–15)

Because Coptic is no longer spoken, it is impossible to establish island sensitivity on the basis of grammaticality judgements. The most that can be said is that there are no attested cases of wh-in-situ in which the wh-phrase originates inside an island and takes scope outside that island. Thus, consider the following example where the wh-in-situ phrase u ‘what’ appears within a complement clause inside a relative construction. Crucially, it takes the embedded scope, which gives rise to an indirect question interpretation. Further note that the matrix verb kyn ‘to find’ in within the scope domain of the clause-final negation adverb an ‘not’ (cf. ShishaHalevy 1986, 99 §2.8.3). (34)

Wh-in-situ within a relative clause island mәn tә-he [ et-f-na-kyn . ..-way CREL-(-)3.--find [ e-f-na-r u] an ] (-)-3.--do what  ‘It is hardly possible (lit. there is no way) that he won’t find what he will do’ (Shenoute, Amél. 2, 52)

Both the argument-adjunct non-asymmetries and the recursive application of relative  marking suggest that unselective binding by a null question operator is not the relevant licensing mechanism for Coptic wh-in-situ. Moreover, this conclusion is not contradicted by affirmative evidence for the island insensitivity of Coptic wh-in-situ. .

Evidence against an LF movement analysis

The next question to ask is whether the movement properties of Coptic wh-in-situ vis-à-vis interrogative interpretation and matrix scope readings arise from a covert movement operation at LF. In this section, I argue against an LF movement approach, capitalizing on the argument-adjunct non-asymmetries and the absence of intervention effects. From a conceptual point of view, Huang’s (1982, 1984) LF movement analysis is appealing, since it captures directly the parallelism in scope and selection between Chinese-type wh-in-situ languages and English-type wh-fronting languages. In both types of languages, constituent questions are formed by wh-movement, the

 Chris H. Reintges

main difference being the derivational timing at which the movement operation takes place (before or after the Spellout point).9 In recent studies, a generalized LF-movement approach has been abandoned in favour of a diversified system, in which only Chinese wh-adverbials like weishenme ‘reason-why’ move covertly to their scope position, whereas wh-arguments like shei ‘who’, shenme ‘what’, nali ‘where’, and wei-le shenme ‘purpose-why’ are bound unselectively at the clausal level and don’t move. This analysis accounts straightforwardly for the following argument-adjunct asymmetries. While adverbial wh-phrases may not scope across an island, nominal wh-phrases are free to do so (Lin 1992; Aoun and Li 1993; Tsai 1994, 1999a; Cheng and Rooryck 2000). A different stance is taken by Soh (2005), who argues that both nominal and adverbial wh-in-situ elements undergo LF movement to their scope position, as in Huang’s original proposal. Unlike wh-arguments, which undergo covert phrasal movement, wh-adverbs undergo covert feature movement. In contradistinction to Mandarin Chinese, there are no detectable differences in Coptic Egyptian between nominal and adverbial wh-in-situ with respect to long-distance wh-dependencies. Therefore, scope and interrogative interpretation is established via a single movement operation that applies to all instances of wh-in-situ. This movement lacks the characteristic properties of LF raising. In particular, it is insensitive to quantifier-wh interactions known as “intervention effects”. In Korean, for instance, the otherwise canonical wh-in-situ pattern becomes degraded when the in-situ wh-phrase follows a quantificational expression in linear order, as seen in (35a) below. To save the derivation, the wh-phrase has to be scrambled across the quantifier in the surface syntax, as seen in (35b) below. According to Beck and Kim (1997), wh-in-situ elements must be located in their scope position at LF for semantic reasons. However, LF movement of the wh-phrase is blocked when a quantifier intervenes on the path of movement. The way out is to move the wh-phrase overtly to its scope position.11 (35)

Obligatory scrambling in negative polarity contexts a. *   >>  *Amuto muôs-ûl sa-chi anh-ass-ni ? anyone what- buy- not.do-- ‘What did no one buy?’

Korean

. See Cheng and Rooryck (2000, 2002) and Pesetsky (2000) for an alternative analysis of the intervention effects in terms of feature movement. Pesetsky (2000, 67) argues that the intervention effect is caused by the separation of a quantifier (including wh) from its semantic restriction by a scope-bearing element (negation, focus, universal quantifier). Since the same intervention effects are observed in was . . . für (what . . . for) split constructions, it may very well be the case that these effects are indicative of feature movement. See Pesetsky (2000, chapter 5) for data and discussion.

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

b.

√  >>    anh-ass-ni? muôs-ûli amuto tWHi sa-chi what- anyone buy- not.do-- ‘What did no one buy?’ (Beck and Kim 1997, 339 (2a–b))

No such intervention effects are detectable in Coptic wh-in-situ questions, where the clause-internal wh-phrase can be preceded by a negative TAM (36a), a focus particle (36b), or a universal quantifier (36c) below. (36)

No intervention effects in wh-in-situ questions Coptic a. Negative Perfect mpe ete-mpe-čhm hәn aš әm-ma? -...-defile in what of-place ‘In which place have you (woman) not been defiled?’ (Jeremiah 3, 2) b. Emphatic reflexive h ‘-self ’ e-i-na-tamie u-εi tenu kye h now  .1 (--)1--create .-house na-i әn-tә-nau ? for-1 -when ‘When will I, myself, build me a house as well?’(Genesis 30, 30) c. Universal quantifier tεr ‘all’ k-nau [če nt-a-f-snt m-pεwe tεr-u ().2.-see C --3.-establish .-heavens all-3 әn-aš әn -he hәm pe.f-logismos ] in-what of-manner through ...3.-reasoning ‘You see how He has established all the heavens through His reasoning.’ (Shenoute, Mingarelli 288b:1–8 [Layton 2000, 364 §458b])

In not showing intervention effects, wh-in-situ phrases behave exactly like overtly moved wh-phrases, which may also cross negation and quantifiers. Thus, consider the following two examples. (37)

Wh-movement crossing intervening scope-bearing elements Coptic a. Double negation n . . . an әn-aš әn-he әn-ten-rokh an hen tei-epitymia in-what of-manner -1--burn  in ..-desire әm-pneumatikon ehun e-ne-pahre [et __ ti kβ әn-nә-psikh]? of-spiritual  to-.-remedy CREL give solace to-.-soul ‘How shall we not burn in this spiritual desire for the medicine that gives solace to the souls?’ (Hilaria 1, 20–21) b. Distributive quantifier p-wa . . . p-wa ‘each one’ awo әn-aš әn-he anon tn-stm and in-what of-manner we (-)1-hear p-wa p-wa hrai hn te.f-ape ..-one ..-one  in ...3.language

 Chris H. Reintges

‘And how do we hear each one (of us) in his native tongue?’ (Acts 2, 8; ed. Thompson)

If we assume with Chomsky (2005, 16ff.) that LF operations have no access to the morpho-phonological cycle which maps syntactic structure to the PF interface, we are led to the conclusion that the covert movement that derives Coptic wh-in-situ does not take place at LF, since it feeds overt morphology. This assumption is, however, controversial. Bobaljik (2002) and Bobaljik and Wurmbrandt (2005) argue in great length that covert movement has PF effects. In their theory, all movement operations must take place in the narrow syntax before Spellout. In the analysis advocated here, covert movement in the narrow syntax and at LF display different properties: LF movement is sensitive to intervention effects with focus and quantifiers, while syntactic movement is not.12

.

Covert wh-movement in the narrow syntax that feeds overt morphology

In this section, I present a configurational analysis of Coptic wh-questions, which accounts for the semantic non-distinctness of wh-in-situ and wh-fronting structures as well as the distributional behaviour of relative tenses. My point of departure is the view that the semantic overlap between the two wh-interrogative strategies has a syntactic source in that both patterns involve an application of wh-movement. Since wh-in-situ and wh-fronting are derived by the same syntactic process, they share the same range of scope and genuine question word interpretations of the moved wh-expressions. The word order difference between sentences displaying wh-in-situ and sentences displaying wh-fronting is therefore not a ‘deep’ syntactic property, nor is it related to the linguistic level where wh-movement applies. Instead, it is a matter of different pronunciation options that apply in the phonological component: in the wh-fronting case, the moved wh-phrase is phonologically realised in the left-peripheral target position in which its scope is determined. In canonical wh-in-situ structure, the moved wh-phrase is interpreted in the target position at LF, but phonologically realized in the clause-internal argument or adjunct position at PF. The conditioning of relative tenses can be shown to arise from an economy . Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for raising this issue. Reintges, LeSourd and Chung (2006, 173ff.) present another case study where the presence of special inflectional argues against an LF movement. In Passamaquoddy, both internally-headed and externally headed relatives trigger the introduction of so-called participle agreement into the structure. Therefore, both relativization patterns must be derived by an application of wh-movement in the narrow syntax. In internallyheaded relatives, the operator is phonologically realized in-situ within the relative clause.

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

condition prohibiting the co-occurrence of special inflection and an operator expression within a local domain, namely the left-peripheral focus phrase (FP). . The syntactic derivation of the wh-in-situ/wh-fronting contrast In current Minimalist views on movement, in order for one category (the goal) to move to the vicinity of another (the probe), the two must stand in an agreement relation with each other through which features on maximal projections and features on heads are matched. Both the probe and the goal have active (that is, uninterpretable or unvalued) features whose values can be set by the corresponding features of the other. Subsequently, movement is implemented to bring the goal into a local configuration with the probe, an operation that leaves the original copy of the goal untouched. Once the probe and the goal are in a local configuration within a single projection, the uninterpretable features on both categories are erased (cf. Chomsky 2000, 122ff., 2001, 4f.). If this theory is applied to the case at hand, the probe for wh-movement is the left-peripheral 0 head and the goal is the wh-phrase. With respect to their feature specification, I assume, following Chomsky (2000, 128), that wh-phrases have an unvalued [uwh] feature that matches the valued [wh] feature on the 0 node. However, I do not assume that they also have an interpretable interrogative feature [Q] that matches the unvalued interrogative feature [uQ] on the C0-node.13 Rather, one unvalued feature [uwh] suffices to drive movement. If the unvalued wh-feature is not eliminated via movement, the wh-in-situ item is longer interpretable as a genuine question word, but assumes a specific indefinite interpretation instead. Movement of the wh-phrase to the specifier position of the focus phrase yields the proper configuration for co-valuation and subsequent formal feature elimination. There are two indications that the probe, the 0 node, is not only matched with the goal, but also with the surrounding functional heads C0 and 0. Prima facie evidence for the interaction between C0 and 0 comes from the complementizer doubling effects in Coptic relatives. If the two syntactic nodes are connected via an  relation, we may plausibly assume, pace Chomsky (2005, 9), that the 0 head inherits from C0 its valued [Q] and [wh] features. The 0 agrees not only with the C0-node, but also with the 0 head, which hosts the pre-subject  marker. As argued in Section 3.3, this second  relation has an overt morphological reflex in alternating relative complementizers. It is clear, then, that the attracting probe, the focus head, enters into an agreement relationship . This feature specification implements the idea of wh-movement as a clause typing mechanism. The exact feature content of the attracting probe is a matter of debate in the current literature. For instance, Cheng & Rooryck (2000, 6ff.) argue that C0 has a valued [Q] and an unvalued [wh] feature.

 Chris H. Reintges

not only with the goal (viz. the wh-phrase), but also with the force-indicating C0-node as well as tense/finiteness projection, which is thus productively involved in the formation of wh-dependencies (compare Chomsky 2004a, 116). If the lowest copy of the wh-phrase is pronounced, then the relative marker is spelled out overtly, as schematically represented in diagram (38) below. (Strikeout indicates material that is left unpronounced. The relative marker on the  word is represented as . Arrows indicate the feature-matching relationship between the Focus head and Tense.) (38)

Covert wh-movement in the narrow syntax with relative tense marking [C0[FOCPWH[FOC REL][FINP TPERF [MODP SU [MOD [VPSU][VP V WH]]]

feature inheritance

T0-to-FOC0 movement

If, on the other hand, the highest copy of the wh-chain is pronounced, then the relative marking, which would occur in the same projection, is left unpronounced, as schematically represented in diagram (39) below. I will offer an economy explanation for the complementary distribution between relative tense marking and highest chain link pronunciation in Section 6.2. (39)

Overt wh-movement in the narrow syntax without relative tense marking [C0[FOCPWH[FOC REL][FINP TPERF [MODP SU [MOD [VPSU][VP V WH]]]

feature inheritance

The analysis proposed here departs from Chomsky’s (2001, 2004b) “Derivation by Phase” model, according to which wh-movement proceeds successive-cyclically through different derivational domains (or “phases”), including the verb phrase with full argument structure and the CP. Phases are domains that are eligible for phonological realization, which means that a constituent has to target the left edge of each phase in order to undergo subsequent movement. There is, however, no independent evidence in Coptic Egyptian for the phasal status of the vP. Reintges (2006) argues that Coptic verbs are defective categories in the sense that they lack tense and finiteness. All these features are morphologically manifest on the  word, which thus define opaque domains for core syntactic processes like case and extraction. Moreover, both the availability of matrix scope readings and the recursive Spellout of relative tenses in long-distance relative clauses clearly show that wh-movement proceeds successive-cyclically through the specifiers of CP. The Coptic facts thus provide counterevidence to Rackowski &

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

Richards’ (2005) claim that morpho-syntactic flagging reflects an  relation within the verbal (vP) domain from which the wh-phrase has been extracted. .

The interaction between copy pronunciation and relative tense marking

Reintges, LeSourd and Chung (2006) view special inflection as a morphological manifestation of ‘’, viz. the relation of feature evaluation that precedes movement operations. However, in the light of the evidence uncovered by Bobaljik & Wurmbrandt (2005), it remains an empirical issue whether all movement is pre-empted by agreement. In German, for instance, ‘’ and ‘’ operate independently from one another and can therefore not be combined in a single operation. For Coptic Egyptian, one may continue to assume that movement is connected to feature evaluation, since it brings about the interrogative reading of the clause. This suggests that wh-expressions have an unvalued [uwh] features that are matched with a valued wh-feature on 0. It is, however, less clear that relative tenses identify the feature-matching relationship that exists between the probe and the goal, since this special morphology is systematically absent in wh-fronting structures. Green & Reintges (2005) and Reintges (2006) propose that special inflection registers – that is, overtly marks – a local specifier-head relationship between a designated functional head and a copy of the moved wh-phrase that is left unpronounced. In Chung’s (1998) typology of agreement relations, Coptic relative s would therefore correspond to the configurational, rather than the feature-matching, type of agreement. The analysis of Coptic relative tenses as agreement with an unpronounced copy in the head position of the wh-chain raises two questions with respect to the interaction between variable pronunciation sites and morpho-syntactic flagging. First, how is it possible that intermediate chain links are not morphologically identified by relative tenses? Second, what prevents the Spellout of relative tenses in whfronting structures? To answer the first question, we have to take a closer look at wh-in-situ subject structures, since the wh-phrase undergoes A-movement to the vP-external subject position Spec,MODP. Subject raising is motivated by case reasons, since nominative case is unavailable in Spec,vP, satisfying at the same time the EPP requirement (see above, Section 2.2). Thus, consider the wh-in-situ subject question in (40a) and its partial representation in (40b) below. (Irrelevant details are omitted.) (40)

Wh-in-situ question with raising of the wh-subject u ‘what’ a. nt-a u βk e-pe.k-hεt? - what come to-..-.-heart ‘What has come into your heart?’ (Apophth. Patr., Chaîne 139, 31:7)

 Chris H. Reintges

[FocP u [FOC nt- ][FINPa [MODP u [MOD βk [VPu [VP βk e-pe.k-hεt ]]]]]]]

b.

Based on the relative order of the lexical verb and negation, focus particles, and shifted object pronouns, Reintges (2001) argues that the lexical verb undergoes ‘short’ movement to the highest inflectional head 0, but raises no further. If we assume that the alternations in the phonological shape of the relative marker is a morphological reflex of T⁄0-to-0 movement and that this movement is triggered by unvalued tense features [uT] on the relative marker, then we arrive at an understanding why the relative marker does not surface clause-internally. Due to the defective status of verbs vis-à-vis formal feature checking, relative tenses are barred from surfacing clause-internally. As a result, only the topmost chain link in the left periphery is morphologically identified by relative  marking, but intermediate copies within the clause are not. The second question concerns the absence of morpho-syntactic flagging in wh-fronting questions. To account for this distributional pattern, Reintges (2006) argues that chain realization in Coptic is governed by two morphological constraints. On the one hand, there is a visibility condition, requiring that wh-movement has to be marked overtly either by relative s or by the pronunciation of the highest chain link. On the other hand, there is an economy condition which prevents the ‘over-coding’ of wh-dependencies by simultaneously spelling out the topmost wh-copy and the relative marker. .

Remaining issues

Looking at cross-linguistic variation, we find a striking parallel for the complementary distribution between wh-fronting and morpho-syntactic flagging in Sinhala (Indo-European; Sri Lanka). According to Kishimoto (2005), Sinhala is a wh-in-situ language, in which wh-in-situ interrogatives are formed by placing a Q-element dә next to a wh-expression, which thus receives an interrogative rather than an indefinite interpretation. In the resulting structure, the verb bears a special inflectional ending -e, as example (41a) illustrates. The selection of the neutral inflection -a renders the wh-in-situ question ungrammatical, as example (41b) shows. (Sinhala is a head-final SOV language.) (41)

a.

Wh-in-situ question with special inflection e Chitra monәwa dә gatt-e ? Chitra what Q bought-E ‘What did Chitra buy?’ (Kishimoto 2005, 3, (1)) b. Wh-in-situ question with neutral inflection a *Chitra monәwa dә gatt-a ? Chitra what Q bought-A ‘What did Chitra buy?’ (Kishimoto 2005, 3, (1))

Sinhala

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

It is possible for the Q-element dә to be separated from the wh-in-situ expression and appear in clause-final position, although the contexts in which it can appear are quite restricted. Wh-questions containing the interrogative quantifiers kiidenek/kii-ak ‘how many’ (animate/inanimate) provide one such context. Significantly, wh-movement of the Q-element to the clause-final position occurs with the neutral form -a, as shown in (42a), whereas the special inflectional form -e yields an ungrammatical sentence, as shown in (42b) below. (42)

a.

Clause-final Q-placement with neutral inflection -a Ranjit [ Chitra kiidenek dækk-a kiyla] dannw-a dә? Ranjit Chitra how.many saw-A that know-A Q ‘How many (people) does Ranjit know that Chitra saw?’ b. Clause-final Q-placement with neutral inflection e *Ranjit [Chitra kiidenek dækk-e kiyla] dannw-a dә? Ranjit Chitra how.many saw-E that know-A Q ‘How many (people) does Ranjit know that Chitra saw?’ (Adapted from Kishimoto 2005, 7 fn.4, (iia))

Sinhala

Kishimoto (2005) presents conclusive evidence for the operator status of the Qelement dә. In example (42a) above, the operator dә moves overtly to its scope position, while it does so covertly in example (40a) above. In his analysis, the covert movement operation takes place at LF. However, in view of the facts that covert whmovement feeds overt morphology, I propose to reanalyse Sinhala wh-in-situ as yet another instance of “apparent” wh-in-situ, which involves wh-movement in the narrow syntax, followed by the pronunciation of the tail of the operator-variable chain. Just as in Coptic, Sinhala has the marked option of pronouncing the moved operator in the head position of the tail, which thus identifies the scope and the interrogative interpretation of the in-situ wh-word. It looks as if the same economy condition prevents the simultaneous phonological realization of the highest chain link and the special inflectional marker -e. The economy-based explanation for incompatibility of morpho-syntactic flagging and overt operator movement in Coptic and Sinhala now raises the question of why wh-fronting questions in Chamorro must be flagged by wh-agreement marking to be grammatical. The first point to note is that wh-fronting represents the canonical way of forming wh-questions in Chamorro, while wh-in-situ is not permitted as a marked alternative (see Chung 1998, 209). Thus, morpho-syntactic flagging devices always go together with the unmarked pattern for question formation, which is the wh-in-situ pattern in Coptic and Sinhala. I put forward the hypothesis that it is because the marked status of wh-fronting in both languages that special inflection can be dispensed with as a morphological means of identifying operator-variable dependencies. I leave a closer examination of the connection

 Chris H. Reintges

between ‘markedness’ and morpho-syntactic flagging for future research (but see Green & Reintges 2005 for some preliminary results).14

.

Concluding remarks

In this paper I argued for an enriched typology of wh-in-situ questions, in which certain types of wh-in-situ are derived by an application of wh-movement in the narrow syntax, followed by the pronunciation of the copy at the bottom of the chain. The ‘hidden’ movement configuration of Coptic wh-in-situ is identified morphologically by a special inflectional marker, which is in a local specifier-head relationship with the topmost copy of the wh-chain that is left unpronounced. We have thus obtained further evidence for the cross-linguistic diversity of wh-in-situ, which was first observed in Cole & Hermon’s (1994) influential study. In Coptic, wh-movement structures are not automatically flagged by relative tenses. Rather, various factors come into play, motivating the presence of this special morphological pattern. Firstly, the relative marker is a C0 element, which is endowed with unvalued tense/finiteness features that are in need of co-valuation. The only candidate available is the IP-external  expression in the 0 position, since verbs are underspecified for these features. Secondly, the pronunciation of the topmost copy qualifies as a marked alternative for the morphological identification of wh-dependencies. An economy condition prevents additional morphosyntactic flagging of such dependencies. If the analysis proposed here is on the right track, there is no discrepancy between PF and LF with respect to the interpretability of both higher and lower copies. But while the phonological interpretation of copies is regulated by the (un)availability of different pronunciation sites, their semantic interpretation is determined by considerations of scope and binding. Extending the empirical domain of the copy theory will also lead to a better understanding of the similarities and differences between covert displacement operations in the syntax and at LF.

. In his detailed written comments, Peter Cole poses the question of how the subtle differences between various wh-in-situ types could be learned on the basis of positive data. For Coptic, one might envisage a scenario where the language learner draws inferences about the hidden movement configuration on the basis of wh-in-situ constructions with and without relative tenses. Since wh-in-situ with relative tenses patterns with wh-fronting with respect to the genuine question interpretation and the availability of matrix and embedded scope readings, the language learner will at some point identify both wh-interrogative patterns as being derived from the same movement operation.

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ 

Acknowledgments I am indebted to Jairo Nunes, Norbert Corver, Peter Cole and an anonymous reviewer for their detailed written comments on a previous version of this paper. Many thanks also to the participants of the workshop ‘The Copy Theory on the PF Side’ (Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, 14–15 December 2004). All remaining shortcomings and errors are my own responsibility.

References Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993. Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24: 199–238. Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 2003. Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar [Linguistic Inquiry monograph 40]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Beck, Sigrid and Shin-Sook Kim 1997. On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 339–384. Bobaljik Jonathan David. 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 197–267. Bobaljik Jonathan David and Wurmbrand, Susi. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 809–865. Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383. Brody, Michael. 1995. Lexico-Logical Form: A radically minimalist theory [Linguistic Inquiry monographs 27]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Bruening, Benjamin. 2004. Two types of wh-scope marking in Passamaquody. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 229–305. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1991. On the typology of wh-questions. PhD Dissertation, MIT. (Reprinted in Outstanding dissertations in linguistics. New York NY: Garland). Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 2000. Moving just the feature. In Wh-scope marking [Linguistics Today 37], Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller & Armin von Stechow (eds), 77–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Rooryk, Johan. 2000. Licensing wh-in-situ. Syntax 3: 1–19. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 2002. Types of wh-in-situ. Ms. Leiden University. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. Formal syntax, Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow and Adrian Akmajian (eds), 71–132. New York NY: Academic Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program [Current studies in linguistic theory 28]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in linguistics [Current Studies in Linguistics 36]. Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

 Chris H. Reintges Chomsky, Noam. 2004a. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond [The cartography of syntactic structures. vol. III. Oxford studies in comparative syntax], Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–131.Oxford: OUP. Chomsky, Noam. 2004b. On phases. Ms. MIT. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22. Chomsky, Noam and Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504. Chung, Sandra. 1982. Unbounded dependencies in Chamorro grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 39–77. Chung, Sandra. 1994. Wh-Agreement and “referentiality” in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 1–44. Chung, Sandra. 1998. The design of agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. Chung, Sandra and Georgopoulos, Carol. 1988. Agreement with gaps in Chamorro and Palauan. In Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, and descriptions, Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), 251–267. Stanford CA: CSLI. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: OUP. Cole, Peter and Hermon, Gabriella. 1994. Is there LF wh-movement? Linguistic Inquiry 25: 239–262. Cole, Peter and Hermon, Gabriella. 1998. The typology of wh-movement: Wh-questions in Malay. Syntax 1: 221–238. Cole, Peter and Hermon, Gabriella. 2000. Partial wh-movement: Evidence from Malay. In Wh-scope marking [Linguistics Today 37], Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller & Armin von Stechow (eds.), 101–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dayal, Veneeta. 1991. Subjacency effects at LF: The case of Hindi wh. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 762–770. Dayal, Veneeta. 2002. Single-pair versus multiple-pair answers: Wh-in-situ and Scope. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 512–520. Engdahl, Elisabet. 1985. Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns and subject Extraction. Linguistics 23: 3–44. Fanselow, Gisbert and Mahajan, Anoop. 2000. Towards a minimalist theory of wh-expletives, wh-copying, and successive cyclicity. In Wh-scope marking [Linguistic Today 37], Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller & Armin van Stechow (eds.). 195–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Felser, Claudia. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114: 543–574. Franks, Steven. 1998. Clitics in Slavic. Ms. Indiana University, Bloomington MI. Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991a. Syntactic variables: Resumptive pronouns and A'-binding in Palauan [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991b. On A- and A'-agreement. Lingua 85: 135–169. Green, Melanie and Reintges, Chris. 2004. Syntactic anchoring in Hausa and Coptic wh-constructions. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Andrew Simpson (ed.), 61–72. Berkeley CA: University of California. Green, Melanie and Reintges, Chris. 2005. Syntactic conditions on special inflection: Evidence from Hausa and Coptic Egyptian interrogative and focus constructions. In University of Sussex Working Papers in Linguistics and English Language 14. (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/ linguistics/1-4–1.html). Groat, Erich and O’Neil, John. 1996. Spell-out at the LF interface: Achieving a unified syntactic computational system in the minimalist framework. In Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework. Werner Abraham, Samuel David, Höskuldur Thráinsson and Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds), 113–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haïk, Isabelle. 1990. Anaphoric, pronominal and referential INFL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 347–374.

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ  Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology. In The view from building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation. MIT. Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. Move  in a language without  movement. The Linguistic Review 1: 369–416. Hukari, Thomas E. and Levine, Robert D. 1995. Adjunct extraction. Journal of Linguistics 31: 195–226. Hyman, Larry M. and Watters, John R. 1984. Auxiliary focus. Studies in African Linguistics 15: 233–273. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax [Linguistic Inquiry monographs 25]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kishimoto, Hideki. 2005. Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 1–51. Koppen, Marjo van. 2005. One probe – two goals: aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects [LOT dissertation series 105]. PhD Dissertation. University of Leiden. Layton, Bentley. 2000. A Coptic grammar with chrestomathy and glossary [Porta Linguarum Orientalium N.S. 20]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Li, Boya. 2006. Chinese final particles and the syntax of the periphery. PhD Dissertation. Leiden University (LOT Dissertation series 133). Lin, Jo-Wang. 1992. The syntax of zenmeyang ‘how’ and weishenme ‘why’ in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 293–331. Marantz, Alec 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2., A. Dimitriadis, et al (eds), 201–225. McCloskey, James. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, A'-binding, and levels of representation in Irish. In The syntax of modern Celtic langauges [Syntax and Semantics 23], Randall Hendrick (ed.), 199–248. New York NY: Academic Press. McCloskey, James. 2001. The morphosyntax of -extraction in Irish. Journal of Linguistics 37: 67–100. McDaniel, Dana. 1989. Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 565–604. Nissenbaum, Jonathan W. 2000. Investigations of covert phrase movement. PhD Dissertation., MIT. Nunes, Jairo. 1999. Linearization of chains and phonetic realisation of chain links. In Working minimalism [Current studies in linguistics 32], Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (eds.), 217–249. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement [Linguistic Inquiry monographs 43]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Nunes, Jairo & Uriagereka, Juan. 2000. Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3: 20–43. Ouhalla, Jamal.1996. Remarks on the binding properties of wh-pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 676–707. Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (in)definiteness [Current Studies in Linguistics 14], Eric J. Reuland and Alice G.B. ter Meulen (eds.), 98–129. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, Pesetsky, David. 1997. Optimality theory and syntax: movement and pronunciation. In Optimality theory: An overview. Diana Archangeli and D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), 134–170. Oxford: Blackwell.

 Chris H. Reintges Pesetsky, David. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the best good enough?, Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis and David Pesetsky (eds.), 337–383. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin [Linguistic Inquiry monographs 37]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A life in linguistics [Current studies in linguistics 36], Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 355–426. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Rackowski, Andrea and Richards, Norvin. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Ms., MIT. Reinhart, Tanya. 1998. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist Program. Natural Language Semantics 6: 26–56. Reintges, Chris H. 2001. Aspects of the morphosyntax of subjects and objects in Coptic Egyptian. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001, Ton van der Wouden and Hans Broekhuis (eds.), 177–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reintges, Chris H. 2003. Syntactic conditions on special inflection in Coptic interrogatives. In Research in Afroasiatic grammar II. Selected Papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Paris 2000 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 241], Jacqueline Lecarme (ed.), 363–408. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reintges, Chris H. 2004. Coptic Egyptian (Sahidic dialect): A learner’s grammar [Afrikawissenschaftliche Lehrbücher 15]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. Reintges, Chris H. 2006. In press. Coptic relatives tenses: The profile of a morpho-syntactic flagging device. In Focus in African languages, Enoch Oladé Aboh, Katharina Hartmann and Malte Zimmermann (eds.). Berlin: Mouton. Reintges, Chris H. and Green, Melanie 2004. Coptic second tenses and Hausa relative aspects: A comparative view. Lingua Aegyptia 12: 157–177. Reintges, Chris H., Lipták, Anikó and Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 2005. The nominal cleft construction in Coptic Egyptian. In Universal grammar in the reconstruction of ancient languages [Studies in Generative Grammar 83], Katalin É. Kiss (ed.) 105–134. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Reintges, Chris H., LeSourd, Philip S. and Chung, Sandra. 2006. Movement, wh-agreement, and ‘apparent’ wh-in-situ. In wh-movement moving on, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver (eds.), 165–194. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. Oxford: OUP. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality [Linguistic Inquiry monograph 16]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 1996. Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Parameters and functional heads: Essays in comparative syntax, Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 63–90. Oxford: OUP. Rizzi, Luigi.1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Shisha-Halevy, Ariel. 1986. Coptic grammatical categories: Structural studies in the syntax of Shenoutean Sahidic [Analecta orientalia 53]. Rome: Pontificial Institute. Shlonsky, Ur. 1988. Complementizer-cliticization in Hebrew and the empty category principle. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 121–175. Shlonsky, Ur. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 443–468. Simpson, Andrew and Wu, Zoe. 2002. IP-raising, tone sandhi and the creation of S-final particles: Evidence for cyclic spell-out. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 67–99.

Variable pronunciation sites and types of wh-in-situ  Simpson, Andrew, and Bhattacharya, Tammoy 2003. Obligatory overt wh-movement in a whin-situ language. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 127–142. Soh, Hooi Ling. 2005. Wh-in-situ in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 143–155. Till, Walter C. 1966. Koptische Grammatik (Saïdischer Dialekt) mit Bibliographie, Lesestücken und Wörterverzeichnissen. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie Verlag. Tsal, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1994. On nominal islands and LF extraction in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 121–175. Tsal, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1999a. On lexical courtesy. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 39–73. Tsal, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1999b. The hows of why and the whys of how. Ms. National Tsing Hua University/University of California at Irvine. Tuller, Laurie. 1986. Bijective relations in Universal Grammar and the syntax of Hausa. PhD Dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles. Vries, Mark de. 2002. The syntax of relativization. PhD Dissertation. University of Amsterdam. (LOT Dissertation Series 53. Utrecht: LOT). Wahba, Wafaa Abdel-Faheem Batran. 1991. LF movement in Iraqi Arabic. In Logical structure and linguistic structure: A cross-linguistic perspective [Studies in linguistics and philosophy 40], C.-T. James Huang & Robert May (eds), 253–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and s-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 255–291. Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Case absorption and wh-agreement. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Watanabe, Akira. 2001. Wh-in-situ languages. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds), 203–225. Oxford: Blackwell. Zaenen, Annie. 1983. On syntactic binding. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 469–504.

P



Futher issues: cyclicity, accessibility and unavailability of copying

Cyclic chain reduction Tomohiro Fujii Nanzan University

Based on new evidence having to do with binding reconstruction, this chapter argues that copy raising constructions in English such as John seems like he is intelligent are to be analyzed as involving A-movement of the subject of the embedded clause, coupled with pronunciation of the copy left in the embedded subject position as a resumptive of sorts. Using Chomsky’s (2001a, b) phase-based framework, the paper shows that copy raising constructions constitute an argument for taking the PF operation that deletes copies of a chain (Nunes’s 2004 Chain Reduction) to apply in a cyclic fashion. More specifically, it is proposed that Chain Reduction marks for deletion all the non-highest copies that are visible to the operation when it applies. The domain that the operation affects is determined by the notion of cycle, which is in turn characterized by the notion of phase. Thus, when the highest copy among those visible to the operation sits at the edge of a phase, it is not marked for deletion at that phase, but it can be deleted at the next higher cycle. By contrast, when the highest copy is not in the edge but somewhere inside the domain of the phase – as in the case of the copy in the embedded subject position of copy raising constructions –, it cannot be deleted even if further movement takes place, because the domain of the phase will have been spelled-out before Chain Reduction applies.

.

Outline of the proposal

Chomsky (1993) introduces a copy theory of movement and notes that “the trace left behind is a copy of the moved element, deleted by a principle of the PF component in the case of overt movement”. (Chomsky 1993/1995: 202) Since then several proposals have been made about what the “principle of the PF component” is. It seems fairly standard under this approach to think that copies left by movement must be deleted by some deletion operation in order to meet some requirement of the PF component. Following Nunes (2004), I call the copy deletion operation ‘Chain Reduction (CR)’. All the previous proposals agree that any adequate theory of copy deletion must capture the fact that in unmarked cases,

 Tomohiro Fujii

the following generalization holds (Nunes 2004; Bošković 2002a; Bobaljik 1995, 2002; Pesetsky 1998): (1)

Delete all copies of chain CH but the highest one.1

Here I use, for convenience, the term ‘chain’ to refer to sets of copies of a syntactic object that is selected from the numeration and constructed by application(s) of merge. Though any theory of linearization of chains has to explain this generalization, I am not committed to this issue here (see Nunes 2004, among others). Rather, I will use this generalization to argue for a cyclic model of grammar, in which CR applies cycle by cycle. ‘Cycle’ is taken here to mean that the computational system identifies a certain portion of the structure that is constructed in the course of the derivation as a unit at which a certain set of operations is performed. To put it in Bach’s (1974) words, the entire sequence of (applicable) operations is traversed for the most deeply embedded cycle, and then the computational system returns to the first (applicable) operation for the next most deeply embedded cycle, and so on. In this section, I would like to sketch my proposal, which appeals to the notion of phase and the operation Spell-out (Chomsky 2000, 2001a, b; see also Uriagereka 1999). The empirical focus of the paper is on the so-called copy raising or seems like construction in English. I will argue that the construction exhibits an instance of ‘lower copy pronunciation’ and that this property is a result of applying (1) phase by phase. To see how a ‘non-cyclic’ model of CR and its cyclic counterpart would differ, let us consider successive cyclic wh-movement such as what do you think Mary ate?. (2)

[CP what1 do you think [CP what2 Mary ate what3]]

Suppose the sentence involves successive cyclic movement of the sort that we see in (2). If CR applies after all the movement operations are done, then what2 and what3 should be deleted, according to (1), which yields the correct output what do you think what Mary ate what?. Now let us think about what happens if (1) applies cycle by cycle. Assume that CPs are cyclic nodes for the sake of discussion. Since we have two domains in (2), the operation applies two times — at the lower CP and at the higher CP. When (1) applies to the lower CP, what2 should be treated as the “head” of chain CH (what2, what3). This is so because what1, which is not contained in the lower CP, is invisible to the operation. Now consider how (1) applies at the higher cycle. If the specifier of the lower CP is not visible to the operation

. A comment on the notion of chain is in order. I believe that the proposal that we will make does not need to assume conditions on the well-formedness of chains. That is, “copies of chain CH” in (1) can read as “copies that are not distinguished in the initial numeration” (Hornstein 2001: 80; cf. Nunes 2004: chapter 1). See also Section 2.2 for relevant discussion. For various instances of pronunciation of a non-top copy, see Nunes (2004), Pesetsky (1998, 2000), Bošković (2002b), Grohmann (2003), Bobaljik (1995, 2002).

Cyclic chain reduction 

performed at the higher cycle, we would make a wrong prediction: *What do you think what Mary ate? is predicted to be grammatical. This apparent problem is readily resolved if we adopt Chomsky’s proposal that the edge position of each cycle (‘phase edge’) is an ‘exception’ in the sense that the specifier position of phase XP is visible to operations applied at the next higher phase. Once we assume this particular cyclic model, the copy in the intermediate Spec-CP that survives copy deletion at the lowest phase is still visible to CR performed at the next higher phase. The derivation is summarized in (3) below. As in Step (a) of (3), the wh-phrase moves successive cyclically to the matrix CP, leaving two copies behind. I assume that once the formal requirements of the head of a phase are satisfied, CR applies to the lower phase.2 Step (b) represents the application of CR to the embedded CP, where what2 and what3 are visible copies to the deletion operation. Then the latter is deleted since the former is the highest one. In Step (c), Spell-out applies to the lower CP and the TP undergoes Spell-out. What2 gets deleted by the application of CR at the higher CP, as shown in Step (d), where what1 and what2 are visible copies. Deletion of the lower visible copy yields the desired effect: what1 is retained while what2 is deleted. (3)

Step (a) Step (b) Step (c) Step (d)

[CP what1 do you think [CP what2 [TP Mary ate what3]] ] [CP what1 do you think [CP what2 [TP Mary ate what3]] ] [CP what1 do you think [CP what2 [TP Mary ate what3]] ] [CP what1 do you think [CP what2 . . . ] ]

Thus cyclic CR, put together with Chomsky’s conception of cycle (i.e. phase), successfully predicts the non-existence of cases like what do you think what Mary ate?. The generalization is that the highest copy in phase PH that has not undergone deletion can be deleted later only if it is in the edge of PH. Now I would like to point out that this mode of application of CR makes a specific prediction for cases where something moves long-distance, without passing through the edge of a phase. The prediction in question is that in such cases, the relevant chain will have two positions that have to be phonetically realized if the moved item has phonological content at all. To see why, let us consider (4): (4)

[CP . . . αi1 . . . [CP [TP . . . αi2 . . . αi3 . . .]] ]

In (4), element αi moves out of the embedded TP to the matrix TP directly. When CR applies to the lower CP phase, it only deletes the lowest copy of α, αi3 ((5)a). Recall the system applies the generalization in (1) cyclically. Then the highest copy at that cycle, i.e. αi2, is left undeleted. Going onto the next cycle, CR leaves αi1 undeleted . Saying that CR precedes Spell-out apparently implies that we are claiming that this deletion operation applies in narrow syntax. It is not necessarily so, however. It is perfectly coherent to say that “interface” operations such as CR have access to structures built by syntax and manipulate/ evaluate those structures. A similar approach to binding can be found in Epstein et al (1998).

 Tomohiro Fujii

since that copy is the head of the visible portion of the chain at this cycle ((5)b). The two applications of CR would end up with (5)c, where αi2 is not in the edge of the phase and therefore cannot be deleted at the next higher phase. In other words, when CR applies to the root CP, the domain containing αi2 has already undergone Spell-out. (5)

a. b. c.

[CP . . . αi1 . . . [CP [TP . . . αi2 . . . αi3 . . . ]] ] [CP . . . αi1 . . . [CP . . . ] ] [CP . . . αi1 . . . [CP [TP . . . αi2 . . . αi3 . . . ]]]

If this prediction is empirically correct, it will be a strong argument for the cyclic theory of CR, because if the operation applies to the whole chain in a ‘last-cyclic’ manner, (1) would not allow any non-top copy to be pronounced. In what follows, I will argue that there exists a construction in English in which we can test this prediction and that properties of this construction are expected under the cyclic theory but not the last-cyclic theory. The construction we will discuss is the socalled copy-raising construction, for example, (6)a. I will claim that a sentence like (6)a is derived by a derivation that involves A-movement from the lower Spec-TP to the higher Spec-TP, as in (6)b, and that the “trace” left by this movement has to be pronounced since it is the highest copy among the copies contained by the embedded CP. (6)

a. b.

This book seems like it is popular among young kids [TP This book seems [CP like [TP is popular among young kids ]]]

To maintain that this construction is one that provides us with a testing ground for cyclic CR, we have to show at least two things: (i) that the construction under consideration may allow for a derivation in which the subject of the embedded like clause moves overtly to the matrix clause; and (ii) that the movement in question does not pass through the intermediate Spec-CP. The second step is crucial because if the moving element stops in the Spec-CP on the way to the final landing site, it would be expected that the embedded subject should be deleted. I will show that copy raising has these two properties. The organization of the paper is as follows: Section 2 attempts to argue that the seems like construction may involve overt A-movement from the subject position of a finite clause. In Section 3, first we present an argument that the embedded subject, when it is A-moved long distance, does not pass through the Spec-CP, i.e. the edge of the CP phase. After doing so, I show that the analysis proposed in this paper for the copy raising construction can be accommodated by the theory of movement locality proposed by Chomsky (2001a) and a theory of multiple Case checking of the type advocated by Bejar and Massam (1999). In the discussion of Case theory in the latter part of Section 3, I propose a generalization about the

Cyclic chain reduction 

correlation between the pronominal copy phenomenon under consideration and multiple Case checking (‘pronominal copy/multiple Case checking’ generalization). In Section 4, I examine other cases of multiple Case checking (Norwegian topicalization and Italian/French pseudo-relatives) and provide further empirical support for this generalization. It is shown that cyclic CR makes correct predictions concerning whether the lower case position is pronounced or not in these constructions. Section 5 discusses a conceivable alternative analysis to mine and two facts that appear to argue for that alternative. Section 6 concludes the paper.

. .

Long A-movement in seems like constructions Long A-chains

This section is devoted to presenting an argument that the seems like construction involves overt long distance A-movement from Case position (see the derivation given in (6)). ‘Long distance’ means here that the movement in question is out of a finite CP, which has been considered to be illicit in the literature (see Aoun 1981, for instance). I follow Potsdam and Runner (2001) (P&R, hereafter) in characterizing the English seems like construction as follows: if the matrix predicate of a sentence takes a finite complement clause headed by like, as if, or as though, the sentence is classified as a seems like construction. Examples like those given in (7) fall under this category. (7)

a. b. c. d.

Maryi seems [as if shei is intelligent] This cari looks [like iti is difficult to drive] [Naomi and Bill]i seem to me [as if theyi are in trouble] This buildingi appears [as though iti is under construction]

When a seems like construction involves such movement, I refer to the movement operation or the construction involving such movement as copy raising and also, following prior studies of this construction, I refer to the pronoun in the embedded clause co-indexed with the matrix subject as “pronominal copy”. As already noticed in the early 1970’s, this construction shares some properties with regular raising.3 For instance, copy raising passes there-insertion test or idiom test, as we can see below. In (8) and (9), non-referential subjects occur in the matrix subject position.

. Earliest discussions of the seems like construction can be found in Rogers (1971, 1972, 1974ab) and Postal (1971, 1974). This construction was also discussed in the GB era (Lappin 1983, Heycock 1994).

 Tomohiro Fujii

(8)

a. b.

There looks like there’s gonna be a riot There seem as if there are problems

(Rogers 1974a: 551) (P&R: 455)

(9)

a. The cat looks like it’s been let out of the bag (Rogers 1971:217) b. %The shoe looks like it’s on the other foot (P&R: 455)4 c. %The shit appears as though it’s going to hit the fan very soon (P&R: 455)

This suggests that the matrix subject position of the construction appears to be non-thematic just like that of the regular raising construction. As Rogers (1971) and Postal (1974) correctly pointed out, however, copy raising appears not to obey a constraint that regular raising obeys. As can be seen in examples like those in (10), the pronominal copy does not have to be the subject of the clausal complement of copy raising verbs. (10)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Ted looks like Jane has been hassling him again (Postal 1974:268) This violin sounds like Max has been hammering nails with it (Postal 1974:268) Bill sounds like Martha hit him over the head with the record The roach looks to me like Abbie gave it to Myrna (Rogers 1974b:94-98) Ermintrude looks like the cat got her tongue (Heycock 1994:290) Mary appears as if her job is going well (Lappin 1983:122) That book sounds like everyone thinks it should be banned (Heycock 1994:290) The corpse seemed like the coroner had done an exceptionally bad job of dissecting it (Asudeh and Toivonen 2005: ex 13)

Postal (1974: 268) notes that “[a]n attempt to combine Raising with [Copy Raising] would make it hard to state that Raising in all other cases is restricted to subjects”. Given this, it is no longer entirely clear what the examples given in (8)–(9) tell us. In their extensive investigation of seems like constructions, P&R observe that, descriptively speaking, the Minimal Link Condition is respected in seems like constructions only when the pronominal copy is in the subject position of the like clause, as in (11)b and (12)b below:5 (11)

a. The shiti appears as if iti is likely to hit the fan very soon b. *The shiti appears as if John expects iti to hit the fan very soon

(12)

a. Therei seems like therei is likely to be a unicorn in the garden b. *Therei seems like John expects therei to be a unicorn in the garden

. P&R use the symbol % to indicate that there is some dialectal variation in the acceptability of the relevant example. . See P&R for other arguments in favor of the involvement of A-chain formation in this construction.

Cyclic chain reduction 

The idiomatic interpretation of the shit hits the fan cannot be retained in (11)b since John intervenes between part of the idiom and the pronominal copy. For the double there construction, the higher instance of there and a unicorn in (12)a are in an expletive-associate relation by being mediated by the lower instance of there, just as there and its associate are mediated by the trace in the lower subject position in there seems [ t to be a unicorn]. Again, if a DP intervenes, then no legitimate A-chain obtains. P&R thus had to propose a way to handle examples like (10)a–h. They conclude that it is possible that a seems like sentence, when the subject is thematic, does not involve A-chains. Namely, a predicate occurring in this construction is lexically ambiguous between discharging and not discharging subject theta role (cf. Lasnik and Saito 1992). According to P&R’s claim, which I essentially adopt, matrix predicates like those found in (10)a–h, unlike those found in (8)–(9), take their subject as their external argument. Roughly, the examples in (10)a–h are grammatical in the same way as examples like Billi thinks Jane loves himi are grammatical.6 Since the dependency between the matrix subject and the pronominal copy is not an A-chain in these cases, the fact that no MLC effect is observed is totally expected. Returning to the intervention effect found in (11) and (12), P&R propose that the matrix subject enters into an “Agree” relation with the embedded subject to form an A-chain (cf. Chomsky 2000). Details aside, they claim that no overt movement takes place but an A-chain is formed between the two subjects. (See Rezac 2004, who draws a similar conclusion on the derivation of the

. The ‘thematic vs. non-thematic’ dichotomy adopted here involves some complications. Asudeh (2004) and Asudeh and Toivonen (2005) report that perception verbs and verbs like seem/ appear differ in an interesting way. The former, unlike the latter, allow the embedded clause not to have a pronominal copy, as in (i) (from Asudeh 2004: 368). (i)

a. *Richard seems like Gonzo has been baking b. Richard smells like Gonzo has been baking

This contrast does not follow from what has been said so far. Specifically, since examples like (10)f and (10)h suggest the thematic use of seem exists, (ia) should be fine, contrary to fact. The subject of verbs of the seem/appear type must bind a pronoun for unknown reasons. In this connection, Ivano Caponigro (p.c.) brought the following pair to my attention. (ii)

a. My committee says that they hate my dissertation b. *My committee seems like they hate my dissertation

Even the speakers who accept (iia) do not accept (iib). The matrix subject must agree with the pronominal copy with respect to grammatical features such as number. I do not have a definite answer to the question of why (ia) and (iib) are unacceptable if the thematic use of seem is possible. See Asudeh (2004) and Asudeh and Toivonen (2005) for a proposal concerning the non-expletive surface subject of seem/appear.

 Tomohiro Fujii

construction under discussion; see also Manzini and Roussou 2000, Lebeaux 1998 for A-chain formation without movement.) Their argument is based on the assumption that A-movement out of a finite clause is barred, which was a wellestablished claim in GB theory. (See Ura 1994, 1998; Moore 1998; Fujii 2003; Nevins 2004.) In the next subsection, I propose, contra P&R, that it is possible for copy raising to involve overt A-movement out of a finite CP, whereas I adopt P&R’s analysis of examples whose matrix subject is thematic. .

Evidence for long overt A-movement

We have seen so far that the matrix subject and the pronominal copy may form an A-chain if the relevant dependency obeys the MLC. Now we hope to decide, empirically, whether or not A-chains in the seems like construction are those that result from overt movement. In this subsection I use reconstruction effects found in psych predicate constructions to argue that it is possible for the matrix subject to move out of a finite CP to the matrix TP. To do so, I will start with the paradigm that Lebeaux (1998: 5) observes. (13)

a. Each other’s mothers seem [t to please the two boys] b. Each other’s mothers pleased the two boys

(14) ?*John seemed to each other’s mothers [t to please the two boys]

A psych verb like please allows for ‘backward binding’, as in (13)b. (14) shows that it is impossible for the object of the infinitival complement to be the antecedent to the reciprocal inside the experiencer argument of seem, which is a matrix element. The acceptability of (13)a can be accounted for if we assume there is an A-movement trace/copy of each other’s mothers in the embedded infinitival clause. In this account, the reciprocal in (13)a is licensed in exactly the same way as the reciprocal in (13)b is. The same state of affairs holds for bound variable interpretation of pronouns (Lebeaux 1998: 6). (15)

a. His first performance seems [t’ to be expected [t to please every composer]] b. *The president seems to his first wife [t’ to be expected [t to please every man]]

For our purposes, the following generalization suffices: (16)

If the anaphor/bound pronoun appearing in the constituent α within the clause Cl1 at surface structure is licensed with respect to the antecedent appearing in the embedded clause Cl2, where [Cl1 . . . [α . . . anaphor/bound variablei . . . ] . . . . [Cl2 . . . antecedenti . . .]], then α has moved out of Cl2 and left a copy in that clause.

One way to explain this generalization is to appeal to a version of the well-known Belletti/Rizzi-style analysis of psych constructions, which, combined with their

Cyclic chain reduction 

proposal concerning Condition A, accounts for anaphor licensing of the sort found in (13). That is, Condition A is an ’anywhere’ condition in the sense that it can be fulfilled at any stage of the derivation (Belletti and Rizzi 1988, Uriagereka 1988, Lasnik and Hendrick 2003; cf. Fox 2000, Fox and Nissenbaum 2004), and the causer argument starts out lower than the experiencer argument. The surface subject moves up to the Spec-TP (perhaps through another thematic position, i.e. some causer argument position inside a verb phrase (Hornstein and Motomura 2002; see also Pesetsky 1995, Baker 1997)). Prior to the point where the surface subject moves from the base position, the anaphor inside the moving argument is licensed by being A-bound by the experiencer. We can think of pronoun binding in essentially the same way, following Sabel (2002: 276). Bound pronouns are licensed if they are A-bound by their quantificational antecedent in any stage of the derivation. Keeping this in mind, let us return to the seems like construction. The construction, just like the regular raising construction, displays a binding reconstruction effect (see Section 5 for scope reconstruction). The direct object of the embedded clause can bind an anaphor/bound variable contained by the surface matrix subject. (17)

a. b.

[The naked pictures of hisi father]j look like theyj would make no boyi aggravated [These stories about each otheri]j sound like theyj would frighten John and Maryi

Given the generalization stated in (16) and the analysis sketched above, the acceptability of the examples in (17) implies that there must be a copy of the matrix subject inside the like or as if clause. Continuing to assume the Belletti-Rizzi type analysis of backward binding, these sentences should have a representation of the following kind at some point of the derivation. (18)

. . . [CP like [TP [ these stories about each otheri] T [VP (t’α) frighten [VP John and Maryi tfrighten tα ]]]]

If the matrix subject were base-generated in the matrix clause, the binding condition would never be licensed. This thus suggests that in examples like those involving binding reconstruction, the matrix subject is originated in the embedded clause and moves to the matrix clause. Now observe that, according to my informants, the examples in (17)a/b contrast with those in (19)a/b, where the coindexed pronoun is not the subject of the complement clause. (If the subject does not contain an anaphor or an bound variable, the examples are improved, as in (19)a’/b’.) (19)

a. *[The naked pictures of hisi father]j look like no boyi would hate themj a’. [The naked pictures of hisi father]j look like Johni would hate themj b. ?*[These stories about each otheri]j sound like [John and Mary]i would fear themj b’. [These stories about theiri friends]j sound like [John and Mary]i would fear themj

 Tomohiro Fujii

There are two potential derivations for sentences like (19)a and (19)b. Consider first the derivation in which movement is not involved, namely the surface subject is base-generated in the matrix clause (Recall that it is possible in principle to base generate the subject upstairs, as we saw in Section 2). Then the anaphor/pronoun binding in question must fail due to the condition stated in (16). The anaphor and the bound pronoun in (19) never have a chance to appear inside the like/as if clause under this derivation. When, on the other hand, the derivation involves movement of the DP containing an anaphor/bound pronoun, the matrix subject position and the pronominal copy are linked in such a way that the MLC is violated. In those examples, the elements in boldface are closer to the matrix Spec-TP position than the actually raised elements are. Thus we correctly predict that (19)a and (19)b are ungrammatical. If copy raising cannot have a derivation involving overt movement, the contrast between (17)a/b and (19)a/b cannot be captured. In the “A-chain formation without movement” account, the antecedent never binds the anaphor or bound pronoun at any point of the derivation. All other things being equal, we do not want to have both P&R’s A-chain formation mechanism and long A-movement in one system, and now we know that everything captured by Potsdam and Runner’s A-chain formation is captured by long distance A-movement, though not vice versa. This is an argument that A-chain formation must be done by movement. We can take the argument one step further. As an anonymous reviewer points out, the movement analysis of copy raising does not necessarily need the notion of A-chain, while analyses of the P&R type does. Take there-doubling again. (20)

There1 seems like there2 is a unicorn in the garden

Let us assume that there and its associate must be in some local relation (Postal 1974, Williams 1994, Moro 2000, Hornstein and Witkoś 2004, Hazout 2004, to name a few). If there1 is base-generated in the matrix clause as in P&R’s analysis, one has to say that the locality condition is met through the A-chain. That is, there1 and there2 are distinct elements, but they behave as if they are non-distinct due to A-chain formation. On the other hand, it is clear that the condition can be met without making recourse to A-chain under the movement analysis. There is just merged to a position close to an indefinite. It is also important to note that the movement analysis does not need A-chains either to explain the minimality effect discussed in the previous section or to make cyclic copy deletion apply. It is possible to state the MLC as a condition on operations (Chomsky 1995). It is also possible to state (1) as follows: Delete all non-distinct copies but the highest one. Non-distinctness is defined in terms of the initial numeration (Nunes 2004: chapter 1; Hornstein 2001: 80; Grohmann 2003: chapter 2). We will see in Section 3.2 that the matrix and embedded subjects both need Case. Notice that if this is correct, the A-chain under discussion is an A-chain that needs two Case positions. A question arises.

Cyclic chain reduction 

Why is it that one Case is not enough to license this A-chain while one associate NP is enough to meet the indefiniteness requirement of two instances of there? It seems at least bizarre to say that only this particular A-chain has a different requirement with respect to the Case Filter. If an A-chain itself does not exist, the problem goes away; see Epstein and Seely 2005 for related issues. Because the movement analysis does not need to assume A-chains, this problem does not arise. Hence, the fact that the construction involves multiple nominative Case positions constitutes an argument in favor of the movement analysis.

.

The derivation of copy raising and chain reduction

.

Subject passing through Spec-CP?

Having argued that the subject of copy raising moves overtly, we attempt to show that the movement in question is from a Spec-TP to the next higher Spec-TP without passing through the intermediate Spec-CP. First, let us consider the question of whether the complement clause headed by particles like as if, like, and as though contains a complemetizer or not.7 There is evidence that a CP is involved in the it-analogue of seems like construction. (21)

a. b.

It seems/appears/sounds [like/as if/as though Richard is in trouble] It seems [that Richard is in trouble]

Chomsky and Lasnik (1977) claim that expletive it needs a CP-associate. In (21)b, the that clause is the associate of it. In (21)a, the most likely possibility would be that the associate of it is the like/as if/ as though clause. Also, the head of the clause we are looking at displays something very similar to the that-trace effect. (22)

a. *Who does it seem [{like/as if/ as though} t wants this laptop]? a’. What does it seem [{like/ as if/ as though} John wants t]? b. *Who does it seem [that t wants this laptop]? b’. What does it seem [that John wants t]?

The contrast between (22)a and (22)a’ is parallel to that between (22)b and (22)b’. This parallelism can be accounted for if we assume that like, as if and as though are complementizers, no matter what the explanation for the Comp-trace effect turns out to be. (We will come back to the Comp-trace effect shortly.) The simplest . The claim has been made that the instance of like occurring in the construction is a preposition (Maling 1983, Heycock 1994, Potsdam and Runner 2001, Asudeh 2004). As far as CP exists (as the complement of P) and the PP is not a phase, our major claim can be maintained under the PP hypothesis. I thank an anonymous reviewer for drawing this issue to my attention.

 Tomohiro Fujii

hypothesis seems to be that the particles in the seems like construction and those in the it-analogue are the same lexical items. If so, John seems like he is intelligent should involve a CP complement. Thus, these observations, put together with the reconstruction effect that we discussed, imply that copy raising involves overt raising out of finite CPs. Now we are in a position to investigate the derivation of long A-movement more closely. In particular we can ask whether or not the raised subject passes through Spec-CP on its way to the matrix Spec-TP. The conclusion that we will draw is that the subject does not move up to the intermediate Spec-CP on the way to the matrix clause. Note first that if the subject moves through the Spec-CP to the matrix Spec-TP, the movement would be improper movement if the intermediate step is to an A’-position. If the complementizer only discharges an A’-specifier, then the raised subject cannot move through that position. A second, stronger argument has to do with there-doubling sentences, which we have already seen above. The argument proceeds as follows: Let us assume that English does not allow C to have overt multiple specifiers. This assumption is empirically reasonable to the extent that the standard Subjacency account of wh-islands is empirically successful. If the copy raising subject must pass through the specifier of the relevant complementizer, then the seems like construction involving overt subject raising should yield a Subjacency effect with long wh-movement out of the like/as if/as though clause. If, on the other hand, the raised subject does not move through the specifier of the complementizer, that site should be available as an escape hatch for wh-movement. Now observe:8 (23)

How many problems do there seem like there are __ in this paper?

According to my informants, (23) is clearly better than a violation of the wh-island constraint such as *how many problems do you wonder whether there are __ in this paper?. This means that the complementizer like discharges a specifier but the long distance subject raising under consideration does not use that position.9 . The example involves there. Acceptable examples like What did Richard seem like he liked? might not tell us whether the subject moves through Spec-CP since the subject can be basegenerated in the matrix clause. . The distribution of floating quantifiers may provide a further testing ground for determining how the subject reaches the final landing site. An anonymous reviewer gave me a paradigm like the following: (i)

a. The students all seem like they know French b. *The students seem all like they know French c. The students seem all to know French

If there is a site that the subject can pass through between the higher Spec-TP and lower Spec-TP, it might be predicted that (iib) should be acceptable, contrary to fact (Sportiche 1988,

Cyclic chain reduction 

This kind of long distance A-movement has been considered as illegitimate in many theories but is actually predicted to be possible by Chomsky’s (2001a, b) Phase Impenetrability Condition. The condition does allow the movement from the Spec-TP to the matrix clause without an intermediate step. The PIC can be stated as follows (adapted from Chomsky 2001a: 14):10 (24)

Phase Impenetrability Condition: The domain of a phase is only accessible to syntactic operations until the head of the next phase is introduced.

First, this condition disallows the matrix v to attract any element inside the sister of C, because C and v both are the heads of phases, as in (25), where the domain of the CP phase is highlighted.11 (25)

... [vP ... v

V [TP β T [VP ... ]]]]

On the other hand, when the structure lacks v, attraction of the embedded SpecTP position is expected to be possible.12 The PIC allows the proposed derivation of copy raising, assuming that the as if-CP involves a strong phase and the VP headed by seem does not (but see Legate 2003 for a different view). As can be seen in (26) below, the PIC allows the higher T to attract/agree with (a feature of) the subject DP of the embedded clause since the domain of the phase, is accessible until the higher C is introduced. The higher T is introduced earlier than C and therefore it is able to affect the DP in the lower Spec-TP.13 Bošković 2004). I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer and Željko Bošković for bringing the relevance of quantifier floating to my attention. . We cannot adopt the version of PIC proposed in Chomsky (2000), which predicts that the subject of the complement clause cannot be extracted in general. If our analysis of copy raising is right, it provides an argument in favor of Chomsky’s (2001a) formulation of the constraint. . We predict that copy raising to object position does not exist. This is because in (25), v cannot attract β unless the category moves to the edge of the finite CP. If β moves, v can agree with it, which possibly yields “ECM over a finite CP-boundary.” Note that if movement to Sec-CP takes place, the copy in the Spec-TP must be deleted by CR because the Spec-CP, but not the Spec-TP, is the highest copy among those that are visible for the operation. See Massam (1985), Polinsky and Potsdam (2001), Branigan and MacKenzie (2002), Bruening (2001), Rezac (2004), and references cited therein for relevant discussions. . Under standard GB assumptions, this movement does not result in a well-formed representation. For instance, Aoun (1981: 93ff.) analyzes the relevant sort of configuration to be a violation of the ECP. See Moore (1998) for relevant discussion. . One immediate question arises as to why hyper-raising of the following kind is disallowed. (i)

*John seems (that) {__/ he} is intelligent

 Tomohiro Fujii

(26)

[TP… T [VP V [CP as if [TP DP [T' T …]] ]]

This way, Chomsky’s (2001a) PIC accommodates the derivation of copy raising that we are proposing. To summarize, we proposed that CR applies phase by phase. Cyclic CR predicts that, in the structure give in (27) below, αi2 is regarded as the head of the relevant chain at the lower CP phase.14 So only the lowest copy, αi3, undergoes copy deletion. Then the deletion operation applies at the next higher phase, but crucially the copy in the embedded Spec-TP cannot be deleted by this application of the operation at that phase, since αi3, which is not the edge of the phase, is invisible for the operation. (27)

[CP αi1 seems [CP as if [TP . . .αi2. . . αi3 . . .]] ]

This should be understood as a consequence of Spell-out. Chomsky states that in PH = [α [H β]], “[a] natural condition, . . ., is that β must be spelled out at PH, but not the edge: that allows for head-raising, raising of the predicate-internal subject SPEC-T, and an “escape hatch” for successive-cyclic movement through the edge” (Chomsky 2001b: 5). So (28) (from Chomsky 2001a: 14) requires that the domain of phase PH1 be spelled-out after the next phase PH2 is built. (28)

PH1 is interpreted/evaluated at next relevant phase PH2.

If the domain of the lower phase was spelled-out after CR applied to the matrix phase, the effect that we want would not ensue, because the Spec-TP would be still visible for the application of CR and would be deleted. I would like to note one more thing about the ungrammaticality of examples of the sort given in (29): (29)

*The man seems as if __ was the mayor of the city

One could say that this kind of example might be illegitimate for the same reason as the following (30) is illegitimate. ((30) and (31) below are from Pesetsky and Torrego 2001.) (30)

*Sue met the man who Mary is claiming that __ was the mayor of the city

(30) shows an instance of Comp-trace effect. Since as if/like is a complementizer, the Comp-t sequence that (29) has should cause the ungrammaticality. But there We will return to this issue in Section 3.3. See Chomsky (2001b: 45, note 29), who claims that the ungrammaticality of (i) has nothing to do with the PIC. . As a reviewer notes, if the current proposal is right, the to infinitival complement to raising and ECM predicates cannot be CP.

Cyclic chain reduction 

is evidence that (29) involves more than a Comp-trace effect. As already pointed by Bresnan (1977), adverbs like all intents and purposes, when following that, make the Comp-trace effect disappear, as in (31). (31)

Sue met the man who Mary is claiming that [for all intents and purposes] __ was the mayor of the city

This kind of improvement is not observed with the as if-trace sequence, as in (32): (32)

a. *The man seems as if [for all intents and purposes] __ was the mayor of the city b. The man seems as if [for all intents and purposes] he was the mayor of the city

Thus, even if the empty subject position of the as if clause yields a Comp-trace effect, we need the Cyclic Chain Reduction to account for the contrast in (32). .

Case

In previous sections, we have discussed two peculiar properties of copy raising: pronunciation of the embedded subject position and locality. Here is a third peculiar property. The construction involves multiple Case checking.15 The subject DP of copy raising appears to have more than one Case, since the movement is from Case position to another Case position. Again, this is something that most theories of Case do not permit (e.g. Chomsky 1981, 1986; Rizzi 1986; Lasnik 1995b; Bošković 1997; Chomsky 2000, 2001a, b). In Chomsky’s (2000) terms, such a derivation is said to be violating the Activity Condition, which says that having an uninterpretable feature is a necessary condition for an item to undergo A-movement or Case checking (cf. Ura 1994, 1998; Nevins 2004). However, whether or not the ban on multiple Case checking is a correct generalization is not as clear as we thought (see the discussion below) Let us first consider how multiple Case checking takes place in the derivation of copy raising. We essentially adopt the theory of multiple Case checking proposed by Bejar and Massam (1999). They argue that the following option is allowed at least in some languages: a DP enters the derivation with an unspecified case slot, which is eventually assigned a value by the functional head that the DP is associated with.16 When the DP enters into a checking relation with head G that will assign . One terminological note. Our “multiple Case checking” should not be confused with the same terminology that refers to the situation where one Case assigner is associated with more than one nominal. For instances of multiple Case checking in this sense, see Ura 1994, Hiraiwa 2005, among others. . To be fair, it should be noted that Bejar and Massam (1999: 68, note 3) reject the possibility of assimilating the English seems like construction to the multiple Case assignment construction involving movement. In this connection, one anonymous reviewer suggests an alternative.

 Tomohiro Fujii

Case (call it “CaseG”), the slot of the DP is assigned the value “CaseG”. Suppose next that another Case assigning head F (which assigns “CaseF”) attracts that DP (whose case slot has the value CaseG). Bejar and Massam propose that at this point of the derivation, the value of the Case feature that has been determined in the first Case position (CaseG) is left behind. As a result, the moving DP, which now has its case slot unspecified again, can get the new value “CaseF” from the higher functional head F. This is illustrated as in (33): (33)

[FPαi1[Case-F] F ... [GPαi2[Case-G] G ... [... αi3 ... ]]]

Bejar and Massam’s original claim is that leaving a Case value behind is not an option for English (see note 16). But it is worth considering in the present context whether we can extend this ‘Case stranding’ theory to English copy raising, because our analysis of copy raising is making this very claim. In fact, it is possible to make an independent argument that the Case value of the moving subject is stranded in the lower subject position when it undergoes long A-movement. Consider (34) and (35): (34)

a. *the belief [John to seem to be intelligent] b. *I conjectured [John to seem to have kissed Mary]

(35)

a. *the belief [John to seem like he is intelligent] b. *I conjectured [John to seem like he is intelligent]

(34)a and (34)b are instances of Case Filter violation because neither the nominal belief nor the verb conjecture is a Case assigner (see Bošković 1997, 2002b).17 If this is right, the ungrammaticality of (35)a and (35)b should be taken to be showing that the subject of the infinitival clause in these examples needs Case even though the moved element has obtained Case inside the like clause. Furthermore, if a Case assigning head is available in the higher clause, the Case Filter violation disappears for both regular raising and copy raising, as in (36)a and (36)b: (36)

a. b.

I believe/expect [John to seem [to be intelligent]] I believe/expect [John to seem [like he is intelligent]]

This alternative attempts to maintain the Activity Condition by assuming that there is another uninterpretable feature on the embedded subject, which enables us to keep the DP still active for further feature checking, namely checking with the matrix T. The reviewer assumes that the feature in question is a Topic feature, which is eventually checked in the matrix TopP. I won’t be able to evaluate this alternative in detail at this point, but it should be noted that it may easily explain the fact concerning the anti-reconstruction effect that will be examined in section 5, given that, as Lasnik and Uriagereka (1988) observe, topicalized elements take surface scope. . Or conjecture can assign Case but its infinitival complement obtains that Case, making the embedded subject Case-less; cf. Hornstein, Martins and Nunes (2006).

Cyclic chain reduction 

The observation made in (34)-(36) strongly suggests that the raised subject of copy raising leaves the Case behind when it undergoes raising from Case position, and the Case-less copy in the infinitival clause induces a violation of the Case Filter. Bejar and Massam’s ’Case stranding’ theory of multiple Case checking accounts for this property of copy raising, as in (37) below. The highest copy lacks Case, which yields a Case Filter violation. (37)

[XP X[-Case] . . . [TP αi1[__] to[-Case] [VP seem [CP as if [TP αi2[NOM] T [VP . . . ]]]]]]

It is worth mentioning that this account of (34)-(36) presupposes the following: the derivation/representation of the relevant sentence is evaluated with respect to the Case Filter two times. Given that the Case Filter dictates that the uninterpretable or unspecified Case feature of an argument DP be checked or valued via checking, it would be unclear under the standard interpretation of the Case Filter why the subject of copy raising displays Case Filter effects at all in (35). This is because the Case of the subject DP has been already checked within the complement clause. So this reasoning suggests that the Case Filter must be satisfied more than one time in the derivation for multiple case checking constructions. This idea can be implemented naturally by taking the Case Filter to be a cyclic filter. Just as we did for CR, we can define relevant cycles to be phases in this case as well. Assuming that the v associated with the verb conjecture does not have the ability to check Case, the matrix vP for (35)b has a structure like the following: (38)

[vP DP v[-Case] [VP conjecture [TP αi1[__] to[-Case] [VP seem [CP as if [TP αi2[NOM] . . . ]]]]]]

When the matrix v is introduced, the as if-CP phase is evaluated with respect to the Case Filter. The filter is satisfied since the embedded subject gets Case properly from the embedded T. But the Case Filter is violated when the vP phase is evaluated: the head of the chain, αi1[__], lacks a Case value, as in (39), where the embedded TP (i.e. the domain of the lowest phase) has already been spelled-out/transferred, as indicated by a highlight. (39)

[CP C [TP DP T [vP tDP v[-Case] [VP conjecture [TP αi1[__] to[-Case] [VP seem as if . . .]]]] ]]

If the matrix verb is an ECM verb such as believe, then αi1 gets Case from the v associated with that verb and no Case Filter violation ensues. Finally, note that the present proposal implies that copy raising constructions be closely tied with multiple Case checking constructions. In our terms, whenever the lower copy in the embedded subject position survives copy deletion, the sentence involves multiple Case checking. If the lower copy or the higher copy does not get Case inside the relevant CP, it would lead the derivation to crash because either of the Case-less copies induces a Case Filter violation. Thus, we expect that copy raising always takes place from a Case position to another Case position. It is important to

 Tomohiro Fujii

note that the correlation between copy raising and multiple Case checking is not bidirectional. The present theory expects that even when a chain involves more than one Case position, it does not necessarily result in pronunciation of the lower copy. When the moving element moves to a phase edge position, the copy in the Case position in the embedded clause must not be pronounced. Thus we end up with the following generalization: (40)

‘PRONOMINAL COPY/MULTIPLE CASE CHECKING’ GENERALIZATION Pronunciation of the embedded subject position requires multiple Case checking, but not vice versa.

I will return to this generalization in Section 4.18

. The present theory of multiple Case checking has a consequence for the analysis of there existential constructions. Consider (i) (Potsdam and Runner’s (4b)): (i)

There seem like there are problems

Following Groat (1999), Chomsky (2000) and Potsdam and Runner (2001), I continue to assume that (i) is acceptable, though the judgment is not crystal clear. There have been two alternatives in the current framework regarding how expletive there is analyzed. Chomsky (1995), among many others, claims that there does not have Case and that the Case feature of T is checked by the associate NP. By contrast, Lasnik (1995a) claims, capitalizing on Belletti (1988), that the Case feature of T or Infl is checked by there, (see Groat 1999, Bošković 1997, 2002b, Hazout 2004, Hornstein and Witkoś 2004 for claims along these lines). The Case stranding theory of multiple Case checking is compatible with analyses of the Lasnik type, but not Chomsky’s. The bottom line is that the case slot of a copy cannot have more than one case value (Bejar and Massam 1999; cf. Nevins 2004). Recall that when an already Case-marked DP enters into a further Case-checking relation with a head, the DP leaves the Case behind by creating a copy, namely by moving to a higher position. So multiple Case checking entails displacement from Case position in this theory. In (i), if the proposed theory of multiple Case checking is correct, then the Chomsky-type analysis of expletive there is hard to maintain. Our Case theory prevents the associate nominal from entering into two Case checking relations without movement; the associate would not be able to “empty” its Case slot after having the first checking done if it does not move. Many questions remain unsettled about seems like sentences involving there. Many of the speakers I have consulted accept (ii), where the matrix verb shows “default” agreement (cf. Groat 1999 for a different judgment of a sentence like (ii). See Chomsky 2000, Rezac 2004:159 for relevant discussions). (ii)

There seems like there are serious problems remaining to be solved

If (ii) is permitted, it means that the matrix T does not always have to agree with its associate (cf. there’s dogs in the garden. See Hornstein and Witkoś 2004). Also, we can construct examples like (iii) and (iv), where the “associate” moves to the embedded Spec-TP, although the status of these examples is far from clear (cf. Fujii 2003; Rezac 2004). (iii) (iv)

There seems like a serious problem is remaining to be solved There seem like serious problems are remaining to be solved

Cyclic chain reduction 

.

A note on illicit long A-movement

Having argued that the copy raising construction involves long distance A-movement, we need to consider famous examples like (41), which have often been discussed in the literature.19 (41)

*Johni seems (that) ti is intelligent

It is often assumed in the literature that a DP cannot A-move out of a CP. The ungrammaticality of the sentence has been characterized as a case of the ban on A-movement across the CP boundary (Aoun 1981, Bošković 1997, among others) or the ban on A-movement from Case position (Chomsky 1986, Lasnik 1995b, Bošković 1997, Chomsky 2000, 2001a, b, among many others). As we have seen above, however, both properties are found in grammatical copy raising examples. Chomsky (2001a: 45, note 29) claims that an example like (41) does not have anything to do with the PIC (24). This condition does not prevent the matrix T from entering a checking relation with the embedded subject. He attributes the unacceptability of this type of example to the Activity Condition, according to which the embedded subject DP, whose Case feature is checked within the embedded clause, is not accessible to operations triggered by matrix elements. The matrix T then ends up having its uninterpretable features unchecked. (42)

[T(uφ) is believed [CP that John (φ,uCase) is intelligent]]

It seems that Chomsky’s account of (41) makes the wrong prediction that copy raising is not possible either. Hence Chomsky’s ‘Activity’ account is hard to maintain to the extent that our analysis of copy raising is valid. Note that the embedded subject position of examples like (41) is phonologically null. When movement takes place, cyclic CR predicts that the output should be an example like (43), which we assume is ungrammatical, following Lappin 1983. (See Nevins 2004 for discussion; see also note 19.) In this example, the embedded subject position is spelled out as a pronoun. So there is no problem for CR in (43). What then prevents the subject from raising out of CPs headed by that or null complementizer? (An anonymous reviewer finds (iii) and (iv) to be unacceptable.) More investigations are needed to determine what these examples tell us about the seems like construction and there existential constructions. . Ura (1998) reports that a sentence like ???John seems (that) he is intelligent is somewhat better than the version without lexical subject *John seems (that) __ is intelligent. (The observation is attributed to Howard Lasnik). This situation is compatible with our central claim about cyclic CR. In the text, I continue to assume the contrast between these two.

 Tomohiro Fujii

(43)

*Johni seems (that) hei is intelligent

Here I suggest that that and a null complementizer of the relevant kind have interpretable ϕ-features, which block A-movement, whereas like, as if and as though do not. If so, as illustrated in (44), the matrix T cannot attract the embedded subject because ϕ-features on the CP is closer to the target of movement than a DP is (see Groat 1999 for some relevant discussion about that; see also Picallo 2002, Fukui 1997, Tanaka 2005). (44)

[TP ___ T seem [CP(φ) {that/∅} [TP DP …

This view is supported by the fact that that clauses are able to stand in argument (or Case) positions to check ϕ-features of T or v (e.g. That Mary is smart is obvious; see Bošković 1995, Pesetsky and Torrego 2001 for this matter) whereas like/as if clauses never appear in such positions.20

.

Other instances of multiple case checking

Having examined the Case-theoretic property and copy deletion property of copy raising, I would like to examine in more detail the correlation between pronunciation of Case marked traces and multiple Case checking, which is introduced in (40) above. The present theory predicts that if the subject of the embedded clause moves to the Spec-CP, then the subject position will not be left undeleted regardless of whether the relevant construction involves multiple Case checking or not. We have already seen in Section 1 that cyclic CR successfully handles successive cyclic wh-movement. Now we will test this hypothesis with multiple Case checking constructions where movement to the intermediate Spec-CP takes place. There are two potential places where we can test the validity of our proposal: Norwegian topicalization and French/Italian pseudo-relative clauses. Taraldsen (1981) argues that topicalization in standard Norwegian involves multiple Case checking/assignment. When the subject of the embedded clause is fronted to the matrix clause, the fronted element is assigned nominative Case by the embedded Tense and accusative case by the matrix verb. Assuming that the auxiliary verb hadde ‘had’ moves to C and that topicalization is the operation that

. The fact that no CP headed by a null complemetizer occurs in subject position does not affect our argument. The distribution of null complementizers is more restricted than that of the that complementizer for an independent reason. See Bošković and Lasnik (2003) and references therein.

Cyclic chain reduction 

moves something to the matrix Spec-CP, Taraldsen proposes a derivation of the kind illustrated in (45)b for the example given in (45)a: (45)

a.

Per hadde de trodd __ ville komme forsent Peter had they thought __ would arrive too late ‘Peter, they thought __ would come too late.’

b.

[CP Peri haddej [TP de tj trodd

[CP ti ACC

[TP ti ville komme forsent]] ]] NOM

In (45)b, the moved element Per ‘Peter’ is assigned Case by the embedded T and by the matrix verb trodd ‘thought’ (or v/AgrO) “exceptionally”. Evidence that long distance subject topicalization involves multiple Case checking comes from what is called ‘case conflict’. Let us consider (45)a and the examples in (46) below. (46)

a.

derei hadde de trodd [CP ti [TP ti ville komme forsent]] ‘you..⁄, they thought __ would arrive too late.’ b. *{jeg, du, vi}i hadde de trodd [CP ti [TP ti ville komme forsent]] ‘{I, you.., we}, they thought __ would arrive too late.’ c. *{meg, deg, oss}i hadde de trodd [CP ti [TP ti ville komme forsent]] ‘{me, you.., us}, they thought __ would arrive too late.’

The difference between (45)a/(46)a and (46)b/c is attributed to the fact the topicalized elements in the former are morphologically neutralized or underspecified for nominative and accusative cases while those in the latter are not. The name Per and the second person plural pronoun dere do not have a morphological distinction between their nominative and their accusative forms. On the other hand, the first person singular, second person singular, and first person plural pronouns in Norwegian have different morphological forms for nominative and accusative cases, as we can see in the b- and c-examples. Taraldsen takes this type of contrast to be indicating that the topicalized element is doubly Case-marked and that such movement yields a grammatical output only if the morphological condition on case realization is met. To put it another way, an element can carry two different values of Case (e.g. nominative and accusative) only if the actual forms of these two Cases are non-distinct. Assuming that Taraldsen’s analysis of this construction is correct, let us now see how the proposed cyclic theory of CR works. Consider (47), where we assume that the topicalized DP passes through the matrix Spec-vP as well, though this assumption does not affect our argument. (47)

[CP1 DPi1 hadde [TP1 de [vP1 DPi2 tde v trodd [CP2 DPi3 [TP2 DPi4 ville DPi5 komme forsent]]]]]

Once the matrix v attracts the DP, the CR process starts from the lowest phase, CP2. At this level, CR deletes DPi4 and DPi5. Only DPi3, being the ‘head’ of the chain,

 Tomohiro Fujii

survives this deletion process. And then TP2 undergoes Spell-out. Next, when the matrix C is introduced, CR applies to vP1. At this point, the visible copies to the operation are DPi2 and DPi3. The latter, which is at the edge of CP2, undergoes deletion. Finally, CR applies to the highest phase, where the edge of the phase vP1 is visible for the deletion operation. Eventually, the chain ends up having all but the highest one deleted, as desired. We thus predict that in this Norwegian construction, the embedded subject is not allowed to avoid undergoing deletion when movement to the edge takes place. This is correct (Knut T. Taraldsen, p.c.).21 Thus the facts about Norwegian topicalization support our “pronominal copy/multiple Case checking” generalization, namely multiple Case checking does not presuppose pronunciation of the copy in the embedded subject position.22

. The dialect of Norwegian where case conflict applies (Taraldsen 1981) allows for resumption when the complementizer is overt (Knut T. Taraldsen, p.c.). For speakers whose grammar doesn’t exhibit a that-trace effect, resumption is always disallowed (Kjartan Ottosson, p.c., who attributes the observation to Jan Terje Faarlund). At first glance, the way that resumption is allowed in the former dialect appears to follow from cyclic CR if the embedded subject is extracted out of the CP without intermediate movement to the CP; see Taraldsen 1981 for such a derivation. Then the Spec-TP would count as the top copy in the embedded CP-phase. However, in the framework we are assuming, it is not clear how this movement can be made possible to begin with. The PIC should prevent v from attracting the embedded subject from the Spec-TP. The issue seems to boil down to the question as to whether resumption of the sort found in Subjacency violation environments should be explained by the proposed system. This question is left open in this paper. . The explanation of the case conflict phenomenon itself remains unclear in this paper. It appears that the highest copy of the chain created by topicalization carries two Case values here, which is unexpected from the Case stranding theory of multiple Case checking. Bejar and Massam (1999) propose that there is a parameter and that Norwegian, unlike English, chooses the value according to which a single DP can bear multiple case slots. However, the issue does not seem to be a matter of parameterization. Howard Lasnik (p.c.) informs me that the case conflict effect may be observed even in English, pointing out that (ia) sounds better than (ib). (i)

a. b.

Mary/you, John doubts __ solved the problem Her/She, John doubts __ solved the problem

If this is the case, the parameterization seems to be dubious. Rather, Lasnik’s observation suggests that when A’-movement takes place, the information concerning Case that the moving element has must be preserved in the copy merged into that A’-position, as in (ii) (assuming that the matrix Spec-vP and the Spec-CP are A’-positions). (ii)

[CP wh-[Nom/Acc] … [vP <wh-[Nom/Acc]> … [CP <wh-[Nom]> … [TP <wh-[Nom]>… ]]

Although this tentative solution of the problem concerning multiple Case involves the stipulation that this case value preservation process is restricted to A’-movement, some facts suggest that

Cyclic chain reduction 

One might wonder if the difference between the chain-pronunciation properties of copy raising and of Norwegian topicalization can be attributed to A/A’ distinction. One possible scenario would be that Case-marked A-traces must be pronounced while Case-marked A’-traces must not. But this approach does not seem to be right. One possible testing ground for the validity of this alternative would be a case involving multiple Case checking and A-movement into a phase edge. This situation minimally differs from English copy raising in that the intermediate Spec-CP is used as a landing site and minimally differs from Norwegian topicalization in that the Spec-CP is an A-position. Given this, the alternative generalization under discussion predicts that the embedded Spec-TP is not deleted since under that approach, A-traces in Case positions do not undergo deletion. In contrast, our alternative makes an opposite prediction. DPi2 (Spec-TP) should be deleted since the DP is not the highest copy among those visible to CR. Now we hope to find a phenomenon that provides the relevant configuration. I claim that Romance pseudo-relatives after perception verbs provide such a case.23 Consider the following French example (from Guasti 1993: 155): (48)

Je ai vu Mariei qui eci mangeait la pomme ‘I have seen Mary that ate the apple.’

We will assume with Guasti (1993: 145) that in (48), the verb ‘see’ takes a clausal complement and that Marie is in the Spec-CP whose head is qui (see Note 25 below). The post-verbal DP (Spec-CP) is exceptionally Case-marked by the matrix verb. Guasti argues, under the assumption that improper movement is not licit, that the Spec-CP is an A-position because from that position passivization and cliticization can take place, as in (49)a, b (Kayne 1975: 126ff.). Note also that the unacceptability of (49)c (Kayne 1975) makes the empty subject of the pseudo-relative construction this is empirically not unlikely. First, to the best of my knowledge, clear cases of Case conflict phenomena are limited to A’-constructions (e.g. free relatives) (McCreight 1988). Second, recall that we saw that the Case Filter applies cycle by cycle. One question that arises with this is why long distance wh-movement does not yield a Case Filter violation if the copies in A’ positions do not have Case. As can be seen in (iii), we seem to have to say that the A’ copies are able to access the nominative Case that <who>4 is assigned by the embedded T, for the purposes of satisfaction of the Case Filter. (iii)

who1 do you [vP <who>2 think [CP <who>3 [<who>4 is intelligent]]]

If the Case information of a copy is accessible from the next higher A’ copy, the Cyclic Case Filter is satisfied at the highest phase as well as at the second highest phase without difficulty. . See Kayne (1975), Rizzi (1990), Cinque (1996), Guasti (1993) and Taraldsen (1984) for pseudo-relatives in French and/or Italian. I thank Maria Teresa Guasti for bringing this construction to my attention in this connection.

 Tomohiro Fujii

hard to analyze as an A’-trace. Only the subject position of the embedded clause can be a gap in this construction. (49)

Je l’ai vu qui courait à toute vitesse ‘I saw him running at full speed.’ b. Ton frère a été vu qui volait son voisin ‘Your brother was seen robbing his neighbor.’ c. *Je li’ai vu que Jean grappait eci ‘I saw him Jean hitting.’ a.

What kind of empty category could this gap be then?24 Since the empty subject is not likely to be a null pronoun in French, the simplest possibility compatible with the basic facts presented so far is to analyze the empty category as a trace of A-movement. This option is perfectly available under the theory I am proposing, which does not prevent a DP from moving from a Case position. Then the sentence given in (48) is assigned a derivation of the following sort:25 . Cinque (1996) posits PRO, and Guasti (1993) pro, which is licensed by AgrC in her theory. . See Cinque (1996) for a different analysis of the construction under consideration and related constructions. He claims that, when passivization or cliticization is possible, the antecedent for the empty subject is base-generated as the direct object of the matrix verb. His argument for this claim bears on the observation that a verb like ‘meet’, which does not select a clausal complement, also can be followed by the DP-CP sequence, as in an Italian example like (i) (from Cinque 1996: 249): (i)

Hanno colto Mario che rubava negli spogliatoi They caught M. that was stealing in the dressing-room

Though I cannot offer a detailed analysis of a construction of this type here, the availability of (i) does not necessarily exclude the movement analysis given in (50). Tokoro clauses in Japanese are very similar to pseudo-relative clauses in their distribution. Like pseudo-relatives, tokoro clauses occur with perception verbs, verbs like ‘catch’, and verbs like ‘stand’ (see Cinque 1996 for details). Importantly, these tokoro constructions allow for backward control, as in (ii), which has the same meaning as (i) (see Harada 1973, Kuroda 1978 and references cited therein for the tokoro clause construction). (ii)

karera-ga [Mario-ga kooisitu-de nusumi-o hataraiteiru tokoro]-o in.dressing-room is.stealing TOKORO-ACC they-NOM M.-NOM tukamaeta caught

This construction can be analyzed as involving some kind of movement into theta position (Hornstein 2001) and pronunciation of a lower copy (Bošković 2002b). In fact, this is a minimalist version of the Counter Equi NP deletion analysis of this construction, advocated by Harada (1973) and Kuroda (1978). If this analysis is viable, it is not unlikely for pseudo-relatives to be analyzed in terms of movement. The movement into the matrix theta position is followed by PF deletion of lower copies. Thus even if Cinque is right that (49)a and (49)b must be assimilated to (i), our main claim is defendable.

Cyclic chain reduction  ACC

(50)

i

NOM

i

[TP Je ai [vP tJe vu [CP DP qui [TP DP T [vP DPi ... ] ]] ] ]

This proposal explains why the object of the embedded clause cannot be a gap: The MLC prevents the object from moving to the Spec-CP by skipping over the embedded subject, which is closer to the target. As Kayne (1975: 129) noted, the “deletion of the identical subject” is obligatory. The embedded subject cannot be an overt pronoun. (The same observation holds for Italian (Ivano Caponigro, p.c.)) If our analysis of the construction in question is correct, then cyclic CR gives the desired result concerning the phonetic realization of the subject of pseudo-relatives. At the lower cycle, the Spec-CP survives copy deletion and other copies are marked for deletion. Given that the Spec-CP is an A-position, it cannot be maintained that only copies left by A’-movement are realized as phonologically empty. What matters then is not whether the relevant movement is A- or A’-movement, but whether the embedded subject position is c-commanded by a co-indexed copy in the edge position. Once the edge position is occupied by a member of the relevant chain, just as is the case with English wh-movement and Norwegian topicalization, the Spec-TP position cannot avoid being marked for PF deletion. In this section, I provided independent support for the ‘pronominal copy/multiple Case checking’ generalization (40), which follows from our Case theory and cyclic CR.26

.

Pronominal copy and scope

In previous sections, we discussed the ‘pronominal copy’ puzzle, namely, why the embedded subject position of the copy raising construction must surface as a pronoun. We offered a partial answer to the question. Given the derivation of copy

. From a cross-linguistics point of view, a potential counterexample to Cyclic CR comes from the Brazilian Portuguese hyper-raising construction (Ferreira 2004, Rodrigues 2004). (i)

Joãoi parece que _i comprou um carro navo John seems that bought a new car

If the DP does not pass through the Spec-CP in the Brazilian Portuguese construction, it would be expected that the embedded subject must be pronounced in our system, contrary to fact. However, Rodrigues (2004) claims that in Brazilian Portuguese long A-movement constructions, the moving DP passes through the specifier of a functional category that exists between CP and TP. If, as Rodrigues assumes, this specifier counts as part of the edge of the CP-phase, then a null subject construction like (i) does not raise a serious problem for our Cyclic CR.

 Tomohiro Fujii

raising we argued for, the mechanisms of cyclic CR require that Spec-TP not undergo copy deletion. But the remaining half of the question has not been answered yet: why don’t we have a PF output of the kind given below?27 (51)

*Sue seems as if Sue is intelligent

The embedded Spec-TP position not only must be pronounced but also must be a pronoun. An approach that captures this property is suggested by Boeckx (2001: 165-166). Though he does not pursue this idea in detail, it seems to be worth examining what this approach would tell us about the relevant property of copy raising. Boeckx’s suggestion is that copy raising involves some kind of resumptive pronoun. (See also Fujii 2003, Nevins 2004 for variants of this claim. Cf. Ura 1994, 1998, who proposes insertion of a pronoun into the trace position.) Let us briefly examine how this analysis (call it the ‘sub-movement’ analysis) explains the pronominalization fact. Under this type of analysis, the moved element α and a resumptive pronoun are merged in the derivation of the embedded clause and only α moves to the matrix clause. The derivation is something along the lines illustrated in (52), where I assume that D surfaces as a resumptive pronoun: (52)

[TP __ T seems as if [TP [DP D(⇒ pronoun) [NPα]] is intelligent]]

The fact that “pronominalization” is obligatory can be made to follow from a particular assumption about Case. Assuming that D carries only one Case, movement from Case position to another Case position forces a new D to attach to the moving element (cf. Sportiche 2003). Thus Case theory forces the embedded subject DP to undergo sub-extraction. The stranded D realizes as a pronoun.28 Thus, this analysis of copy raising may weaken the argument for cyclic CR. .

The sentence in (i) below, where the antecedent is quantificational, is much worse than (51). (i)

Everyone seems as if everyone is intelligent.

The contrast between (i) and (51) seems to be parallel to the following contrast. (ii)

a. b.

Johni thinks Mary likes Johni Every boyi thinks Mary likes every boyi

(iib) under the interpretation “for every boy x, x thinks Mary likes x” is definitely worse than (iia). It is not clear why this is so. . As Masaya Yoshida (p.c.) points out, in order to make this sub-movement account work, sideward movement out of subject position needs to be allowed. The sideward movement that the sub-movement analysis requires is not possible under Nunes’s (2004) theory of sideward movement, because the NP inside the matrix subject does not c-command the copy inside the embedded subject (cf. also Hornstein 2001).

Cyclic chain reduction 

The best independent argument in favor of the sub-movement analysis, as far as I am aware, is the one that comes from facts concerning scope.29 As Lappin (1983) observes, copy raising, unlike regular raising, does not allow scope reconstruction with indefinite subject QPs (cf. May 1985). Consider the pair in (53): (53)

a. b.

Two people seem [t to have won the lottery] (2>seem); (seem>2) Two people seem [like they have won the lottery] (2>seem); (*seem>2)

(53)a can be paraphrased as “it seems that two people have won the lottery, whereas (53)b cannot be paraphrased in the same way, i.e. the seems like counterpart lacks the narrow scope interpretation of two people with respect to the raising predicate. Fujii (2003) suggests that the lack of ambiguity in (53)b may follow if the quantifier is located under D, which carries a Case feature. If so, (53)b would be derived by merging two with the raised NP before the specifier of the matrix T is created. Then, since the quantifier two never has a chance to occur within the scope of seem, we can exclude the possibility of the narrow scope reading of the quantifier, as desired. For the availability of the relevant reading in regular raising, it is expected to be possible in this analysis because no resumption is involved there. It should be possible to generate two people inside the embedded clause, namely within the scope of the matrix predicate. Since the sub-movement analysis is at odds with cyclic CR, an alternative treatment of the scope fact is now needed. First, it should be noted that the scope argument for the sub-movement analysis relies on the assumption that the existence of the lower copy of the indefinite subject is fully responsible for the availability of the narrow scope interpretation of the QP. Lasnik (1998a, b, 1999), however, observes a number of peculiarities concerning the behavior of indefinites, noting that the underlying assumption is not warranted. He concludes that there is no A-movement reconstruction and that the narrow scope interpretation of indefinites comes from something else; see Chomsky 1995, Hornstein 1995, Lasnik 1998a, 1998b, 1999, Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 1999, Fox 2000, Boeckx 2001, Bobaljik 2002. If Lasnik is right that the ambiguity of examples like (53)a has little to do with the nature of the copy left by subject raising, the relevance of the contrast in (53) becomes less clear. Even if we assume that the narrow scope reading of (53)a is obtained via some syntactic reconstruction, the argument based on the scope fact is not as strong as it appears. If the lower copy of copy raising is available for scope reconstruction, we are led to the conclusion that the existence of A-movement across a raising predicate is not a sufficient condition for the narrow scope interpretation. The idea that Amovement is not a sufficient condition for scope reconstruction has been noted in

.

I wish to thank Kyle Johnson for a useful discussion of the material presented here.

 Tomohiro Fujii

the literature. For example, Boeckx (2001) argues that narrow scope interpretation of indefinites in raising constructions results from literal QP lowering followed by insertion of a covert expletive, as illustrated below: (54)

[someone from NY] is likely __ to win the lottery

Boeckx notes that the quantifier movement obeys some sort of Minimality, as in (55)a and (55)b (=Boeckx’s (67) and (68)). The idea is that a QP cannot be lowered over another QP that intervenes between the QP to be lowered and its landing site. (55)

a. b.

A red car seems to me to be parked at the corner (= It seems to me that there is a red car . . .) A red car seems to every driver to be parked at the corner (≠ It seems to every driver that there is a red car. . .)

A non-quantificational intervener does not block QL ((55)a), whereas a quantificational one does ((55)b). This suggests that the availability of the low reading is governed by the conditions regulating A-movement and those regulating QL. If so, it becomes unclear that the full movement approach does predict that examples like (53)b should have a narrow scope interpretation. For instance, it is not implausible to assume that QL cannot lower a QP to a position across a finite clause boundary, just as QR cannot raise a QP across a finite clause boundary. It is true that more investigations are needed, but we conclude that the argument against full movement based on the absence of scope reconstruction is not as strong as it appears. It should be noted that the sub-movement approach to copy raising runs into a potential problem when the range of data is extended. The question is why resumption is required where it is required and prohibited where it is prohibited. Recall that the sub-movement analysis has to say that “A-resumption” is required only when movement is associated with multiple Case positions, given that copy raising is a multiple Case checking construction. If this is right, the sub-movement analysis faces an emprical problem. It cannot handle the ‘pronominal copy/multiple Case checking’ generalization in (40), which states that multiple Case checking does not necesarily come with pronunciation of the lower Case position. Let us take one more look at the French and Norwegian example discussed in section 4 (repeated as (56)a and (56)b respectively): (56)

a. b.

c. d.

Je ai vu Mariei qui (*ellei) mangeait la pomme ‘I have seen Mary eating the apple.’ Peri hadde de trodd (*hani) ville komme forsent Peter had they thought (*he) would arrive too late ‘Peter, they thought __ would come too late.’ Johni seems like *(hei) is intelligent Whoi do you think (*hei) is intelligent?

Cyclic chain reduction 

As noted in the previous section, it is not possible for the subject of the embedded clause in (56)a of the one in (56)b to be a pronoun. Under the sub-movement analysis, we would expect that these positions would allow and require resumption, because these Spec-TP positions are assigned nominative Case; and without resumption, the moving DP would be doubly Case-marked, which should not be allowed in the analysis.30 But this expectation is not borne out. Thus, although the sub-movement analysis appears to handle the morphological and scopal aspects that the pronominal copy of copy raising has, it is unclear how the analysis is able to handle (56)a through (56)d in a coherent manner. Finally, consider the pronoun puzzle. While I will not offer a full answer to the question of why the copy in question must be phonologically realized as a pronominal, I would like to suggest a possible solution to the problem and point out some theoretical issues raised by that solution. It has been proposed in the context of the copy theory of movement that a certain instance of pronoun is actually a realization of a trace/copy left by movement (Pesetsky 1998, Grohmann 2003; cf. Ross 1967, Perlmutter 1972; Boeckx 2003). In Pesetsky’s (1998) theory, whose focus is on resumptive pronouns occurring inside islands, when some constraint of grammar (e.g. an island constraint) prevents a copy from being phonologically silent, pronominalization of the trace is chosen over pronouncing the full copy for some economy reason. Pesetsky (pp. 363–66) suggests that the pronominalization strategy is the most economical way of realizing the feature of the relevant copy. The same may apply to copy raising. In the construction we have been looking at, cyclic CR prevents the relevant copy from being silent. Thus Pesetsky’s economy condition provides an account of obligatory pronominalization found in the copy raising construction. At least two issues arise with the economy account, however. Pesetsky’s theory of pronunciation of copies presupposes that movement does not leave a full copy. All other things being equal, if movement leaves a full copy, the most economical way of realizing the relevant copy should be just pronouncing that copy. So the analysis of the pronominal copy just discussed amounts to saying that movement leaves a trace, which of course does not fit well with the copy theory of movement of the kind that Nunes (2004) explores, which we started with.

. Boeckx (2000) and Taraldsen (2002) independently make the proposal that qui is que + expletive i(l). It is worth asking whether this proposal saves the sub-movement analysis. Suppose the subject moves from a Case position (i.e. its base position in VP under this approach) to the intermediate CP, with the Spec-TP filled with the expletive. If this is a correct extension of their proposal to pseudo-relatives, the problem mentioned in the text arises under this analysis of qui as well. Namely, the VP-internal nominative Case position would require resumption. I thank Cedric Boeckx for drawing this analysis of qui to my attention.

 Tomohiro Fujii

Another issue has to do with the LF status of pronominal copies.31 Pesetsky’s theory does not say anything about this issue because pronominalization in his theory is a PF matter. (See Fox 2002 for a proposal that targets the same issue that arises in other empirical domains.) Moore (1998) examines the Turkish copy raising construction and observes that the pronominal copy, which is phonologically null, behaves like a pronoun in terms of obviation effects (cf. Rezac 2004). In other words, this can be taken to suggest that the pronominal copy is a pronoun at LF, if the condition responsible for obviation effects arguably applies to LF representations. Moore stipulates, under a Binding theoretic approach to A-movement locality, that A-chains of the copy raising construction are different from normal A-chains in that the former can terminate in a pronoun while the latter terminates in an anaphor. It is not a trivial matter how we can reinterpret Moore’s idea in minimalist terms. For one thing, we do not want Binding Theory to regulate A-movement locality, on top of the Minimal Link Condition. For another, everything else being equal, the dichotomy of regular A-chains vs. Copy-raising chains is a stipulation that we must eliminate. As for the pronominal copy found in the English copy raising construction, it is not clear yet how pronominal copies are actually interpreted at LF. The reconstruction facts that we saw in Section 2 suggest different directions, depending on the level at which the relevant expression is licensed. If it is done (solely) at LF, the pronominal copy may not have to be a pronoun at that level. If licensing of those expressions is done at any point of the derivation, these facts may not tell us much about the LF status of the pronominal copy.32 To sum up, the full movement approach can be made at least compatible with the scope data, which appears to be problematic at first sight. It also manages to answer the question as to why the pronominal copy must be a pronoun along the lines of Pesetsky (1998). .

Conclusion

This paper has offered an argument in favor of the claim that copy deletion applies cyclically. CR marks for deletion all the non-highest copies that are visible to the

. If movement leaves a full copy and if Binding Theory is concerned about the relation between two non-distinct elements as well as the relation between two distinct elements, John seems <John> to be intelligent would be excluded by Condition C, for example. Two copies of John are non-distinct. An earliest discussion about this issue can be found in Barss (1986: 346–47). . For licensing of idioms, see Richards (2001) and references cited therein. See also Lasnik and Saito’s (1992) discussion of the Proper Binding Condition (cf. Kroch and Joshi 1985).

Cyclic chain reduction 

operation when it applies. The domain that the operation affects is determined by the notion of cycle, more specifically, by Spell-out, which is characterized by the notion of phase. When the highest copy among those visible to the operation is present at the edge of a phase, that copy is not marked for deletion at that phase, but it can be deleted at the next higher cycle. When the highest copy is not in the edge but somewhere inside the domain of the phase, it cannot be deleted even if further movement takes place, because the domain of the phase will have been spelled-out before CR applies. If CR affects the whole chain non-cyclically, i.e. without reference to cycles/phases, the embedded subject position of the copy raising construction would be treated in the same way as other non-highest copies are. Since, as we have shown, this is not the case, this property of copy raising constitutes an argument for a cyclic model of grammar. Finally, it is worth mentioning that copy raising is a novel case of pronunciation of a lower copy. Several instances of pronunciation of a lower copy have been reported in the literature. Bošković (2002a), along the lines of Franks (1998), and Bobaljik (1995, 2002), independently argue that a lower copy is subject to phonetic realization when the pronunciation of the top copy leads to violation of some phonological constraint in a given language. As to CR, these are instances where the unmarked mode of application of the operation is overridden by an independent, language-particular PF constraint. Also, Nunes (2004) discusses cases where a lower copy is pronounced when the copy in question is invisible to the copy deletion operation. In Nunes’s cases, the non-top copy is morphologically fused with another element and becomes part of a phonological word, so that its pronunciation does not cause a problem for the principle that forces copy deletion, namely the Linear Correspondence Axiom under Nunes’s theory. The pronominal copy in copy raising is clearly different from these instances of lower copy pronunciation (cf. Grohmann 2003 for a somewhat similar but different type of lower copy pronunciation). Rather, the case we have been discussing is a result of the interaction between the orthodox way of application of CR and cyclic Spell-out. It is natural to think that the answer to the question as to why the pronominal copy must be a pronoun, not a full copy, may lie in this difference between these two classes of lower copy pronunciation. Needless to say, further investigations are required.

Acknowledgements This is a slightly revised version of the paper presented at the workshop “The copy theory of movement on the PF side”, held at Utrecht Institute of Linguistics-OTS, Utrecht University in December 2004. I would like to thank members of the audience, as well as two anonymous reviewers, Norbert Corver and Jairo Nunes for

 Tomohiro Fujii

their extremely helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful for the valuable comments that we received from Cedric Boeckx, Željko Bošković, Ivano Caponigro, Kleanthes K. Grohmann, Maria Teresa Guasti, Ken Hiraiwa, Kyle Johnson, Andrew Nevins, Jairo Nunes, Kjartan Ottosson, Eric Potsdam, Norvin Richards, Mamoru Saito, Knut Tarald Taraldsen, Hiroyuki Ura, Chris Wilder, Masaya Yoshida, Norbert Hornstein, and Howard Lasnik. Thanks also go to Scott Fults, Phil Monahan, and Rob Fiorentino for their help with collecting English data. I am solely responsible for all remaining weaknesses and errors.

References Aoun, Joseph. 1981. The formal nature of anaphoric relations. PhD Dissertation. MIT. Asudeh, Ash. 2004. Resumption as resource management. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University. Asudeh, Ash & Toivonen, Ida. 2005. Copy raising and its consequences for perceptual reports. To appear in Architectures, rules, and preferences: A festschrift for Joan Bresnan, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling, Chris Manning, Jane Simpson & Annie Zaenen (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI. Bach, E. 1974. Syntactic theory. Lanham MD: University Press of America. Baker, Mark C. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependencies. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Bejar, Susana & Massam, Diane. 1999. Multiple case checking. Syntax 2: 66–79. Belletti, Adriana. 1988. The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1–34. Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. Psych-verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface copies and ‘covert’ movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 197–267. Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Wurmbrand, Susanna. 1999. Modals, raising and A-reconstruction. Handout presented at Leiden and Salzburg, Fall 1999. Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Interrogative strategies in French: A reply to Cheng and Rooryck. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. Boeckx, Cedric. 2001. Scope reconstruction and A-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 503–548. Boeckx, C. 2003. Islands and chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bošković, Željko. 1995. Case properties of clauses and the greed principle. Studia Linguistica 49: 32–53. Bošković, Željko. 1997. The syntax of non-finite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Bošković, Željko. 2002a. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383. Bošković, Željko. 2002b. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5: 167–218. Bošković, Željko. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 681–742.

Cyclic chain reduction  Bošković, Ž. & H. Lasnik. 2003. On the distribution of null complementizers. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 527–546. Branigan, Phil & MacKenzie, Marguerite. 2002. Altruism, A-movement, and object agreement in Innu-aimûn. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 385–407. Bresnan, Joan. 1977. Variables in the theory of transformations. In Formal Syntax, Peter. W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds), 157–196. New York NY: Academic Press. Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York NY: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001a. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20:1–28. Cambridge MA: MITWPL. Chomsky, Noam. 2001b. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in linguistics, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1996. The pseudo-relative and ACC-ing constructions after verbs of perception. In Italian syntax and universal grammar, Guglielmo Cinque, 244–275. Cambridge: CUP. Epstein, Samuel David, Groat, Erich M., Kawashima, Ruriko & Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1998. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. New York NY: OUP. Epstein Samuel David & Seely, T. Daniel. 2005. Derivations in minimalism. Cambridge: CUP. Ferreira, Marselo. 2004. Hyperraising and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. In Collected papers on Romance syntax. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 47: 57–85. Cambridge MA: MITWPL. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96. Fox, Danny & Nissenbaum, Jon. 2004. Condition A and scope reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 474–485. Franks, Steven. 1998. Clitics in Slavic. Paper presented at the Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Bloomington IN. Fujii, Tomohiro. 2003. Licit and illicit long subject-to-subject raising. In Proceedings of the fourth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Yukio Otsu (ed.), 109–133. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. Fukui, Naoko. 1997. Attract and the A-over-A principle. In UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 3. Luther C.-S. Liu & Kasue Takeda (eds), 51–67. Irvine CA: Department of Linguistics, University of California. Groat, Erich. M. 1999. Raising the case of the expletive. In Working minimalism. Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 27–43. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

 Tomohiro Fujii Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1993. Causatives and perception verbs: A comparative approach. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. Harada, S.-I. 1973. Counter Equi NP deletion. Annual Bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo 7: 113–147. Hazout, Ilan. 2004. The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 393–430. Heycock, Caroline. 1994 Layers of predication. New York NY: Garland. Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Malden MA: Blackwell. Hornstein, Norbert, Martins, Ana Maria and Nunes, Jairo. 2006. Infinitival complements of perception and causative verbs: A case study on agreement and intervention effects in English and European Portuguese. In University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 14, Nina Kazanina, Utako Minai, Philip J. Monahan & Heather L. Taylor (eds), 81–110. College Park MD: University of Maryland. Hornstein, Norbert & Motomura, Mitsue. 2002. Psych verbs, theta roles and reconstruction. Proceedings of 2002 LSK International Summer Conference, 39–57. Hornstein, Norbert & Witkoś, J. 2003. Yet another approach to existential constructions. In Grammar in Focus, Vol. II: Festschrift for Christer Platzack 18 November 2003. Lars-Olof Delsing, Cecilia Falk, Gunlög Josefsson & Halldór Á. Sigur∂sson (eds), 167–184. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University. Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kroch, Anthony & Joshi, Aravind K. 1985. The linguistic relevance of tree adjoined grammar. Ms. University of Pennsylvania. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1978. Case-marking, canonical sentence patterns and Counter Equi in Japanese. In Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, John Hinds & Irwin Howard (eds), 30–51. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Lappin, Shalom. 1983. Theta-roles and NP-movement. In Proceedings of North Eastern Linguistic Society 13, Peter Sells and Charles Jones (eds), 121–128. Amherst MA: GLSA. Lasnik, Howard. 1995a. Case and expletives revisited: On Greed and other human failings. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 615–633. Lasnik, Howard. 1995b. Last resort. In Minimalism and linguistic theory, Shosuke Haraguchi & Michio Funaki (eds), 1–32. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. Lasnik, Howard. 1998a. On a scope of reconstruction paradox. An electric festschrift in honor of Noam Chomsky’s 70th birthday. (Reprinted in Lasnik 2003, 118–124). Lasnik, Howard. 1998b. Some reconstruction riddles. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 5(1): 83–98. (Reprinted in Lasnik 2003, 125–138). Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Working minimalism. Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 189–215. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Lasnik, Howard. 2003. Minimalist investigations in linguistic theory. London: Routledge. Lasnik, Howard & Hendrick, Randall. 2003. Steps toward a minimal theory of anaphora. In Minimal Syntax, Randall Hendrick (ed.), 124–151. Malden MA: Blackwell. Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move α. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Lasnik, Howard & Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. A course in GB syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Lebeaux, David. 1998. Where does the binding theory apply? Princeton NJ: NEC Research Institute.

Cyclic chain reduction  Legate, Julie. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 506–516. Maling, Joan. 1983. Transitive adjectives: A case of categorial reanalysis. In Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles, Frank. W. Heny & Barry Richards (eds), 253–289. Dordrecht: Reidel. Manzini, M. Rita & Roussou, Anna. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua 110: 409–47. Massam, Diane. 1985. Case theory and the projection principle. PhD Dissertation, MIT. May, Robert 1985. Logical form. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. McCreight, Katherin L. 1988. Multiple case assignments. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Moore, John. 1998. Turkish copy-raising and A-chain locality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 149–189. Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic asymmetry. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Nevins, Andrew. 2004. The derivation without the activity condition. Ms., MIT. (To appear in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics). Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge MA.: The MIT Press. Perlmutter, David. 1972. On the relevance of shadow pronouns to French relativization. Papers from Relative Clause Festival, 73–105. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Pesetsky, David. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis & David Pesetsky (eds), 337–383. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Clauses and consequences. In Ken Hale: Life in language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 355–426. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Picallo, M. Carmen. 2002. Abstract agreement and clausal arguments. Syntax 5: 116 -147. Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 583–646. Postal, Paul M. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Potsdam, Eric & Runner, Jeffrey T. 2001. Richard returns: Copy raising and its implications. In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 37: 453–468. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Rezac, Milan. 2004. Elements of cyclic syntax: Agree and Merge. PhD Dissertation. University of Toronto. Richards, Norvin. 2001. An idiomatic argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 183–192. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. On chain formation. In The syntax of pronominal clitics: Syntax and semantics 19, Hagit Borer (ed.), 65–95. New York NY: Academic Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Rodrigues, Cilene. 2004. Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of case domains. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Rogers, Andy. 1971. Three kinds of physical perception verbs. In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society 7: 206–218. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Rogers, Andy. 1972. Another look at flip perception verbs. In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society 8: 303–315. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

 Tomohiro Fujii Rogers, A. 1974a. Physical perception verbs in English. PhD Dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles. Rogers, Andy. 1974b. A transderivational constraint on Richards. In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society 10: 501–558. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Sabel, Joachim. 2002. Intermediate traces, reconstruction and locality effects. In Theoretical approaches to universals, Artemis Alexiadou (ed.), 315–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sportiche, Dominic. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449. Sportiche, Dominic. 2003. Reconstruction, binding and scope. Ms., University of California, Los Angels. Tanaka, H. 2005. Phi-features on C. Linguistic Analysis 32: 72–102. Taraldsen, K. Tarald. 1981. Case-conflict in Norwegian topicalization. Proceedings of North Eastern Linguistic Society 11: 377–398. Taraldsen, K. Tarald. 1984. Som and the binding theory. In Topics in Scandinavian syntax, Lars Hellan et al. (eds), 149–184. Dordrecht: Reidel. Taraldsen, K. Tarald. 2002. The que/qui alternation and the distribution of expletives. In Subjects, expletives, and the EPP, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 29–42. New York NY: OUP. Ura, Hiroyuki. 1994. Varieties of raising and the feature-based bare phrase structure theory [MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7]. Cambridge MA: MITWPL. Ura, Hiroyuki. 1998. Checking, economy, and copy-raising in Igbo. Linguistic Analysis 28: 67–88. Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. On government. PhD Dissertation. University of Connecticut, Storrs. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 251–82. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement* Marjo van Koppen University of Utrecht

This chapter discusses agreement between complementizers and coordinated subjects in Dutch dialects. In the relevant dialects, the complementizer must display agreement with the first conjunct if the coordinated subject remains in [Spec,TP]. However, if the subject is extracted, this agreement morphology on the complementizer leads to an ungrammatical result. Based on this asymmetry between heads of chains and lower copies, the chapter proposes that internal structures of copies left by movement operations are not accessible to the operation Agree. More specifically, it is proposed that copies left by movement are reduced in the sense that they only consist of the ϕ-feature set of the maximal projection of the moved item. This view of copies therefore provides an alternative account for why the lower copies in constructions with more than one copy phonetically realized must be “reduced” (Nunes 2004).

.

Introduction

In this paper I focus on the accessibility of the internal structure of copies of movement. As is well-known from the literature on reconstruction, the internal structure of copies of movement is assumed to be accessible to reconstruction. In fact, the copy theory of movement is designed to deal with reconstruction effects as the one in (1). (1)

[Which pictures of herself]i did Anne show her father [which pictures of herself ]i

The lower copy of the wh-phrase which pictures of herself does not get phonetically realized (as indicated by the strikethrough). However, it is the copy of the reflexive herself within this lower copy that gets bound by the antecedent Anne. * I would like to thank Sjef Barbiers, Norbert Corver, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, Jairo Nunes, Mirjam Rigterink, Johan Rooryck and the audiences of the Copy Workshop on the PF-side held at the University of Utrecht, December 14th and 15th 2004 and the Wednesday Syntax Meeting of april 27th 2005 at the University of Leiden for valuable input.

 Marjo van Koppen

I show that although the internal structure of copies seems to be accessible to LF-operations like reconstruction, it is not accessible to an operation like Agree. This observation results in a paradox: to certain operations the internal structure of copies should be accessible, for others it should be inaccessible. There are two ways to resolve this paradox. The first one is to come up with a way to maintain the idea that copies of movement have an (accessible) internal structure and find a different way to account for the impossibility of Agree to access this internal structure. The second one is to discard the idea that copies have an (accessible) internal structure. In that case reconstruction has to be dealt with in a different way. In this paper I discuss the second option and argue that copies of movement are reduced in the sense that they only consist of the phi-feature set of the maximal projection of the moved item. As such, they do not have an internal structure. Before I outline my proposal on copies of movement in Section 3, I first discuss the data on the basis of which I claim that a Goal internal to a copy of movement is not accessible to the operation Agree. Section 4 concludes the paper.

.

Accessibility of copies of movement to Agree

The empirical phenomenon on which the claim is based that copies of movement are not accessible to Agree concerns First Conjunct Agreement (henceforth FCA) in Dutch dialects.1 More precisely, it involves the fact that FCA is not possible when the coordinated subject moves to a position c-commanding the phi-feature Probe. .

Data

I show that FCA appears on the complementizer in Dutch dialects with Complementizer Agreement (henceforthe CA) (cf. Van Koppen 2005). In these dialects, the complementizer of the embedded clause agrees with the subject of that embedded clause (cf. among others Van Haeringen 1938, Hoekstra and Smits 1997, Goeman 1997, Zwart 1993). An example is provided in (2). (2)

Ich dink de-s doow morge you2. tomorrow I think that-2. ‘I think that you will come tomorrow.’

kum-s. come-2. [Tegelen Dutch]

In the embedded clause there are two elements agreeing with the subject pronoun doow ‘you’: the finite verb kums ‘come’ and the complementizer des

. For an extensive discussion of agreement with coordinated phrases in a host of other languages, I refer the reader to Johannessen (1998).

Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement 

‘that’. CA-paradigms are usually defective: only subjects with certain phi-feature combinations result in CA. In this dialect, the complementizer only shows CA with subjects of the second person singular. Now consider the following example in which the subject is a coordination of a second person singular first conjunct and a third person singular second conjunct. The coordinated subject as a whole acts as if it has the feature specification second person plural. This becomes apparent when a reciprocal is added to the clause. The reciprocal will carry the phi-feature specification of the coordination as a whole, in this case second person plural. (3)

a.

Ich dink de-s doow en Marie I think that-2. [you and Marie]2. ‘I think that you and Marie will win.’ b. *Ich dink det doow en Marie Marie]2. I think that [you and ‘I think that you and Marie will win.’

ontmoete uch meet- you2. ontmoete uch meet- you2. [Tegelen Dutch]

When the subject of the embedded clause is a coordination with a second person singular pronoun as its first conjunct, as in (3), the complementizer obligatorily agrees with this pronoun. The complementizer cannot agree with the third person singular second conjunct, nor with the features of the coordination as a whole. Both relations would result in a non-inflected complementizer, see (3b). When the subject moves past the complementizer to a left peripheral position, CA is still possible, as is illustrated in example (4), but FCA is not, see example (5). The example in (4) shows that CA is not in principle excluded with A-bar moved Goals.2 (4)

Doow denk ik de-s de wedstrijd You think I that-2. the game ‘YOU, I think will win the game.’

zal-s winnen. will-2. win [Tegelen Dutch]

(5)

a. *Doow en Marie dink ich de-s het spel zull-e winnen. [You and Marie] think I that-2. the game will- win b. ?Doow en Marie dink ich det het spel zull-e winnen. and Marie] think I that the game will- win [You ‘You and Marie I think will win the game.’ [Tegelen Dutch]

. Note that an analysis of the example in (4) which assumes that there is a pro-subject in the embedded clause agreeing with the complementizer is not felicitous as Tegelen Dutch is not a pro-drop language.

 Marjo van Koppen

An even more intriguing example comes from Bavarian. In this German dialect, the complementizer can either agree with the first conjunct or with the coordinated subject as a whole when the right conditions are met (i.e. the first conjunct is second person singular and the coordination as a whole has the feature specification second person plural). (6)

a.

b.

. . . daβ-sd du und d’Maria an that-2. [you and the Maria]2. the hab-ds. have-2. . . . daβ-ds du und d’Maria an that-2. [you and the Maria]2. the hab-ds. have-2. ‘. . .that Maria and you have won the first prize.’

Hauptpreis gwunna first.prize won


[Bavarian]

When this coordinated subject is extracted to a position c-commanding the complementizer, only agreement with the coordination as a whole is an option. FCA is no longer possible. (7)

a. *Du und d’Maria glaub’e daβ-sd an Hauptpreis gwunna [you and the Maria]2. believe.I that-2. the first.prize won hab-ds. have-2. b. Du und d’Maria glaub’e daβ-ds an Hauptpreis gwunna [you and the Maria]2. believe.I that-2. the first.prize won hab-ds. have-2. ‘You and Maria I think that have won the first prize.’ [Bavarian]

The observation that movement of a coordinated argument past the inflectional head results in the obligatory absence of FCA does not only hold for the varieties of Dutch and German discussed here, but has also been observed for other languages, among which Arabic (cf. among others Aoun et al. 1994, Munn 1999, Soltan 2004), Hebrew (cf. among others Doron 2000), Russian (cf. among others Babyonyshev 1996) and Polish (cf. among others Citko 2004). I refer to this generalization as the Movement Bleeds FCA-generalization, see (8). (8)

Movement bleeds FCA-generalization A Probe cannot agree with the first conjunct of a coordinated Goal when this Goal moves to a position c-commanding the Probe.

Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement 

. Possible analyses of the Movement Bleeds FCA-generalization There are several ways to incorporate the Movement Bleeds FCA-generalization in (8). I discuss three potential approaches in this section. In all these accounts, the impossibility of FCA in examples like the ones in (5) and (7) is related to the movement of the coordinated Goal to a position c-commanding the Probe.3 First let’s examine the derivation of the examples in (5) and (7). Before providing the relevant structures, first let me discuss some of my basic assumptions. I follow the fairly general assumption about Dutch that the subject moves from the VP-internal subject position to Spec,TP in order to check T0s EPP-feature (cf. among others Zwart 1993, 1997).4 Furthermore, I assume that the coordinated DPs under consideration here are ordered in a Coordination Phrase (CoP), the head of which is filled by the conjunction, the specifier by the first conjunct and the complement by the second conjunct (for argumentation in favor of this structure cf. among others Munn 1993, Kayne 1994, Johannessen 1998, Progovac 1998). A final assumption concerns the phi-features of the coordinated subject as a whole. As is illustrated in the examples in (5) to (7), the complementizer can either agree with the features of the first conjunct, or with the features of this entire coordination. Corbett (1983) refers to this latter feature set as the “resolved features”. The resolved features are computed on the basis of the features of the conjuncts. Corbett shows that when one of the conjuncts is first person, the resolved feature set also has the specification first person. When there is no first person specification in the coordination, but only a second person, the resolved feature set has the specification second person. When neither a first nor a second person specification are present, the coordination becomes third person. Finally, the resolved feature set always contains the number specification plural. The question arises where in the structure this resolved feature set is situated. I assume, following amongst others Soltan (2004), that these features are present on CoP. With these assumptions in mind, consider the structures related to the examples in (5) to (7) in (9) and (10). In (9), the structure is provided for the examples that allow for FCA on the complementizer. In this case CoP has not moved out of . Ackema and Neeleman (2005) provide an account for these data in which they argue that FCA is the result of linear adjacency between the complementizer and the first conjunct. I refer the reader to Van Koppen (2005) for a in depth discussion of their analysis. . The question arises whether CoP moves to matrix clause successive-cyclically, i.e. via Spec,CP of the embedded clause, or not, i.e. it moves in one swoop to the matrix Spec,CP. Although this is an interesting question which deserves to be looked into, I will not go into this matter here. For now, it is sufficient to see that the subject moves out of the c-command domain of the Probe in the one case, but not in the other.

 Marjo van Koppen

the c-command domain of the C0-Probe. In (10), on the other hand, the structure resulting in the obligatory absence of FCA is provided. The coordinated subject has moved to a position c-commanding the C0-Probe. (9)

FCA is possible

(10)

FCA is not possible

CP C0 [uphi]

CP CoP [iphi]

TP TP

CoPi [iphi] DP [iphi]

... CoP

&

DP [iphi]

DP [iphi]

CP

CoP &

C0 [uphi]

DP [iphi]

TP CoPi [iphi]

TP ... CoP

DP [iphi] &

DP [iphi]

The question arises what aspect of the movement operation causes the impossibility of FCA in the structure in (10). As far as I can see, it can be attribute to all three of the components of the movement operation: the landing site of movement (cf. Section 2.2.1), the trigger for movement (cf. Section 2.2.2) and finally the lower copy of the subject (cf. Section 2.2.3). .. Spec, Head-agreement The hypothesis that plays a central role in this section is that the impossibility of FCA is related to the position the subject moves to. This hypothesis is implemented in the analysis of amongst others Munn (1999) and Bahloul and Harbert (1992) of the bleeding of FCA in Arabic in SVO-contexts. Munn (1999) assumes that checking agreement features via a Spec, Head-relation leads to different agreement morphology on the inflectional head, i.e. the finite verb in Arabic, than checking agreement features via government or an Agree relation does. Spec,Head-agreement cannot result in FCA, but necessarily has to result in agreement with the complete coordinated subject. Feature checking via Agree or government on the other hand can result in FCA. This analysis can easily be transferred to the data under discussion here: the movement of the subject to Spec, CP in (10) creates a Spec, Head-configuration. As Spec,Head-agreement cannot result in FCA, the complementizer has to show agreement with the complete coordinated subject. However, there are some problems with this approach. First of all, there is a theoretical problem. The question arises how this approach fits into a minimalist system in which the existence of a specifier as a theoretical primitive and hence of a Spec,Head-configuration is subject to debate (cf. Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2005,

Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement 

Wurmbrand 2004, Koopman 2001). More importantly, however, there are empirical reasons to query the approach under discussion in this section. This analysis makes the prediction that FCA is possible when the movement of the coordinated subject does not pass through the specifier of the Probe. The reason for this is that in this case the agreement on the Probe cannot result from Spec,Head-agreement and hence has to be the result of a different feature checking mechanism (Agree or government). Interestingly, this prediction can be tested in Finnish. Consider the example in (11). (11) %Sitä olen minä ja sinä-kin käyneet Pariisissa. and you-too] visited- Paris  have1. [I ‘Me and you have been to Paris, too.’ [Finnish]

Holmberg (2003) shows that in this construction, the probe T0 agrees with the associate of the expletive and the reflex of this agreement relation is realized on the finite verb. The expletive occupies the specifier of TP. In this construction FCA is possible for some speakers of Finnish. However, when the associate moves, FCA is not possible. This is illustrated in (12). (12)

a. *minä ja sinä-kin sitä olen [I and you-too]  have1. b. ?minä ja sinä-kin sitä olemme [I and you-too]  have1. ‘Me and you have been to Paris, too.’

käyneet visited- käyneet visited-

Pariisissa. Paris Pariisissa. Paris [Finnish]

The example in (12b) illustrates that the finite verb carries the [1.]-feature specification of the entire (displaced) coordinated subject, it cannot show [1.]agreement with the first conjunct of the coordinated subject, see Example (12a). The absence of FCA in this example cannot be attributed to a Spec, Head-relation between the coordinated subject and the finite verb, however. The expletive already occupies the specifier of TP, which means that the coordinated subject cannot have moved through this position.5 As a consequence, the agreement on the finite verb has to be the result of feature checking under government or via Agree. As the bleeding of FCA is attributed to checking features via Spec,Head-agreement, FCA should be able to arise.6 . An alternative analysis of these data involves multiple specifiers: the coordinated subject and the expletive are both in a specifier of TP. There are two arguments against this view. First of all, the movement of the coordinated subject has an information structural effect: it gets a focused reading. This seems to suggests it targets a CP-projection, rather than a specifier position of TP. Furthermore, the order [coordinated subject] [expletive] is fixed. If the coordinated subject and the expletive occupy multiple specifiers of TP, we might expect the order to be flexible. . An anonymous reviewer suggests that the fact that object extraction does not interfere with CA in Bavarian and Tegelen Dutch might also be problematic for the Spec,Head-approach and

 Marjo van Koppen

.. Move = Agree + Merge The second hypothesis I want to explore in this paper is that the movementbleeds-FCA generalization is induced by the trigger of the movement operation. Implementing this hypothesis, Soltan (2004), among others, starts out with the assumption that Agree is a necessary condition for Move to take place (Chomsky 2000). When the inflectional head agrees with the first conjunct, then only the first conjunct is subject to the following movement operation, resulting in a Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC)-violation.7 This analysis predicts that in contexts where Move is not contingent on Agree with the inflectional head, FCA should be possible. The same examples that proved to be counterexamples in the previous section appear to contradict the predictions made by this account. Consider again the examples in (11) and (12), repeated here as (13) and (14) respectively. (13) %Sitä olen minä ja sinä-kin käyneet Pariisissa. and you-too] visited- Paris  have1. [I ‘Me and you have been to Paris, too.’ (14)

a. *minä ja sinä-kin sitä [I and you-too]  b. ?minä ja sinä-kin sitä [I and you-too]  ‘Me and you have been to Paris, too.’

olen have1. olemme have1.


[Finnish] Pariisissa. Paris Pariisissa. Paris [Finnish]

In these examples, Move is not contingent on Agree with the inflectional head, as the EPP-feature of the inflectional head is already checked by the expletive. This means that agreement with the first conjunct cannot result in a CSC-violation and hence that FCA should be possible. As this is not the case, these examples show that the hypothesis that the impossibility of FCA when the subject moves past the Probe is related to the movement operation itself is questionable.

the Move=Agree + Merge-approach discussed in the following section. If movement of the object proceeds successive cyclically, it also passes through Spec,CP, checking C0s EPP-feature. However, the complementizer is not sensitive to object extraction, which seems to suggest that C0s EPP-feature can be checked without also checking C0s agreement features. This might indicate that when the subject moves to Spec,CP to check C0s EPP-feature, this could also be done without necessarily also checking agreement in this position. If agreement is not checked in Spec,CP by the subject, there is also no reason FCA should not be possible. . Doron (2000) proposes something similar for Modern and Biblical Hebrew. She argues that when the inflectional head has an EPP-feature, it has to agree with the coordinated subject as a whole, as otherwise the satisfaction of the EPP-feature might result in a CSC-violation. The prediction this analysis makes is that when the EPP-feature of the inflectional head is checked by something else, for instance an expletive, movement of the coordinated subject and FCA should be combinable. As is shown in the main text, this is not the case.

Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement 

.. Inaccessible copies The final hypothesis I discuss here is that the impossibility of FCA in the cases under discussion is related to the properties of the lower copy of the moved subject. I would like to revive the idea that the head of chain has different properties than the lower copies in a chain. More precisely, I propose that the internal structure of the lower copies are not “accessible” to agreement, for reasons to be explicated later. The only part of a lower copy which can be accessed is the resolved feature set of CoP. The internal structure of the highest copy of the moved subject is accessible to Agree. Put differently, the head of a chain is the only link which is fully accessible, the other links are only partly accessible. As the observant reader might have seen, this assumption alone cannot account for the Movement Bleeds FCAhypothesis provided in (8) above. Another assumption, concerning the point in the derivation at which Agree takes place is necessary. Before I introduce this second assumption in Section 2.2.3.2, I first discuss the analysis of FCA in examples where the coordinated subject does not move in Section 2.2.3.1. ... The analysis of FCA Reconsider the examples in (3) and (6), repeated here as (15) and (16) respectively. (15)

a.

Ich dink de-s doow en I think that-2. [you and ‘I think that you and Marie will win.’ b. *Ich dink det doow en I think that [you and ‘I think that you and Marie will win.’

Marie zull-e winnen Marie]2. will- win Marie zull-e winnen Marie]2. will- win [Tegelen Dutch]

(16)

a.

b.

. . . daβ-sd du und d’Maria an that-2. [you and the Maria]2. the hab-ds. have-2. . . . daβ-ds du und d’Maria an that-2. [you and the Maria]2. the hab-ds. have-2. ‘. . . that Maria and you have won the first prize.’



[Bavarian]

In Van Koppen (2005) it is shown that whether the agreement morphology on a Probe reflects the phi-features of the first conjunct or the resolved features is the result of an interaction between the syntactic and the morphological component. She shows that under certain circumstances a Probe can be related to more than

 Marjo van Koppen

one Goal. The syntactic component establishes the relation between the Probe and these Goals and the morphological component determines which one of these Goals defines the affix on the Probe. First let’s consider the “standard” configuration, i.e. the configuration which does not lead to the situation where a Probe is related to more than one Goal. In this case, Agree relates the Probe to the most local Goal available, the other potential Goals are not related to the Probe. Van Koppen (2005) argues that when the c-command domain of a Probe contains a coordinated subject, there are also more Goals available, namely the resolved feature set on CoP, the feature bundle of the first conjunct and the feature bundle of the second conjunct. The latter Goal will never be related to the Probe, as it is not local enough. The first conjunct and the features on CoP are more local. However, Van Koppen claims that there is no difference in locality with respect to the Probe between the first two Goals: CoP and the first conjunct in Spec,CoP are equally local with respect to C0. The definitions of locality Van Koppen (2005) uses are provided in (17)–(19) below. (17)

Equally local Y and Z are equally local to X iff, (i) X c-commands both Y and Z (ii) the set of nodes that c-command Y is equal to the set of nodes that c-command Z.

(18)

More local Y is more local to X than Z iff, (i) X c-commands both Y and Z (ii) the set of nodes that c-command Y is a proper subset of the set of nodes that c-command Z.

The definition of c-command is given in (19). (19)

c-command X c-commands Y, iff (i) X excludes Y8 (ii) the first node that dominates X, also dominates Y.

The question arises what happens if the c-command domain of the Probe contains two equally local Goals. In order to answer this question, I first have to be a bit more specific on what Agree exactly does. I would like to propose that Agree identifies which element is a potential Goal for the Probe and establishes a relation between the Probe and this Goal. It is the relation between Probe and Goal that takes care of ‘feature valuation’ of the Probe, rather than for instance copying of the values of the Goal’s features onto the Probe. This conception of Agree is in a sense similar .

X excludes Y if no segment of X dominates Y.

Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement 

to ‘feature sharing’ as proposed by Frampton and Gutmann (2000) and also to the conception of agreement as adopted in HPSG-accounts of agreement (cf. for instance Pollard and Sag 1994, Kathol 1999): a Goal shares its features with the Probe as it is in an agreement relation with the Probe. Agree identifies an element as a suitable Goal when it meets certain requirements: it has to be local and it has to have matching features (cf. Chomsky 2000, 2001a,b). In the configuration discussed here, there are two suitable Goals. They are equally local with respect to the Probe and they both have matching features. When two Goals are equally local, they are arguably found in the same application of the operation Agree. I assume that Agree simultaneously identifies them as suitable Goals and simultaneously establishes a relation between these two Goals and the Probe. At the level of Morphology, which I assume to follow the syntactic derivation (cf. Halle and Marantz 1993), it has to be determined which one of these Goals defines the agreement morphology on the Probe. If there are two Goals available to a Probe, the Goal that defines the affix spelled out on the Probe is not selected randomly. Rather, the relation resulting in the most specific agreement morphology on the Probe defines the agreement affix on the Probe. The question is how ‘more specific morphology’ should be defined. I assume that an affix expressing a specific combination of phi-features (henceforth a specific affix) is more specific than and hence takes precedence over a so-called elsewhere-affix. With elsewhere-affix I mean an affix which does not belong to a specific combination of phi-features, but which is inserted in all phi-feature slots which do not have a specific affix associated with them. Finally, I assume that elsewhere-affixes are more specific than and hence take precedence over the absence of an affix altogether. Let’s see how this works for the Tegelen Dutch examples in (15). First consider the relevant part of the derivation of Example (15) in (20). CP

(20) C0 [uphi]

TP CoPi [1P.PL]

Pron [2P.SG]

TP ..ti .. CoP

&

Pron [1P.SG]

As the dialects under consideration are dialects with CA, I assume that C0 carries unvalued phi-features (Van Craenenbroeck and Van Koppen 2002a, Carstens 2003). Probe C0 searches its c-command domain for a Goal with matching phi-features. CoP and the first conjunct in Spec, CoP both are matching and equally local Goals,

 Marjo van Koppen

according the definitions provided above. The Probe enters into an agreement relation with both CoP and the pronoun in Spec,CoP simultaneously, as depicted in (20) by the arrows. At the level of Morphology, one of these relations has to be spelled out on the Probe. If the former relation is spelled out, it results in resolved agreement on the Probe. If the latter is spelled out, the Probe shows FCA. To see which relation results in the more specific agreement morphology in this dialect, consider the CA-paradigm of this dialect in Table (21). (21) 1p.sg 2p.sg 3p.sg 1p.pl 2p.pl 3p.pl

CA det de-s det det det det

Only the relation with a second person singular subject leads to an agreement affix on the complementizer. The other relations do not result in an agreement affix. This means that in Example (15) the relation between C0 and CoP leads to less specific agreement morphology, namely the absence of agreement altogether, than the relation between C0 and the first conjunct in Spec,CoP, which results in a specific affix. As a consequence, only the latter relation can be spelled out on the complementizer. Now consider the Bavarian examples in (16). In this case both resolved agreement and FCA can appear. The syntactic derivation of this example proceeds along the same lines as the one for Tegelen Dutch. However, the morphological part of the derivation has to be different. Probe C0 encounters a Goal with second person singular features and one with second person plural features. These Goals are equally local with respect to the Probe. The probe simultaneously enters into an agreement relation with both these Goals. When this structure reaches the level of Morphology, one of these relations has to be spelled out as agreement on the complementizer. The question arises which one of these relations results in more specific agreement morphology. Consider the table in (22) displaying the CA-paradigm in Bavarian (cf. Bayer 1984:233). (22)

CA 1p.sg 2p.sg 3p.sg 1p.pl 2p.pl 3p.pl

-st

-ts

Either the relation between C0 and the second person singular first conjunct can be spelled out on the complementizer, or the relation between C0 and the resolved

Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement 

feature set which has the specification [.]. Both relations result in an affix, as can be seen in the table in (22). Furthermore, both affixes belong to a specific combination of features. As a consequence there is no ordering between them and both can appear on the complementizer.9 ... The analysis of the Movement Bleeds FCA-generalization Now that it is clear what the analysis for FCA without movement is, let’s consider FCA with movement. First reconsider the examples in (5) and (7), repeated here as (23) and (24) respectively. (23)

a. *Doow en Marie dink ich de-s that-2. [You and Marie] think I b. ?Doow en Marie dink ich det that [You and Marie] think I ‘You and Marie I think will win the game.’

het the het the

spel game spel game

zull-e will- zull-e will-

winnen. win winnen. win

[Tegelen Dutch] (24)

a. *Du und d’Maria glaub’e daβ-sd an [you and the Maria]2. believe.I that-2. the hab-ds. have-2. b. Du und d’Maria glaub’e daβ-ds an [you and the Maria]2. believe.I that-2. the hab-ds. have-2. ‘You and Maria I think have won the first prize.’



[Bavarian]

Now consider the derivation in (25) of the examples in (23) and (24). (25)

CP CoP [2P.PL ] DP [2P.SG]

CoP &

CP C0 [uphi]

DP [3P.SG]

TP CoPi [2P.PL]

DP [2P.SG ]

TP ... CoP

&

DP [3P.SG]

. For a more in depth analysis of CA with coordinated subjects in Bavarian, I refer the reader to Van Koppen 2005.

 Marjo van Koppen

Just as in the structure in (20), C0 is merged with TP. And C0 is a Probe with unvalued phi-features. If Agree takes place at this point in the derivation, there is no explanation for the fact that FCA is not combinable with movement. Agree could target the first conjunct and value the features of C0, after which CoP could be moved. However, I assume following a suggestion by Chomsky (2001b) that Agree does not take place at every step of the derivation, but rather at Transfer: the point at which the derivation is transferred to PF. That agreement takes place late has also been proposed by Van Craenenbroeck and Van Koppen (2002a), Ackema and Neeleman (2005) and Bobaljik (2006) on the basis of different arguments. If the operation Agree takes place at Transfer, then the C0-Probe in (25) agrees with a lower copy of CoP, rather than with the highest instance of CoP. By assumption the internal structure of this lower copy is not accessible to Agree (indicated by the box in (25)). This means that the relation between C0 and the first conjunct cannot be established and hence that there cannot be FCA. The only available option for C0 is to agree with the resolved feature set on CoP. This relation does not result in overt agreement morphology in Tegelen Dutch, see Example (23), but it does in Bavarian, see Example (24). The examples that appeared to be problematic for the two approaches discussed in the previous two subsections can be explained under the account provided here. Reconsider again the Finnish examples in (13)–(14), repeated here as (26)–(27) respectively. (26) %Sitä olen minä ja sinä-kin käyneet Pariisissa. and you-too] visited- Paris  have1. [I ‘Me and you have been to Paris, too.’ [Finnish] (27)

a. *minä ja sinä-kin sitä olen [I and you-too]  have1. b. ?minä ja sinä-kin sitä olemme [I and you-too]  have1. ‘Me and you have been to Paris, too.’


Pariisissa. Paris Pariisissa. Paris [Finnish]

Under the current approach, Example (27a) is ungrammatical as T0 does not agree with the highest instance of the moved subject, but with a lower copy in this chain. The internal structure of this lower copy is not available for agreement. This means the inflectional head T0 can only agree with the resolved feature set on CoP. The finite verb hence has to show resolved agreement and cannot show FCA. . Accessibility of copies for reconstruction and agreement: a paradox Let’s assume the conclusion reached in the preceding section is on the right track, and the internal structure of copies of movement is unavailable to Agree.

Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement 

Then the question arises how this can be made compatible with the idea that the internal structure of copies of movement is accessible to reconstruction. There are (at least) two ways to proceed. First of all, one could argue that reconstruction does not take place via (the internal structure of) copies of movement. In this case, one could claim that the internal structure of copies of movement is not accessible to any operation. Secondly, one could maintain the idea that reconstruction takes place via copies of movement. In this case, there should be an independent reason why the internal structure of copies of movement is not accessible to Agree. This second option might result in a PF versus LF split, assuming Agree takes place on the interface to PF, whereas reconstruction takes place (at the interface to) LF. This idea is formalized in (28). (28)

The Configurational Accessibility Split (CAS) The internal structure of copies is accessible to operations at LF, and inaccessible to operations at PF, including operations of Morphology.

Although the second option might be a feasible route to explore, I opt for the first solution in this paper, as I think it provides us with a new and challenging view of copies of movement. However, this means that I have to make the unpopular assumption that reconstruction does not take place via copies of movement. As I cannot do justice within the limitations of this paper to the debate on whether reconstruction takes place via copies of movement or not, I will not go into this issue here. However, I would like to refer the reader to Sharvit 1999, Sharvit and Guerzoni 1999 and references cited there for arguments in favor of the idea that the copy theory of movement is not the only and maybe not even the best way to analyze reconstruction. .

Implementation of inaccessibility

The question that takes a central place in this section is how the idea that the internal structure of lower copies of movement is inaccessible should be implemented. It would be favorable to reduce the notion of inaccessibility to some form of inaccessibility that has already been introduced in the literature, for instance Phases (Chomsky 2001), Frozen Entities (Uriagereka 1999) or something like Barriers (Chomsky 1986). In all these suggestions, the internal structure of a phrase is not accessible for some reason or the other. The problem with these approaches is that they do not differentiate between the head and the foot of a movement chain. The agreement data discussed above suggest that it is only the lower copies of which the internal structure is inaccessible to agreement, the internal structure of the head of the chain is accessible. Another way to implement the notion of inaccessibility is to assume that there are no copies, a moving item does not leave anything behind in lower positions (cf. Epstein et al. 2001). Given the assumptions concerning agreement discussed above, i.e. Agree takes place at Transfer, this is

 Marjo van Koppen

problematic, as it is not the case that the Probe does not show any agreement at all when the coordinated subject moves past it, it can still agree with the resolved features of the coordinated subject. This is for instance shown in the example in (24b), repeated here as (29). (29)

Du und d’Maria glaub’e daβ-ds an Hauptpreis gwunna won [you and the Maria]2. believe.I that-2. the first.prize hab-ds. have-2. ‘You and Maria I think have won the first prize.’ [Bavarian]

This seems to suggest that there is at least something within the c-command domain of the Probe which participates in the agreement relation with the Probe. I would like to explore the idea that a moving item leaves behind lower copies, but that these copies are reduced (henceforth referred to as reduced copy). Their internal structure is not just inaccessible, it is not present at all. The reduced copy only contains the feature bundle present on the maximal projection of the moved item. I introduce the concept of reduced copies in the following subsection. .

Reduced copies

The copy theory of movement (Chomsky 1993) builds upon the idea that when an item moves an exact copy of this item is generated. One copy ends up in the landing site of the movement operation, the other in its base position. The lower copy is (at least in the majority of the cases) not phonetically realized (but see Section 3.2 below). It is currently assumed that the operation Copy can target heads such as lexical items, features or feature bundles, but it can also apply to XPs. I would like to put forward the idea that the operation Copy is more restrictive than standardly assumed and only targets heads. Given this assumption, the question arises what happens when an XP needs to be copied. I propose that copies of movement, like traces, are nothing more than place holders of the moved item. As such, the only information that needs to be copied when an XP moves is the information which is necessary to link the head of this movement chain to its lower copies. This, I assume, is just the feature bundle present on the maximal projection of the moving item. So, when an XP moves and hence a copy needs to be generated, not the whole XP gets copied, but only the feature bundle of the maximal projection, a head. I refer to these copies as reduced copies. As it is not the XP as whole that needs to be copied, but only a subpart of this XP, potentially the operation is more economical. Consider the difference between the copy theory of movement and the reduced copy theory of movement, visualized in (30) and (31) respectively.

Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement 

(30)

Copy theory

(31) Reduced copy theory

XP ZP[F]

XP X’

Z’ Z0

ZP[F] Z’

YP Z0

ZP[F]

X’ YP [F]

Z’ Z0

The copy theory of movement assumes that copies of movement are identical to the moved item itself. The reduced copy theory on the other hand assumes that the lower copy only consists of the feature bundle of the maximal projection of the moved item, [F]. Copies are in this sense quite similar to traces: they are placeholders of the moved item containing only the features to link them to the moved item. They crucially differ from traces in that they are not primitives of the grammar. Reduced copies are the result of the copying mechanism applied to XPs. Another crucial difference between the standard view on copies and reduced copies is that the latter stipulate a difference between the head of the movement chain and the lower copies in its tail, whereas the former assumes there is no distinction between the various links of the chain, apart from the fact that the first link gets phonetically realized. A potential argument in favor of reduced copies, and of differentiating between the highest link of a movement chain and the lower ones, comes from cases that have been argued to involve copy spell-out. .

Evidence in favor of inaccessible copies: copy spell-out

The reduced copy theory and the standard copy theory make different predictions when it comes to copy spell-out. The reduced copy theory makes the prediction that the internal structure of lower copies cannot be phonetically realized, as there is no internal structure. Only the feature specification of the maximal projection is present and hence can be spelled out. This means that spelledout copies under this view are not necessarily identical to the moved item. The standard copy theory on the other hand predicts that when more than one copy gets phonetically realized, they are all spelled out identical, as copies of movement are identical. In this subsection, I show that the cases that have been analyzed as involving copy spell-out in the literature seem to confirm the prediction

 Marjo van Koppen

made by the reduced copy theory and not the one made by the standard copy theory.10,11 .. wh-copying Nunes (2004) argues that wh-phrases can sometimes be spelled out. An example is provided in (32) (from McDaniel 1986). (32)

Wen glaubt Hans wen Jakob gesehen who thinks Hans who Jakob seen ‘Who does Hans think Jakob saw?’

hat? has [German]

The wh-phrase wen ‘who’ occurs twice in this example. Once in sentence initial position and once in an intermediate position. Nunes (2004) argues that both instances of wen ‘who’ spell out a copy of the moved wh-phrase: the higher one spells out the head of the movement chain, the lower one spells out the copy in the intermediate CP-projection. This example does not differentiate between the standard copy theory of movement and the reduced copy theory. The standard copy theory predicts that the copy of the wh-phrase should look exactly the same as the moved wh-phrase, which is clearly the case in this example. The reduced copy theory predicts that the copy should spell out the feature bundle belonging to the maximal projection of the moved item. In this case these features will presumably consist of wh-features, case and agreement features. We expect this feature bundle to be spelled out as a wh-phrase like wen ‘who’. Interestingly, the standard copy theory predicts that when a full-blown wh-phrase moves, the spelled-out copy is identical

. On the other hand it has to be noted here that Nunes (2004) and Grohmann (2000) provide analyses for these effects while at the same time maintaining the standard view on the copy theory of movement. However, in order to account for these data they also have to make some additional assumptions. Furthermore, Nunes (2004) predicts that only copies of heads can be phonetically realized. In the following subsections I show that there are also constructions which have been argued to involve spell-out of copies of XPs. . Concerning copy spell-out the question arises why only a subset of the copies of a moved item can be spelled out. Nunes (2004) provides a detailed account for this. He argues that only those copies that can escape the LCA by fusing with a sister node can be spelled out. All others have to be deleted as they otherwise violate the LCA. At present I do not have an answer to this question. However, it might be the case that Nunes’ (2004) approach is not fully incompatible with my account. Suppose that reduced copies also pose a problem for the LCA, just like normal copies do. Then we also expect reduced copies to undergo deletion. Then the same copies can be spelled out in this account as in Nunes’ account: namely those copies that can undergo fusion and escape the LCA. However, as reduced copies are heads, we do not expect a difference between movement of XPs versus movement of heads. In bothcases the copy left behind by movement is a head which, given the right environment, can fuse with its sister.

Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement 

to this full-blown wh-phrase. The reduced copy theory on the other hand predicts that the highest copy of this wh-phrase is phonetically realized as the full-blown wh-phrase, whereas the lower copy containing only the features present on the maximal projection of this wh-phrase will be realized as a reduced item. It is not expected to have any internal structure. The prediction of the reduced copy theory and crucially not the one made by the standard copy theory is confirmed by the data. Consider the examples in (33) and (34) (from Nunes 2004 and Fanselow and Ćavar 2001 respectively). (33) *Wessen Student glaubst du wessen Student wir kennen? which student think you which student we know [German] ‘Which student do you think we know?’ (34)

Welchem Mann glaubst du wem sie das Buch gegeben hat? which man think you who she the book given has ‘Which man do you think that she has given the book to?’ [dialectal German]

These examples show that when a complex wh-phrase like wessen Student ‘which student’ or welchem Mann ‘which man’ is moved the spelled out copy cannot be identical to the moved item. It has to be a reduced item without internal structure. These data confirm the predictions of the reduced copy theory and not those of the standard copy theory.12 .. CLD and CLLD Grohmann (2000) shows that certain types of left dislocation, in particular Contrastive Left Dislocation (CLD) in German and CLitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) in Greek, are derived via movement and copy spell-out. If this is indeed the correct analysis for these constructions, the reduced copy theory predicts that the spelled out copies should be reduced, whereas the standard copy theory predicts the spelled out copies to be identical to the moved item. Consider the examples in (35) (examples are from Grohmann 2000). (35)

a.

b.

[Diesen Mann], den kenne that-one know this man ‘This man, I don’t know [him].’ [Afton ton andra], dhen ton not him. this the man ‘This man, I don’t know [him].

ich I

nicht. not [German]

ksero know 1 [Greek]

. A different analysis of these data might be that the wh-phrase appearing in the intermediate CP is wh-agreement rather than the spell out of a copy of the moved wh-phrase. As I do not see a way to distinguish between this analysis and the analysis in the main text, I will not go into it here.

 Marjo van Koppen

Grohmann argues that both diesen Mann and den in (35a) and afton ton andra and ton in (35b) are spelled-out copies. If this is indeed the correct analysis of these constructions, they confirm the predictions made by the reduced copy theory.13 As is shown in the example in (35a), the spelled out copy den ‘that one’ is reduced with respect to the left dislocated phrase diesen Mann ‘this man’. The same holds for the example in (35b), the spelled out copy ton ‘him’ is also reduced with respect to the moved left dislocated phrase afton ton andra ‘this man’.14 .. Subject doubling Certain Dutch dialects display a construction in which the subject is doubled by a pronoun, so-called subject doubling (cf. among others Haegeman 1992 and Van Craenenbroeck and Van Koppen 2002b). Consider the example in (36). (36)

Zaai gui zaai nuir She goes she to ‘She is going home.’

ojsh. home [Wambeek Dutch]

In this example, the subject pronoun zaai ‘she’ occurs twice. This has been analyzed by Van Craenenbroeck and Van Koppen (2002b) as involving A’-movement of the subject from Spec,IP to a topic projection in the CP-domain and concomitant spell-out of the copy in Spec,IP. If this is indeed the correct analysis of subject doubling in Dutch dialects, the reduced copy theory predicts that when a complex

. There are also other possible analyses of these constructions. For instance one might think of an analysis involving a so-called big DP. This big DP consists of a pronominal part and the left dislocated part. The left dislocated part moves, leaving behind the pronominal part in its base position. If this is the right analysis for these constructions, they do not say anything about the difference between the copy theory of movement and the reduced copy theory of movement. . An anonymous reviewer raises the question as to how this analysis works with examples like the ones in (i), where the left dislocated XP is an AP or a VP. The category of the “copy”, i.e. a demonstrative, is different from the category of the left dislocated XP. (i)

a.

b.

[Gelachen] dat heeft ze zeker! laughed that has she certainly “She has certainly laughed!” [Echt blij daarmee] dat was Jan really happy there-with that was Jan “Jan was certainly not happy with that”

zeker niet! certainly not [Dutch]

The questions raised by these examples are interesting and in need of further investigation. Furthermore, a more general question arises which is what determines how the copy is spelled out, i.e. why is it sometimes spelled out as a demonstratives and in other instances as a pronoun. I will not go into these questions here, but leave them as topics for future research.

Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement 

subject moves into the topic projection, the spelled-out copy should be reduced. The standard copy theory predicts that the spelled-out copy is identical to the moved complex subject. Again the data seem to confirm the prediction made by the reduced copy theory of movement, as is shown in the example in (37). (37)

Dei vrou gui zaai nuir ojsh. that woman goes she to home ‘That woman is going home.’

[Wambeek Dutch]

.. Summary In this subsection, I have shown that the assumption of reduced copies makes different predictions concerning copy spell-out than the standard view on copies. In the former view a spelled-out lower copy of a moving XP is expected to be reduced with respect to the highest instance of this XP. In the latter view it is expected that when more copies of a moved item are phonetically realized, they are identical. I have discussed three constructions that have been analyzed as involving copy spell-out. These constructions all confirmed the prediction made by the view that copies of movement are reduced. As such, they show that at least with respect to copy spell-out, reduced copies are to be favored over the non-distinct copies of the standard view on the copy theory. A remaining question is why copies of movement are sometimes spelled out as demonstratives (as in the example in (35a) from German) and in other cases as a pronoun (as in the example in (37) from Wambeek Dutch). However, this problem does not only arise given the reduced view on copies but also given the standard view on copies. If these constructions indeed involve copy spell-out, the standard copy theory should not only be able to account for the fact that the copy is not identical to the moved item, but also for why the copy is not always spelled out as a pronoun or as a demonstrative. .

Conclusion

In this paper I have shown that agreement and reconstruction seem to obey different domains of accessibility. It appears to be the case that reconstruction can access the internal structure of a lower copy in a movement chain, whereas the operation Agree cannot. The question arises why one syntactic operation can access lower copies, whereas another operation cannot. In order to resolve this dilemma, I have taken the position that neither reconstruction nor Agree make use of the lower copy in a movement chain. The idea that reconstruction should not be analyzed by making use of lower copies of movement has been put forth by amongst others Sharvit (1999) and Sharvit and Guerzoni (1999). Furthermore, I have argued that Agree cannot access the internal structure of lower copies in a movement chain because

 Marjo van Koppen

these lower copies do not contain internal structure. More precisely, the head of chain differs from the other copies in the chain in that the internal structure of the head of the chain is accessible, whereas that of the lower copies is not. I have proposed that copies are reduced in the sense that they only contain the features of the maximal projection of the moved item. This implementation is confirmed by the data of several constructions that are assumed to involve copy spell-out.

References Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2005. Beyond morphology. Interface conditions on word formations. Oxford: OUP. Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas & Sportiche, Dominique. 1994. Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 195–220. Bahloul, Maher & Harbert, Wayne. 1992. Agreement asymmetries in Arabic. Proceedings of WCCFL 11. Babyonyshev, Maria A. 1996. Structural connections in syntax and processing: Studies in Russian and Japanese. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Bayer, Joseph. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–274. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2006. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. Ms, University of Connecticut. Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Wurmbrand, Susanna. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 809–865. Carstens, Vicki. 2003. Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with a case-checked Goal. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 393–412. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin et al. (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001a. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001b. Beyond explanatory adequacy. Ms., MIT. Citko, Barbara. 2004. Agreement asymmetries in Coordinate structures. In Proceedings of FASL 12. Corbett, Greville. 1983. Resolution rules: Agreement in person, number and gender. In Order, Concord and constituency, Gerald Gazdar, Ewan Klein & Geoffrey Pullum (eds). 175–206. Dordrecht: Foris. Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van & Koppen, Marjo van. 2002a. The locality of agreement and the CPdomain. Handout Glow 2002, Amsterdam. Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van & Koppen, Marjo van. 2002b. Subject doubling in Dutch dialects. In Proceedings of Console IX, Marjo van Koppen, Erica Thrift, Eric Jan van der Torre & Malte Zimmerman (eds), 54–67. (Also published at http:/www.sole.leidenuniv.nl/). Doron, Edit. 2000. VSO and left-conjunct agreement: Biblical Hebrew vs. Modern Hebrew. In The syntax of verb initial languages, Andrew Carnie & Eithne Guilfoyle (eds), 75–96. Oxford: OUP. Epstein, Samuel David, Groat, Eric, Kawashima, Ruriko & Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1998. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Oxford: OUP.

Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement  Fanselow, Gisbert & Ćavar, Damir. 2001. Remarks on the economy of pronunciation. In Competition in syntax, Gereold Müller & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 107–150. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Frampton, John & Gutmann, Sam. 2000. Agreement is feature sharing. Ms., Northeastern University. Goeman, Ton. 1997. Historiografie van het onderzoek naar voegwoordvervoeging: een bibliografisch overzicht (1821–1996). In Vervoegde voegwoorden [Cahiers van het P.J. Meertensinstituut 9], Eric Hoekstra & Caroline Smits (eds), 112–145. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut. Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2000. Prolific peripheries. A radical view from the left. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland. Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax, A case study in West Flemish. Cambridge: CUP. Haeringen, Coenraad Bernardus van. 1938. Congruerende voegwoorden. De Nieuwe Taalgids 58: 161–176. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Hoekstra, Eric & Smits, Caroline. 1997. Vervoegde voegwoorden in de Nederlandse dialecten. In Vervoegde voegwoorden [Cahiers van het P.J. Meertensinstituut 9], Eric Hoekstra & Caroline Smits (eds), 6–30. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut. Holmberg, Anders. 2003. Null subjects and uninterpretable features: Evidence from Finnish. Ms., University of Durham. Johannessen, Janne. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: OUP. Kathol, Andrea. 1999. Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. In Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar, Robert Levine & Georgia Green (eds), 223–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The anti-symmetry of syntax [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 24]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Koopman, Hilda. 2001. The locality of agreement and the structure of the DP in Masaai. Ms., UCLA. Koppen, Marjo van. 2005. One Probe, two Goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. PhD Dissertation, Leiden University (LOT, nr. 105). McDaniel, Dana. 1986. Conditions on wh-chains. PhD Dissertation, CUNY. Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland. Munn, Alan. 1999. First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 643–668. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998. Structure for coordination. Glot International 3(7): 3–8. Sharvit, Yael. 1999. Connectivity in specificational sentences. Natural Language Semantics 7: 229–339. Sharvit, Yael & Guerzoni, Elena. 1999. Reconstruction and its problems. In Proceedings of the 14th Amsterdam Colloquium, Paul Dekker & Robert van Rooy (eds). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

 Marjo van Koppen Soltan, Usama. 2004. An argument for AGREE and Multiple Spell-Out: Standard Arabic agreement asymmetries revisited. Handout of the Workshop on Minimalist Theorizing, Indiana University. June 26, 2004. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 251–282. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Wurmbrand, Susanna. 2004. Licensing case. Ms., University of Connecticut. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach [Groningen dissertations in linguistics 10]. PhD Dissertation, University of Groningen. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1994. A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting* Norbert Hornstein University of Maryland

This chapter examines the theoretical status of pronouns and principle B of the Binding Theory within the Minimalist Program, once it is assumed that reflexives should be formed by movement/copying. If reflexive structures are to be ultimately analyzed in terms of movement/copying, Principle A should be dispensed with. The question then is how to reanalyze Principle B, given that it imposes the opposite requirements of Principle A. The paper argues in favour of returning to the earliest approaches to pronominalization phenomena by Lees and Klima (1963), recast in a more contemporary setting in terms of derivational economy. More specifically, it is proposed that the complementarity between reflexives and bound pronouns follows if derivations that resort to movement (understood in terms of copying) are more economical than derivations that resort to pronoun use. Under this view, pronouns are last resort items used when more favourable (“economical”) grammatical options cannot be.

.

Introduction

This paper starts from the observation that the Binding Theory (viz. Chomsky 1981, 1986) is problematic from a minimalist perspective. More particularly, if one assumes that reflexives are formed by movement then principle A should be dispensed with.1 However, if one dispenses with principle A, then principle B becomes very problematic and should be rethought. This paper considers how to do this. The proposal advanced returns to the approach to binding developed in

* Versions of this paper have been presented in various venues including USC, University of Delaware and Harvard as well as the conference on pronouns at UBC. The comments gathered there have been invaluable to me. I would also like to thank Cedric Boeckx, Jairo Nunes and Norbert Corver for valuable discussion and comments. .

See Chomsky (1995b: 211) for this observation: Condition A may be dispensible if the approach based upon cliticizationLF [movement, NH] is correct. . . .

 Norbert Hornstein

the standard theory by Lees and Klima (1963). This approach to binding has one attractive feature: it analyses binding as a competitive process. In particular, the rule that licenses reflexives in some position is preferred to the one that licenses a (bound) pronoun in that position and this preference is what blocks a (bound) pronoun from sitting where a reflexive can. So understanding the complementarity of bound pronouns and reflexives reflects an economy perspective that fits well with some leading ideas in both OT and Minimalism. This paper considers what this sort of approach “means” given common minimalist assumptions. In particular, the paper proposes that many features of the Lees-Klima approach follow from basic minimalist precepts. The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 describes the problems with principles A and B of the Binding Theory when appraised with a minimalist eye. Section 2 outlines an earlier approach to binding developed by Lees and Klima in the context of the Standard Theory. The aim is to limn the general features of this sort of analysis and consider how these features might be implemented in a more contemporary technology. Section 3 and 4 consider various kinds of supporting evidence. Section 3 concentrates on the interpretability of pronominal phi-features and the Section 4 considers how pronoun use interacts with movement. The general thrust of the discussion is that pronouns are usable just in case movement is unavailable as a derivational option. Section 5 is a conclusion. One important caveat before proceeding: What follows is not so much a theory of binding as a prolegomenon to such a theory. What I offer are arguments suggesting that something along the lines of the Lees-Klima approach suitably “minimalized” is worth pursuing. Most details are left to one side. It is only the viability of the basic conceptualization that is here explored.2

.

The problem

Since Chomsky’s (1986) revision of the Binding Theory (BT), it has been assumed that a reflexive moves to a position proximate to its antecedent, viz. a sentence like (1a) has a structure (roughly) like (1b) at LF.

. Two very fine reviews raised many questions of interest for this larger project. For example: how to account for subject-oriented anaphors and object oriented anaphors (Danish), how to deal with long distance anaphors, whether this sort of system can be extended to possessive anaphors in Slavic and the Scandinavian languages. These are all perfectly appropriate questions that a more worked out account would have to address. They will not, however, be addressed here, at least not in any detail. Speculations and suggestions will be confined to the notes.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

(1)

a. b.

John likes himself [ John1 [himself1+ I0 ] likes t1 ]

More contemporary approaches to anaphora licensing keep to the assumption that movement is involved in this process. Chomsky (1993) crucially relies on such movement to eliminate S-structure (SS). Other work on principle A has also assumed that anaphors are related to their antecedents via movement, though the details differ. For example, in place of LF cliticization, Grohmann 2003, Hornstein 2001, Lidz and Idsardi 1997, and Zwart 2002 have proposed that the movement occurs in overt syntax and the reflexive is a residue of this overt movement. This yields a structure like (2a) for reflexives. A delicious piece of evidence supporting this general conception (viz. that reflexives are tied to movement) comes from copy reflexive languages like San Lucas Quiavini Zapotec (SLQZ) and Hmong.3 In these languages, reflexivization is expressed in configurations like (2b–c). (2)

a. b.

c.

John1 likes [t1 himself] R-yu’lààa’z Gye’eihlly Gye’eihlly. (SLQZ) HAB-like Mike Mike ‘Mike likes himself.’ Pov yeej qhuas Pov. (Hmong) Pao always praise Pao ‘Pao always praises himself.’

The particular virtues of treating antecedent-anaphor relations as instances of movement understood as the composite of Copy and Merge are especially clear in such languages as they retain their movement etiology on their morphological sleeves. Indeed, their “copy” structures are precisely what one should expect were one to assume that grammatical dependencies were mediated by movement and that movement was just the composite of Copy and Merge. For what follows, let’s take it as settled (though it clearly is not) that anaphors move and consider what this implies for the structure of BT in a minimalist setting. First: if correct, it urges the elimination of principle A. The reason is that it is theoretically redundant to both move anaphors and subject them to principle A. If such redundancy is to be eschewed (as of course it should be) and we assume movement occurs, then we should dump principle A.4 . These languages are discussed in detail in Lee (2003), Mortensen (2003) and Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes (2007). Their properties are reviewed in Bošković and Nunes (this volume). These papers argue that the “copies” function like just like reflexives. We refer the interested reader to these papers for further details. .

See Note 1.

 Norbert Hornstein

It is worth pausing a moment to consider the overlap in more detail. Principle A does two things: it fixes the antecedent of the reflexive and it imposes a locality condition on its licensing. A cursory look at (1b) and (2) indicates that both these functions are executed if one assumes that anaphors move as indicated. First, the locality effects follow from the kind of movement the anaphor executes. Both LF cliticization in (1b) and A-movement in (2) are very local movements. If either applies, the reflexive cannot be more than, roughly, an A-chain away, from its antecedent. Second, the choice of antecedent is also made evident. In (1b) it is the DP immediately next to the reflexive+I0 complex. In (2) it is the head of the chain that bottoms out at the anaphor. In either case, which DP antecedes the reflexive is unambiguous and nothing further need relate them. In short, if reflexives move as indicated then principle A is redundant and should be eliminated from UG. Second, if principle A is eliminated then principle B should be as well. Why so? The reason lies with the central empirical fact about pronouns; they, when bound, are in complementary distribution with reflexives.5 Any theory of binding must account for this big fact. Principles A and B accomplish this via the imposition of opposing requirements on pronouns and anaphors in the same domain. Thus, those domains within which principle A requires that anaphors be bound, principle B requires that pronouns be free. This forces the distribution of the two morphemes to be complementary. However, consider now what happens if we eliminate principle A and adduce its effects to movement. How then do we account for the complentarity of bound pronouns and reflexives? Why should anaphors, whose properties follow from the theory of movement, block the presence of pronouns, whose distribution and interpretive properties follow from the theory of binding? The big fact noted above is rendered capricious, a colossal grammatical accident. Something must be wrong! So, if we decide to replace principle A with anaphor movement, then we must rethink principle B to insure that the complementary distribution of bound pronouns and reflexives follows in a principled manner. There are a few ancillary considerations that buttress this conclusion that I would like to quickly allude to here, though I believe that they are less hefty than the one just mooted. The first concerns a conceptual infelicity in the classical BT. Its conditions are morpheme specific. This seems odd. Why should UG care about the distribution of these specific morphemes? In the context of theories that aim to eliminate construction specific operations, the existence of UG principles keyed exquisitely to the properties of pronouns and anaphors seems odd. Why should these particular lexical elements be singled out for special treatment? A second

. See Safir (1997) for a detailed review of the complementarity of bound pronouns and reflexives.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

concern for principle B is that it only regulates the distribution of a subset of pronouns. Put another way, pronouns come in many varieties and principle B has nothing to say about any of these save one; the bound/referential pronouns. It is mute concerning, for example, resumptives, expletives, deictic pronouns, intrusive pronouns and cataphoric pronouns. In short, principle B is not a general theory of pronouns at all. The question that arises is whether there is anything that regulates all or most of these. One problem is that pronouns function in a many different ways. They are a motley. This raises two questions: Is there a reason why this is so? And, is there any general principle that regulates pronouns across all their different uses? The BT approach via principle B suggests not. It would be nice if we could find a theory that tied these more closely together all the while recognizing the irregularity of the grouping.

. An alternative: the Standard (Lees-Klima) Theory and avoid pronoun6 Let’s recap the main problem before proceeding: how does one account for the complementary distribution of bound pronouns and reflexives if one assumes that principle A is replaced by anaphor movement? Or, how does one replace principle B once one has dumped principle A? We will sneak up on a possible answer to this question by reviewing how an earlier generative theory, the Standard Theory (ST), dealt with reflexives and pronouns. In ST pronouns and reflexives entered derivations via the pair of transformational rules in (3) and (4). (3)

Reflexivization: X-NP1- Y- NP2 - Z ----> X- NP1-Y- pronoun+self-Z (Where NP1=NP2, are in the same simplex sentence and pronoun has the phifeatures of NP2.)

(4)

Pronominalization: X-NP1-Y-NP2-Z ----> X-NP1-Y- pronoun-Z

Consider some features of these two rules. (a) The structural descriptions of the two rules are similar. Each looks for two identical NPs and converts the second into a reflexive or a pronoun. The identity condition (i.e. the NP1=NP2 condition) codes the fact that these rules are concerned with bound elements. This is particularly important for (4): the rule is limited to bound pronouns. It does not encompass deictic or referential pronouns. . The ideas presented here were advocated forcefully in Bouchard 1983 and much of what follows develops these views. Chomsky 1981 first proposed the Avoid Pronoun Principle.

 Norbert Hornstein

Simply put, in this theory, bound pronouns and referential pronouns are entirely different elements. (b) The two rules treat bound pronouns and reflexives as by-products of grammatical operations. Put another way, according to (3) and (4) bound pronouns and reflexives are not lexical items but grammatical formatives. Thus, they are not introduced into derivations via lexical insertion but by post DS operations. In the context of ST this has an important implication that will be duplicated in our proposed minimalist account. In ST, Deep Structure was the locus of all semantic interpretation. As both bound pronouns and reflexives are introduced transformationally (i.e. by (3) and (4)), neither can contribute to the meaning of the sentences that contain them. In other words, the bound pronoun and reflexives morphemes per se are semantically inert. Note that this contrasts with the standard BT intuition where pronouns and reflexives are semantically very important. Here, they are little more than morpho-phonological housekeeping items. (c) Both rules are obligatory in the sense of having to apply when they can apply. (d) The rules differ in that (3) has a more limited domain of application than (4). It can apply only in simplex sentences. In a movement based account, this locality follows from the locality of the kind of movement involved (A-movement or cliticization). (e) Last of all, within ST, (3) is strictly ordered before (4). Thus, it gets a chance to apply before (4) does and its application blocks the application of (4). In short, reflexivization trumps the application of pronominalization. The astute reader will have noted that this has the effect of putting reflexives and bound pronouns in complementary distribution (and all without mention of principle A or B!).7 I believe that this approach to binding is of more than historical interest. It suggests a way of handling the complementarity of bound pronouns and reflexives in the context of a theory without principle A. In fact, the features noted in (a-e) above have a natural modern interpretation in a minimalist context. If we abstract from the mechanics of ST, we find the following more general conception. Bound pronouns and reflexives are grammatical formatives (not lexical elements). They are the morphological by-products of grammatical “binding” operations with reflexive binding preferred to pronominal binding. If reflexives are the products of movement, we can regard pronoun use as less economical than . The Lees-Klima theory is conceptually quite different from the Binding Theory approach. Principles A and B do not compete with one another. Rather, they impose complementary requirements on reflexives and anaphors in the same domain. Thus, they always both apply to a given configuration. The Lees-Klima conception is quite different. The application of Reflexivization pre-empts the application of pronominalization. Thus when reflexivization applies pronominalization cannot apply.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

movement and so blocked where movement suffices for convergence.8 In effect, the Lees-Klima model embedded in (3) and (4) can be re-interpreted in minimalist terms via economy with the ranking of the rules cashed out in terms of the cost of movement. Derivations then are compared in terms of the operations required to generate them. This way of looking at things extends the Merge-over-Move logic familiar from Chomsky (1995a) to binding by proposing that Movement is cheaper than pronoun use.9 Those derivations that converge using movement alone (e.g. reflexivization) are ranked above those that require convergence via binding (i.e. pronominalization). Observe, a theory along these lines reduces principle A to properties of movement and principle B to an elsewhere condition on binding where movement (the preferred option) is prohibited. Bound pronouns cannot appear where reflexives are licensed because the operations that introduce them are more costly than those that avoid them. This is one of the hypotheses that the rest of the paper tries to motivate. The other is that reflexives and bound pronouns are grammatical, not lexical formatives and their features are uninterpretable.

.

Lees-Klima and the Copy Theory; an implementational aside

The Lees-Klima account has one serious empirical flaw. It gives the wrong semantics for examples like (5). (5)

a. b.

Everyone admires himself No one believes that he is tall

The underlying form of these sentences, the one that “reveals” its semantic import, is (6). (6)

a. b.

Everyone admires everyone No one believes that no one is tall

It is clear that the sentences in (6) are not even near paraphrases of those in (5). Thus, once one considers cases where reflexives have quantificational antecedents, the Lees-Klima approach looks semantically ill-conceived.

. This is similar to the logic that we find in Chomsky 1991 in the discussion of do-support. It is there proposed that derivations that converge without the use of do are preferred to those that must use do. The proposal here generalizes this suggestion to pronouns more generally. That this should be treated technically by excluding these items from the numeration relies on insights in Arnold 1995. .

These two economy conditions, however, are independent of one another.

 Norbert Hornstein

Interestingly, this particular problem disappears given the Copy Theory of Movement. Consider how. Let’s make the following standard technical assumptions: Move is Copy plus Merge and numerations contain the lexical items used in deriving a sentence. Let’s add to this the following implementation of the Lees-Klima idea: treat (7) and (8) as PF conversion operations (say they apply after Spell-Out). (7)

Reflexivization: X-NP1- Y- NP2 - Z ----> X- NP1-Y- pronoun+self-Z (Where NP1=NP2, are in the same simplex sentence and pronoun has the phifeatures of NP2.)

(8)

Pronominalization: X-NP1-Y-NP2-Z ----> X-NP1-Y- pronoun-Z (Where NP1=NP2 and pronoun has the phi-features of NP2.)

What does NP1=NP2 mean? If we interpret this to mean that NP1 and NP2 must be copies, we finesse the problem noted above. Consider the derivation of (5a). It is derived from the numeration (9a) with the indicated movements (copies are in bold).10 (9)

a. b.

{ everyone, admires} [TP everyone [vP everyone v [VP admires everyone]]

Note here one expression has moved twice, from VP to vP and from vP to TP. There are thus three copies of the same numerated element, i.e. everyone. If we apply the reflexive rule (and assume some housekeeping conventions such as that only Case-marked copies can be phonologically interpreted) then if (7) applies to (9b) we derive (10). (10)

Everyone admires himself

Note, in (9b) everyone has two theta-roles and the reflexive plays no role in the interpretation of the sentence. Carrying two roles is what gives one the reflexive reading. This contrasts with the derivation of (9a) which stems from a numeration like (11a) and yields a derivation like (11b). (11)

a. b.

{everyone, everyone, admires} [TP everyone [vP everyone [admires everyone]]

In (11b) the object-everyone is not a copy of the subject-everyone. Both instances of everyone are drawn from the numeration which consists of two selections of everyone from the lexicon. Each of these must be interpreted for convergence and

. This assumes a theory roughly along the lines of Hornstein (2001) and Lidz and Idsardi (1997). The derivation abstracts away from various movements that only complicate the discussion.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

each gets one theta-role. Thus, the derivations of (5a) and (6a) are entirely different and given standard conventions concerning copies and interpretation there is no reason to assume that the former should mean what the latter does. The same goes for the derivations of (5b) and (6b), which I leave as an exercise for the reader. So, the copy theory solves a serious empirical problem for the Lees-Klima account. Given current assumptions, their rules could be understood as essentially phonological readjustment processes.11 I am not proposing here that this is the only way or the correct way of implementing their ideas. I only observe that it is possible and that the main objection against doing so no longer holds once the copy theory is adopted. However, just for the record, though this approach works tolerably well for reflexives, I am dubious that treating bound pronouns as phonological readjustments is correct as it requires treating such pronouns as the outer manifestations of residues of movement. But, bound pronouns show almost no hallmarks of movement.12 I favor another technical implementation (see Hornstein 2001 for some semi-technical discussion). For what follows, these concerns are of little moment. I set them aside for future consideration.

.

The interpretability of phi-features

Assume that derivations with bound pronouns compete with those containing reflexives, viz. that (12a) competes with (12b) and that the acceptability/convergence of (12a) blocks the derivation of (12b). (12)

a. John1 likes himself1 b. *John1 likes him1 c. {John, likes}

For this to be true, (12a,b) must compete. To compete they must be comparable. Within a minimalist setting, this supports the following reasoning. If the derivations of (12a,b) compete then they must have a common numeration (as distinct numerations block derivational comparison). What distinguishes (12a) and (12b) is the reflexive in the former versus the pronoun in the latter. To be comparable, the reflexive/pronoun in (12a,b) cannot be part of the numeration of either sentence. The sentences must have a common numeration, roughly that in (12c). This means that reflexives and pronouns are not lexical elements (elements that

.

This is also the main intuition behind the Lidz and Idsardi approach to reflexives.

. See Hornstein 2001 for discussion. See Kayne 2002 for a movement approach to pronouns.

 Norbert Hornstein

live in the lexicon) but are grammatical formatives that are added in the course of the derivation. Chomsky (1995a) proposes that derivations should not be allowed to “add” interpretive material in the course of the derivation; i.e. the Inclusiveness Condition. He understands this to mean that semantically active material such as indices and bar levels cannot be inserted in the course of a derivation. Inclusiveness regulates the overt syntax to LF mapping. In contrast, Chomsky (1995a) notes that the PF derivation widely violates Inclusiveness. Let’s assume that something like Inclusiveness in this sense holds, i.e. that semantically active material cannot be inserted in the course of the derivation but that semantically inert material can be.13 If we assume this, we can frame the following deduction: if reflexives and bound pronouns are grammatical formatives added in the course of the derivation (our version of the Lees-Klima theory of binding), then Inclusiveness requires that their features be semantically inert. Consequently, reflexives and pronouns must be purely morphological elements without semantic import. In short, if we have the derivations of sentences containing reflexives and bound pronouns compete, then, in a minimalist context this implies that reflexives and bound pronouns are semantically inert.14 As pronouns and reflexives are essentially bundles of phifeatures, this implies that these phi features are without semantic import. Interestingly, there is some evidence that this conclusion is correct.15 Consider sentences like (13) where the pronoun is bound by the operator only John. (13)

[Only John]1 thinks that he1 is smart

. A reviewer notes that this weakens the inclusiveness condition. I believe that this is incorrect. The condition was always meant to exclude morpho-phonological operations. Chomsky has noted repeatedly that PF operations fail to respect Inclusiveness and that the condition applies only on the DS to LF leg of the grammar. . A reviewer noted that there are other competition based theories of Binding that are not modeled on movement. It is not clear that the deduction outlined here would go through for such approaches. The argument relies on considering what is required to make to two derivations comparable. A necessary condition is identity of numerations, which in turn requires excluding (bound) pronouns and reflexives from numerations. Thus, the Lees-Klima account is a particular kind of competitive theory, one different, say, from the one mooted in Reuland 2001. . Note that this derives the Lees-Klima idea that reflexives and bound pronouns are not lexical elements but grammatical formatives and that they do not contribute to the semantic interpretation of the sentences that contain them. Note too that if this is correct then the various semantic differences between bound reflexives and bound pronouns cannot be attributed to semantic differences between these elements. See Hornstein (2001) for a review of some of the salient differences.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

This sentence can be contradicted by the sentences in (14). (14)

a. b. c.

Wrong! Mary thinks that she is smart too Wrong! The boys over there think that they are smart too Wrong! I think that I am smart and you think that you are

For the sentences in (14) to contradict (13) it must be the case that the phi features of he in (13) carry no semantic import. For were they to do so, the values of this bound variable would be restricted by the phi-features of he, i.e. to singular, third person, male elements. However, this is incorrect. The sentences in (14) can be used to contradict (13) and they each differ from he in at least one feature; (14a) with respect to gender, (14b) with respect to number, and (14c) with respect to person. This indicates that the correct logical form of these sentences analyses he, she, they, I, you, etc. as bare variables , variables without phi feature restrictions. In short, the phi features of the bound pronoun are without semantic import. (13) and (14) have the form in (15).16 (15)

[Only John]x [ x thinks that x is smart]

Enç (1986) offers another instance of the same effect. (16)

a. b.

John wants each of you to describe the town where you grew up John wants each of us to describe the town where we grew up

As Enç noted, (16a,b) each have an interpretation where the indicated pronouns are interpreted as bare variables. Thus, the sentences need not presuppose that the addresses (the “yous”) or the speakers (the “wes”) hail from the same place. They both support distributed readings that, for example, can be felicitous if, say, Mary, Mike, and Sue are the addressees and hail from different regions and John wants to know where each of them grew up. So too for (16b). Put another way, for these readings, you and we loose their deictic character and function like simple bound variables. Note that similar reasoning holds for reflexives. So, for example, (17a) can be contradicted by (17b) and the reflexive in (18) can carry a distributive reading. (17)

a. b.

Only I believe myself to be intelligent Wrong! Bill believes himself to be intelligent and you believe yourself to be intelligent.

(18)

Do each of you believe yourselves to be intelligent?

So, it seems that there is some evidence that the phi-features of (A-)bound pronouns and reflexives do not contribute to the interpretation of the sentences that contain them. They must be interpreted as bare variables. . This observation was brought to my attention by Cedric Boeckx, who cites A. Kratzer, who in turn cites I. Heim.

 Norbert Hornstein

Note that the Lees-Klima picture that is here being considered distinguishes bound from referential pronouns. Only the former are grammatical formatives. If this is correct, then only the phi-features of bound pronouns should be uninterpretable. Those of referential/deictic pronouns should be semantically active. This too appears to be correct. Consider (19). (19)

This proposal is boring. It/*he/*she/*they/*I/*you/*we is also long

In (19) the pronoun in the second sentence is not a bound pronoun.17 Note that only a third person singular neuter pronoun can be co-referential with this proposal. The standard account for this restriction is that in such cases of co-reference, the phi features of the co-referring expressions must semantically match. This supposes that the features of the pronoun are interpretable, as we would expect on a LeesKlima account as these are not bound pronouns. Turn next to (20). (20)

Only John thinks he is smart

We considered the reading of (20) where he was bound by only John. However, there is a second reading as well where he is co-referential to John. This sentence would be contradicted by (21). (21)

Wrong, Mary thinks he (=John) is smart too

Note that in this instance the phi-features of the pronoun must match those of the antecedent (John). This becomes clearer still in (22a,b) which are contradicted by (23a,b). (22)

a. b.

Only I think that I am smart Only you think that you are smart

(23)

a. b.

No, Bill thinks that you are smart too (spoken by addressee) No, Bill thinks that I am smart too (spoken by speaker)

Not surprisingly, depending on who is doing the speaking, the person feature must change. Contrast these with the contradictions in (14). The differences follow once one sees that the pronouns in (22) and (23) are referential rather than bound. The same ambiguity obtains for (16). Recall that these had a bound distributed reading. This means that the pronoun is functioning as a bare variable without phi-feature content. In particular, it does not carry the presupposition that any two people grew up in the same place. However, we can force the pronoun to

. Pronouns cannot be bound across sentences. The fact that such pronouns act rather differently from the bound ones suggests that the assimilation of cross discourse anaphora to bound pronominalization is incorrect. See Kayne 2002 for such a proposal.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

function as the plural deictic first or second person pronoun by modifying it with all. When we do this, the distributed reading disappears and only a group reading surfaces. (24)

a. b.

John wants each of us to describe the town where we all grew up John wants each of you to describe the town where you all grew up

So, the ambiguity of these sentences can be traced to the fact that in one case the pronouns is bound and acts like a bare variable while in the other it is referential and its phi-features are semantically active. This falls into line with the Lees-Klima story. The contrast emerges in contrasting alternates with reflexives and pronouns occupying the same position. Though, this is generally prohibited, it can occur in sentences like (25). (25)

a. b. c. d.

Only I believe myself to be smart Only I believe me to be smart Only you expect yourself to win Only you expect you to win

(25a) only has the bound variable interpretation. It can be contradicted by (26a) but not (26b). Similarly for (25c). (26)

a. b.

Wrong! John believes himself to be smart as well Wrong! John believes you to be smart as well

In contrast, (25b) can only be contradicted by (26b) not (26a). Similarly for (25c,d). This is what we expect if the pronouns in (25b,d) are deictic while the reflexives in (25a,c) are bound (bare) variables. That the pronouns in (25b,d) cannot be bound pronouns follows from the complementary distribution of bound pronouns and reflexives and is supported by the observation that these pronouns are not ccommanded by their antecedents (i.e. they are contained within the only DP). One last case before moving on. English allows A’-bound pronouns if required to ameliorate island effects. We will return to these later on. These pronouns are interpreted like wh-traces, i.e. variables. Thus, for example, they license distributed readings under binding. At any rate, their phi-features are also uninterpreted. (27)

a. b.

It was six of us that Bill remembered whether we had passed the exam Which of you is such that Bill said that he met someone who admired you

Note that both (27a,b) support distributed readings and this requires washing out the deictic character of we in (27a) and of you in (27b). To conclude. We noted at the outset of this section that if we interpret the Lees-Klima idea as suggesting an economy approach to pronouns and anaphors (i.e. that pronouns are what one gets if anaphors are impossible), then given

 Norbert Hornstein

current technology, this implies that neither pronouns nor anaphors are members of the numeration. Thus, they must be added in the course of a derivation. However, this then precludes them from having interpretable features given Inclusiveness. This implies that the phi features of bound pronouns should be not carry semantic import and, conversely, that non-bound pronouns should. We have reviewed some evidence supporting this conclusion.18

.

Bound pronouns and movement

Recall the main point: How does one attain the complementary distribution of (bound) pronouns and reflexives given that the latter’s distribution is the province of the theory of movement? The answer suggested by the Lees-Klima approach is that reflexivization blocks pronominalization as the former is more highly ranked than the latter. If this is so, however, the question is what ranks them? In terms of what dimension are they ranked? If we assume that reflexives are the “residues” of movement, then it must be that derivations that exploit movement are superior to those that must use pronouns. If this line of reasoning is correct, we should be able to find examples where the possibility of movement and pronoun use are related. More concretely, if pronoun use is more costly than movement, then we would expect pronouns to appear where movement cannot. In other words, pronouns should be parasitic on the impossibility of movement. With this in mind, let’s consider the use of intrusive/resumptive pronouns.

. The semantic non-interpretability of the phi features of bound reflexives and pronouns suggests that more than semantic identity is required for ellipsis. For many English speakers, the following data characterize VP ellipsis. (i)

a. John shaved himself and Frank did too b. ?John shaved himself and Mary did too c. ?*The men shaved themselves and Mary did too d. John said that he shaved Frank and Mary did too (?? with sloppy reading) e. The men said that they shaved Frank and Mary did too (?* with sloppy reading)

These data suggest that ellipsis is affected by morphological properties. (ia) is perfect because himself is elided in the conjunct. The other sentences degrade and this can be traced to the absence of morphological identity of the deleted bound elements. This suggests that ellipsis is sensitive to more than the properties of logical form. Lasnik (1995) has noted that ellipsis may require more than identity of semantic form, contra Merchant (2001), among others. These observations support this position. However, just how much morpho-phonological overlap is required is a delicate issue.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

.

Pronoun Use When Movement is Blocked

Consider the following paradigm. (28)

a. b.

John is a person who Mary met someone who admired *(him). John is a person who Mary wondered when a portrait of *(him) would appear in the NYT.

(29)

John is a person who Mary heard that Frank likes (*him).

The examples in (28) illustrate the standard observation dating from Ross (1967) that island violations ((28a) is a CNPC violation while (28b) has movement from a finite subject of an embedded question) are ameliorated when the gap is plugged with a pronoun. These examples contrast with (29). Here, we have movement from a non-island. What is interesting is that use of a pronoun in this case degrades acceptability. One way to describe this is that using (resumptive/intrusive) pronouns when movement suffices is illicit. In other words, this is an example of what we’ve been looking for; pronoun use is “inversely” tied to movement, i.e. it is permitted just in case movement is not. This trading relation is further illustrated by some observations by Engdahl (1985). She notes that the use of pronouns in island contexts degrades acceptability. (30)

Vilken tavla kände du faktist [killen som målat (*den)] which painting knew you in fact the.guy that painted it ‘Which painting did you actually know the guy who painted (it)?’

This is somewhat surprising until one notes that Swedish appears to allow extraction out of complex noun phrases.19 Given this option, the infelicity of the pronoun in (30) comports well with the idea that the use of such pronouns is depends on the inability to move in these contexts. Another illustration of the same phenomenon is attested in fixed subject/ECP configurations. Consider the following relative clauses. (31)

The man a. *who1 you told me that t1 was kissing a dog b. *who1 you asked me whether t 1was kissing a dog c. who1 you told me that he1 was kissing a dog d. who1 you asked me whether he1was kissing a dog

(32)

The man a. who1 you told me t1 was kissing a dog b. who1 you said t1 was kissing a dog c. * who1 you told me he1 was kissing a dog d. * who1 you said he1 was kissing a dog

. This was first noted in Erteschik-Shir (1973) and cited in Boeckx (2003) where I found discussion of these facts.

 Norbert Hornstein

The examples in (31) illustrate that pronouns can ameliorate unacceptable fixed subject violations (i.e. that-t effects), compare (31a) with (31c) and (31b) with (31d). (32) illustrates that when there is no that-t effect then using a pronoun degrades acceptability, compare (32a) with (32c) and (32b) with (32d). This comports with the idea that use of these pronouns is only permitted if movement is not.20 Consider, one last example of this, this time from French.21 (33)

a. b. c.

(34)

L’homme [sur qui1 tu te fies t1]] the.man on whom you rely yourself L’homme [que 01 [tu as vu t1 ]] the.man that you have seen L’homme [qui 01 [ t1 est venu]] the.man who came

a.

Un gars que je me fierais sur lui a guy that I rely myself on him b. ??L’homme que je l’ai vu the.man that I him have seen c. ??La fille qu’elle est venue the Girl that she came

The data in (33) and (34) are French relative clauses. In (33) a wh-relative pronoun has moved to C. In (33a) this involves pied-piping the preposition as French does not permit preposition stranding. Contrast these with (34). In (34a) the preposition is left in situ. The relative can still be formed but now a pronoun must be left behind in place of a trace. Contrast this with (34b,c). Note that the movement relatives that correspond to (34b,c) are perfectly fine, i.e. (33b,c). This degrades the acceptability of relatives in which a pronoun is used, (34b,c). Thus, once again, when movement is illicit, replacing the trace with a pronoun improves acceptability. Where movement is fine, using a pronoun degrades acceptability. This fits with the idea that where movement is ok, pronouns cannot replace traces.22

. The idea that resumptive pronouns are elsewhere expressions is hardly novel. The idea is proposed in Shlonsky (1992) for resumptive pronouns. The examples here involve “intrusive” pronouns which, it has been argued, are different from resumptives. As illustrated below, essentially this proposal was advanced in Bouchard (1983). . These examples were first discussed in Bouchard (1983). His approach to the data is a little different from the one outlined here. However, the general approach is quite similar and this work is clearly in line with his basic ideas. . There are other examples of this logic, that I do not review in detail here. Consider, for example, Lebanese Arabic (LA). Aoun, Choeiri and Hornstein (2001) note the following facts.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

. Expletive pronouns as last resort elements23 Section 5 outlines an argument that elements that are not part of the numeration cannot have semantic import due to Inclusiveness. It would be nice to strengthen this condition to a bi-conditional by holding that if an expression has no semantic content then it cannot be part of the numeration. If so, however, its entry into derivations could plausibly be subject to the kinds of economy considerations that we reviewed above. This section explores this logic for expletive it. This element, it is plausible to suppose, makes no independent contribution to the meaning of the sentences that it is part of. Given this, let’s assume that the use of expletive pronouns is also regulated by economy considerations. Consider the following Super-Raising data. Chomsky (1995a) observes that sentences like (35) are unacceptable. (35)

*John1 seems that it was told t1 that Mary left

Chomsky (1995a) treats this as a violation of minimality, it in embedded subject position blocking movement of John. Though this works, there are technical problems with the proposal. To see these, consider (36), the structure that would obtain were it (the DP blocking John) to move. (36)

*It seems (that) t was told John that Mary left

This sentence is not particularly felicitous. One reason might be that the Case features of it have already been checked in the embedded clause and so it is no longer a candidate for movement, or, if it did move, it could no longer check the Case of the matrix finite T0. The problem is that it is not clear why the features of the matrix T0 cannot be checked against those of John? In the Chomsky (1995a) model, the trace of movement is not relevant for minimality and there is no obvious reason why the matrix T0 cannot seek John and check its Case and phi-features against it at LF. More contemporary theories can prevent this derivation in various ways,

LA distinguishes apparent from true Resumptives. The latter show no reconstruction effects. The former do. The latter occur within islands. The former do not. If reconstruction is a mark of movement (as would follow from the Copy theory), then presence of this distinction between resumptives indicates a contrast between the two types, with only the former being “residues” of movement. This is expected as they are not in islands. Given this, Aoun et. al. note that one only finds strong subject pronouns with quantificational antecedents (i.e. bound pronouns) if they are TRUE resumptives. They only obtain inside islands. This Aoun et. al. argue follows if true resumptives are last resort expressions which are available only if movement is not. . The observations concerning expletive-it in this section were independently noted in Vukić 2003.

 Norbert Hornstein

e.g. the Phase Impenetrability Condition could block this. Whatever the virtues of such proposals, I would here like to consider a different account for the unacceptability of these sentences in terms of derivational economy. Assume that derivations that use pronouns are more costly than those that do not.24 Now consider the derivation of (35) and (36). Both involve insertion of the expletive it at a point in the derivation where movement would have sufficed. In particular, John can move from object to Spec T for Case reasons. If this occurs, then the sentence we would derive is (37). (37)

It seems that John1 was told t1 that Mary left

Note that we insert the matrix it because movement of John would not yield a convergent derivation (for whatever reason subject raising from a finite clause never converges). On this view of things, the possibility of movement pre-empts the use of expletive–it. This argument form should feel familiar. It is identical to the one that Chomsky (1995a) proposes for blocking the derivation of (38). (38)

*There seems someone to be here

Chomsky (1995a) assumes that Merge is cheaper than Move and that the cheapest next step must be taken if it will lead to convergence. When the derivation arrives at the embedded T0 either someone can move or there can be merged. If Merge is superior to Move, then at this point, it is better to Merge there than move someone. This prevents the derivation of (38). The logic concerning (35) and (36) is point for point identical if we take Move to be superior to using expletive-it. Consider another instance of this logic.25 Consider the following paradigm. (39)

a. John believes that Frank is here b. What does John believe c. It was believed that John is here d. *What was it believed e. What did you persuade Bill of f. What was Bill persuaded of g. John was clear that Bill left h. What was John clear about

. Or, to be more precise, pronouns that are not interpretable, e.g bound pronouns whose phi features are not interpretable and expletive it. . I believe that the argument next presented is empirically weaker than the one above, but the logic is interesting so I present it.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

The unacceptability of (39d) fits with movement being cheaper than use of it. Note that (40) is fine.26 (40)

What was believed

On the assumption that one must move rather than use expletive-it , the derivation of (39d), like the derivations of (35) and (36) are examples of premature pronominalization. As what can passivize before it moves to CP, inserting it violates economy. In cases where passive is blocked, it is acceptable.27 (41)

a. b. c.

Why/*what was it believed How/*what was it clear When/where/*what was it said

The logic illustrated in the examples above differ from those in Section 6.1 as they involve expletive (rather than bound) pronouns. However, the logic that we applied to bound pronouns carries over here if we assume that expletive it is not a lexical formative. This is not unreasonable given that expletive-it has no semantic import. If we assume that only semantically active elements are lexical (an assumption implicit in Chomsky’s banishment of AGR projections), then expletive-it should be a grammatical (not a lexical) formative. If so, it makes sense that its use should be governed by the same sorts of economy considerations that govern bound

. Cedric Boeckx observes that this kind of argument has implications for Rizzi’s 1982 analysis of post verbal extraction of wh in Italian. Rizzi notes that pro in Spec TP in Italian allows for wh extraction from the post-verbal subject position. The reasoning outlined here would force movement to Spec TP before movement to CP, on the reasonable assumption that expletive pro is a last resort expression. However, we can re-interpret Rizzi’s result as follows. Assume following Alexiadou and Anagastopoulou (2001) that there is no Spec TP in pro drop languages. Thus pre-verbal subjects are actually Topics (c.f. Jaeggli 1981 and Barbosa 1994). If so, it is not an inserted null expletive that blocks movement but the absence of a Spec TP position. This retains Rizzi’s generalization without contradicting the logic noted in (39). . Examples like (39d) might be out for Case reasons. However, it is interesting to note that we cannot “add” prepositions to assign Case like we can in (39f,g). (i)

a. b. c.

*what was it believed of *what was it clear about *what was it said of

 Norbert Hornstein

pronouns and that derivations that contain them should only be licit if their use is required.28,29 One more observation: recall that one drawback of the principle B approach to pronouns is that it only regulates the A-bound variety. In the last two sections, we extended the economy approach (i.e. Move trumps pronominal use) to A’-bound (intrusive/resumptive) pronouns and expletive pronouns. This suggests that this sort of “Avoid Pronoun” economy approach might provide a general perspective on pronoun use that also sheds some light on the diverse types of pronouns. The diversity comes from pronouns only being licit when more highly valued movement based derivations fail. As movement can fail in various ways, this leaves lots of slack for pronouns to pick up. .

Fuji (this volume) argues that there is movement in examples like (i): (i)

John seems as if he is tired

John moves from the embedded finite subject position to the matrix. Despite this movement, a non-movement alternative is acceptable: (ii)

It seems as if John is tired

Thus, the availability of (i) does not block (ii). Why not? Jairo Nunes (p.c.) suggests that perhaps this is because both derivations are equally costly. Note that both involve inserting a pronoun, albeit in different positions. It is inserted in the matrix if John fails to raise and he is inserted in the embedded clause if it does. It is plausible that these options are equally costly and so both are available. Another possibility is to derive (i) and (ii) using different numerations. The source of (i) could be a doubled structure while that in (ii) has no doubling. In short, John in (i) is part of a DP like (iii): (iii)

[DP D [John]]

This might be required for otherwise it appears that John in (i) is not frozen after checking its Case, e.g. it checks both the Case of the embedded and of the matrix T, something that is generally disallowed. A way to account for this lack of “freezing” is to assume that the containing DP checks the embedded Case while the doubled DP John checks the matrix. If something like this is viable, then the derivations in (i) and (ii) won’t be comparable. For current purposes, either option outlined above would serve, though personally I like Nunes’s proposal more than the doubling one. .

One more problematic case (again brought to my attention by Jairo Nunes (p.c.)): (i) (ii)

That the earth is flat is believed by everybody It is believed by everybody that the earth is flat

Why doesn’t (i) block (ii)? The easy answer (which I adopt here) is that these have different numerations. This follows given Koster’s (1978) analysis of sentences like (ii) as involving topicalization of the sentential subject. This suffices to distinguish the numerations of (i) and (ii) (the former involving a topic while the latter does not) and this suffices to prevent the derivations from competing.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

.

Generalizing obviation effects30

.. English gerunds I have suggested that a revised take on the Lees-Klima view of binding (one that interprets this proposal as a competition between derivations with and without pronouns) provides a natural approach to the complementary distribution of bound pronouns and reflexives. This section expands on this idea and sees how far it might be pushed. Caveat lector! As speculative as the forgoing has been, this pushes things further yet. To begin, let’s turn to some technical concerns. Let’s accept that the possibility of Reflexivization blocks Pronominalization. This amounts to saying that the derivation of (42a) blocks that of (42b). The derivation is blocked because we can converge via movement in the former. Assuming that reflexives are the residue of movement, this requires that (42c) be the numeration underlying both sentences. The derivation looks something like (42d).31 (42)

a. b. c. d.

John likes himself John1 likes him1 {John, T0, like} [John [T0 [John [like [John+self]]

Note that this derivation involves a self element. Where did it come from? Well, it is not a lexical element, as it is crucially not part of the numeration (42c). It is added to allow the movement derivation to converge. Hornstein (2001) takes it to be an expression that can check Case but that has no phi-features, a kind of Case checking affix. Say that this is so. Then the above brief account is assuming that one can add the appropriate functional material to a derivation to ensure convergence under movement. Let’s make this assumption explicit. (43)

Put in as much functional material as required to license movement32

In this instance Case material can be “added” to allow convergence with Move. Observe that adding this stuff is (at least for the cases at hand) costless. In other words, what is critical is that the addition of self has no bearing on the cost of the derivation. It does not count in considering the comparison class of derivations. This is critical: to get the Lees-Klima idea to fly, we need to be able to determine the competitors. (43) expresses the idea that derivations that differ by grammatical formatives alone, compete. . Much of the work presented here builds on prior work by Pires (2001), San Martin (1999) and San Martin and Hornstein (2001). .

This assumes something like the account in Hornstein (2003) or Lidz and Idsardi (1997).

. As a reviewer correctly pointed out to me, (43) is quite similar to Bošković’s (1997) idea concerning economy of representation where it is argued that only lexical elements are present

 Norbert Hornstein

With this in mind, consider some other cases of obviation. Pires (2001) proposes that Acc-ing gerunds differ from PRO headed gerunds in Case marking their subject. This Case marking is parasitic on the whole gerund being Case marked. Thus, (44a) differs from (44b) in that the ing-inflection passes on Case to the subject in the former, but not the latter. (44)

a. b.

Harry hates [ John kissing Mary] Harry hates [PRO kissing Mary]

Now, assume that obligatory controlled PRO is actually an NP-trace residue of movement, with a structure like (45).33 (45)

Harry1 hated [t1 kissing Mary]

If this is correct, and if movement blocks pronominalization, then we expect that the derivability of (44a) as in (45) should render (46) unacceptable. In particular, the derivation of (46) should be blocked because it uses a pronoun where movement suffices for convergence. (46)

*Harry1 hates him1 kissing Mary

Observe, for this account to go through, we are crucially assuming that the derivations of (45) and (46) are comparable. This, in turn, assumes that the fact that the subject of the Gerund is Case marked in the latter but not in the former is not a difference that makes a difference in determining the comparison class. Differences in (structural) Case marking in otherwise identical derivations do not suffice to distinguish the derivations and so they compete.34

in the numeration. Functional elements are added to the extent necessary to build legitimate structures. .

See Hornstein (2001) and Pires (2001).

. The competition above is between Acc-ing gerunds and PRO gerunds. Interestingly, PROgerunds do not block Poss-ing forms. (i) John1 hated his1 having to leave the party (ii) *John1 hated him1 having to leave the party The indicted binding in (i) is acceptable in contrast with (ii). Why the contrast? Pires (2001) argues that Acc-ing gerunds are essentially clauses, while Poss-ings have an additional DP layer of structure. This is in line with the classical conception of the latter, the genitive Case on the subject being taken as an indication of a nominal layer of phrasal structure. If this is correct, then we do not expect PRO gerunds to block Poss-ings as they differ from the latter by the absence of this additional nominal layer. However, this is enough to block comparison on the assumption that this nominal layer is reflected in some lexical nominal that is part of the numeration of Poss-ings but not PRO-gerunds.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

Observe that the above explanation does not rely on a “reflexive” structure blocking an analogous “bound pronoun” structure. Rather it is a movement derivation that blocks a non-movement one. Focusing on movement or lack thereof, rather than a reflexive versus pronoun difference is partially supported here given the degraded status of (47).35 (47)

??John hates himself kissing Mary

In other words, the relative unacceptability of (47) indicates that perhaps it too is not derivable. If this is so, it supports our proposal that derivations be ranked with respect to movement.36 Consider another example that makes the same point. (48)

a. John left the party without PRO singing b. ?*John1 left the party without himself 1 singing c. *John1 left the party without him1 singing

(48a) is a case of adjunct control. (48), with a reflexive in place of the PRO, is quite degraded.37 (48c) with a pronoun bound to the subject is unacceptable. The . This, I believe, is especially so if we de-stress the reflexive: If we give the reflexive focal stress, the sentence considerably improves. (i) ?*John hates ‘imself kissing Mary (ii) John hates HIMSELF kissing Mary . Why might (47) and (ii) in Note 34 be relatively unacceptable while (ii) in Note 35 is fine? One possibility is that this is another reflex of the Avoid Pronoun Principle. Thus, the acceptability of the PRO structure blocks that of the reflexive. Jairo Nunes (p.c.) suggests the following implementation of this idea: Suppose that before comparing movement with pronominaliztion one first computes economy of representation as in Bošković 1997 and one projects as little structure as possible. This means that the non-finite clause will project a Case position only if required. This will allow John hates t/PRO kissing Mary to block (47). Note that focusing/stressing the reflexive indicates the addition of some sort of focus element and this allows the numeration of (ii) in Note (34) to differ from that of (47) or (i) in Note 35. To make this proposal work, however, requires explaining why cases like (i) seem fine despite the acceptability of (ii). (i) (ii)

John expects/wants himself to win John expects/wants PRO to win

One possibility is that the Case marking in these ECM constructions involves lexical information coded in the particular lexical entry (here, the ECM verb) and so comes from outside the non-finite clause. This, then, is lexical information coded in the numeration given its dependence on the particular lexical element chosen. The Case marking in gerunds is, in contrast, not lexically determined and so not present in the numeration. . Again, this improves if himself is stressed and degrades further if distressed. See Notes 35 and 36.

 Norbert Hornstein

unacceptability of (48b) suggests that unstressed reflexives are ungrammatical in these positions. If so, they cannot block structures with bound pronouns, i.e. (48b) should not block (48c). This would be problematic were it reflexives that blocked pronouns. However, if we assume that it is movement derivations that trump pronoun use then, if OC PRO is a residue of movement, we expect the convergence of (48a) to suffice in blocking (48c).38 I stress this point for it is a somewhat distinctive feature of the present approach. Other competition theories pit sentences with pronouns against those with reflexives, with the latter trumping the former. The claim is that reflexives are (in some sense) less referential than pronouns (even bound ones). The competition is between morphological forms and the idea is that if there is a choice between a more dependent morpheme and a less dependent morpheme both occupying a given anaphoric position then the possibility of using the more dependent form (less referential) blocks the use of the less dependent (more referential) form. Thus, acceptable reflexives in a given position block bound pronouns from that position.39 The examples in (44)-(48) are problematic for this approach. In these cases, reflexives are not particularly felicitous. Nonetheless, bound pronouns are also excluded. It would seem then, that the issue is not simply a competition between specific morphological forms, but between derivational alternatives.40 .. Basque obviation Basque offers a further example of this sort of logic.41 In particular, we find evidence that the possibility of movement ties together with both binding and obviation effects. . A quick aside: If this line of reasoning is correct we can use the complementary distribution of OC PRO and bound pronouns as further evidence in favor of the movement theory of control. Note further that the complementarity evident in adjunct clauses supports the view that adjunct control is a form of OC derived via movement. Last of all, note that NOC PRO does not impose the complementarity with pronouns noted here. (i)

John1 believes that [[for him1 /PRO1 to leave] would be awful

. See Burzio (1998) for a version of this idea in an OT framework. This approach has been considerably elaborated with interesting results in Safir (2004). . A variation on the Burzio-Safir theme might go as follows: pronouns are blocked if less referential forms exist. PRO is less referential than pronouns. Thus, their use blocks a pronoun. The problem would then be to define the contexts relevant to evaluation given that pronouns cannot generally occur where PROs do and vice versa. Note that if we must, as suggested here, compare derivations, nonderivational approaches such as OT might be hard put to track these generalizations. .

This section is based on San Martin (1999) and San Martin and Hornstein (2001).

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

Basque is able to Case mark its infinitival complement. These complements come in two flavors. One flavor is a kind of nominalization. These must be Case marked. If marked with structural Case they allow an overt subject. Moreover they are islands with respect to movement. If marked with an inherent Case or no Case at all, they require null subjects that display the characteristics of OC PRO. The other kind of non-finite complement is a kind of participial (gerund) that can bear either structural Case or no Case at all. In the former instance the empty category (ec) acts like an OC PRO, in the latter instance it acts like an NOC PRO. (49)

Nik1 [anaia/ec1/2 kartetan ibilitze]-ARI ondo dritsot OK I-think I brother-A cards play-NOM-DEF-D ‘I think that it is OK to play cards/that my brother plays cards’

(50)

Nik1 Peperi2 [ec1+2 kartetan batera jolaste]-ARI ondo deristsodala esan diot I-E Pepe-D cards together play-NOM-DET-D OK think say 3A-3D-1E ‘I said to pepe that I think that it is ok that we play cards’

(49) shows the possibility of an empty or overt subject. (50) indicates that if the subject is covert, it can take split antecedents and so is a an NOC PRO (not OC PRO). (51) *Nork1 [kartetan t1 jolaste]-ari who-E cards play-NOM-DET-D ‘*Who do I agree that plays cards’

ondo deritsot nik? agree 1-E

(52)

ditsot nik ondo? agree-I 1-E well

[Kartetan nork jakatze]-ARI cards who-E play-NOM-DET-D ‘Who do I agree that plays cards/

(51) shows that these Case-marked infinitives are islands to WH extraction. To question a WH inside such a Case-marked infinitive requires pied-piping the entire clause as in (52). San Martin provides evidence that participial clauses work in more or less the same fashion. The general conclusion she draws is that when the infinitival clause is Case marked, it blocks movement and allows split antecedents to bind the null subject. When there is no Case marking (on participials) movement from the infinitive is possible and split antecedents are prohibited. Thus, we tie together the possibility of movement and the possible presence of pronominal empty categories. Basically OC PRO and NOC PRO are in complementary distribution. As so described, Basque works more or less like English. Here too OC and NOC PRO are in complementary distribution with the latter found primarily inside islands. However, Basque has one other interesting construction that is of relevance here. It involves Case-marked participials whose subjects must be obviative with respect to the matrix subject.

 Norbert Hornstein

(53)

Nik [ec/John joate]-A nahi dut I go-NOM-DET-A want 3A-1E ‘I want him/her/you/they/John to go’

(54)

Nik [ec/*John joan] nahi dut I go want 3A 1E ‘I want to go’

In (53) we have a structurally Case-marked infinitive. We can get either a null pronoun there or an overt DP in subject position. What is interesting, however, is that the embedded pronoun cannot be bound by the matrix subject. (55) is unacceptable with either an overt or covert pronominal form. (55)

Nik1 [ec/hura*1/2 joate]-A I pronoun go-NOM-DET-A ‘I want someone else to go’

nahi dut want 3A-1E

The question is why? Recall, that Case-marked infinitives do not generally have obviative subjects (c.f. (49) and (50)). We can provide an answer if we recall that we take bound pronouns as being illicit where movement can converge. Assume for the nonce that (55) is out because (54) converges. In other words, the only difference between these two structures is the Case marking on the embedded subject. If we assumed that this was not sufficient to prevent comparison, then we could attribute the unacceptability of (55) to the convergence of (54). This idea gains in plausibility when it is noted that in contrast to other Case-marked infinitives, the one in (53) is not an island for purposes of extraction. For example, unlike the Case-marked infinitives noted above, these permit extraction. (56)

Zer nahi dut nik [Mariak t eroste]-A Mary-E t buy-NOM-DET-A what-A want AUX I ‘What do I want Mary to buy’

(57)

Nor nahi dut nik [t etcera etortze]-A home come-NOM-DET-A who want AUX I ‘Who do I want to come home’

The questions in (56) and (57) are fine. They do not require clausal pied-piping as those in (51) and (52) do. This suggests that the only thing that the Case marking does here is license an overt subject. Otherwise the two structures are the same. This now makes these cases entirely on a par with the English Acc-ing and PRO gerunds discussed above and this allows us to extend the same account to (55) as we extended to the obviation effects observed in Acc-ing constructions. One last observation: It seems that examples like (58) are unacceptable.42 .

Thanks to Ricardo Etxepare for the relevant information.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

(58)

Nik [nere burua joate]-A nahi dut I my head go want AUX(Mood-1ERG-3ABS) ‘*I want that myself go’

This means that the obviation effect cannot be tied to the availability of a reflexive alternative. Whether or not a reflexive exists is not enough to explain the attested obviation as sentences with reflexives replacing pronouns are ill-formed. This suggests that if we wish to analyze obviation via competition then the competitors are evaluated not with respect to specific morphemes (reflexives versus pronouns) but something more abstract (e.g. movement versus pronominalization). .. Romance subjunctives43 There is one other well known example of pronominal obviation in an unexpected environment. In most of the Romance languages a pronoun in the subject position of an embedded subjunctive complement cannot be bound with the subject of the embedding verb. The following Spanish example illustrates this widespread phenomenon. (59)

Juan1 espera/quiere [que pro*1/2 vaya al cine hoy] Juan expects/wants that pro go-SUBJ to the movies ‘Juan wants/expects that he go to the movies’

The obviation witnessed here is unexpected given conventional assumptions concerning principle B. The pronoun can be replaced with an overt DP – (60a) – suggesting that it is analogous to a finite clause and so is a binding domain. Moreover, reflexives are barred from this position – (60b), as would be expected were this a minimal binding domain as regards principle A. This suggests that a bound pronoun should be acceptable here. However, as (59) illustrates, this is incorrect. (60)

a. Juan espera/quiere [que Raol vaya al cine hoy] b. *Juan1 espera/quiere [que se mismo1 vaya al cine hoy]

The standard remedy for these apparent problems with the binding theory involves (i) extending the binding domain of the embedded clause so that it includes the matrix and (ii) assuming that (60b) is blocked by something other than Principle A. The latter is not an unreasonable conclusion in the context of a theory that assumes that reflexives must move. Chomsky (1986) assumed that (61) fails because movement of the reflexive results in an ECP violation. Thus (61) does not implicate principle A.44 We might say something similar for (60b). .

The proposal here tracks ideas advanced in Bouchard 1983.

. This is not the place to consider this approach in detail. However, it is worth pointing out that the ECP based approach to the absence of subject reflexives in subjunctive and finite

 Norbert Hornstein

(61)

*John believes that himself is tall

Though these are reasonable moves and perhaps even correct, the proposals are sufficiently involved to motivate considering other approaches. Assume that subjunctives are actually inflected infinitives. Both infinitives and subjunctives occur primarily in embedded contexts and show a tense dependency on the higher clause. If we assumed that subjunctives and infinitives are versions of the same kind of clause, distinguished by some low level functional material, then we could assume that sentences like (59) don’t tolerate a bound pronoun reading because they compete with sentences like (62) where a bound reading converges by movement from the embedded to the matrix clause (assuming as I do here a movement approach to obligatory control). (62)

Juan1 espera/quiere [PRO1*/2 ir al cine hoy] Juan expects/wants PRO go-INFIN to the movies today

Observe, that this requires that we take a somewhat abstract view of when two sentences compete. We must assume that the subjunctive morphology does not block comparison between a subjunctive and an infinitival complement. In effect, the stuff that distinguishes the two sentences is not part of their numerations, any more than pronouns and selfs are. If we allow this, then the obviation effect witnessed in (59) can be traced to the availability of a superior competing derivation in (62). Note, again, that such an account does not block a bound pronoun from appearing in some position because a reflexive is available. The comparison is more abstract: derivations that converge by movement alone are superior to those that compete via use of pronouns.45 There are two suggestive bits of evidence in favor of this sort of approach. It predicts that the obviation effects witnessed in the subjunctive complement in (59) should disappear if there is no infinitival control complement available. We can find both intra language and inter language evidence for this. In Spanish dudar (doubt) does not take infinitival complements – (63). In this case, the subjunctive with a bound pronoun is acceptable – (64). (63) *Juan duda [PRO ir al cine hoy] Juan doubts go-INFIN to the movies today ‘Juan doubts that he will go to the movies today’ embedded clauses is not without its own problems. The main difficulty stems from the fact that it is nominative reflexives that are barred, not subject reflexives in general. We find quirky Case subjects of embedded subjunctives in Icelandic. It is unclear why the ECP should not block these just as it would nominatively Case-marked reflexives. . Spanish doe not license an overt reflexive in sentences like (52) as there is no ECM Case marking across infinitives.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

(64)

Juan1 duda [que pro1/2 vaya al cine hoy] Juan doubts that pro go-SUBJ to the movies today ‘Juan doubts that he will go to the movies today’

If the availability of a control complement is what blocks the availability of the bound pronoun interpretation in subjunctives then the absence of the control option should allow the binding to take place. (63) and (64) support this reasoning. What is attested intra-linguistically in Spanish can also be found cross linguistically. Thus, it is well known that the subjunctive pattern manifest in most of Romance, fails to hold universally. Rumanian and Salentino (both Romance languages) as well as Greek allow the binding of a (null) pronominal subject in a subjunctive complement. (65) illustrates this with Rumanian and Salentino examples. (65)

a.

b.

Maria1 vrea [ea/ec1/2 sa ra mina] Maria wants she/pro SUBJ stay ‘Maria wants to stay/someone else to stay’ ku [pro1/2 bbene krai] LuKarlu1 ole come-3SG-SUBj tomorrow the Karl wants C-SUBj ‘Karl wants himself/him to come tomorrow’

Interestingly, neither Rumanian, Salentino nor Greek have infinitival control complements. As such, if pronominal obviation in subjunctives as due to competition with a control alternative derivation, then if infinitival control structures don’t obtain, we would expect the obviation effects to disappear as well, as they appear to do. .. Switch reference languages Let’s consider one last case where the indicated logic might apply. In Switch Reference (SR) Languages, verbs in “dependent” sentences (i.e. adjuncts or embedded clauses) can be marked as either having the same subject as the embedding clause- SS marking, or as having a different subject from the embedding clause –DS marking. This marking typically comes on the verb of the dependent clause and is “similar to the familiar category of verbal concord” (Haiman and Munro 1983, x). In fact, as noted in a review of SR, Haiman and Munro (1983) note that in many languages SR marking looks like the typical subject verb agreement markings. More specifically: DS marking is often just the subject-predicate agreement morphology while SS marking is either Ø or an invariable fixed affix. This pattern is found in Kate and Fore as well as Lenakel and Turkish. So, a typical SR pattern is the one in (66). (66)

a. b.

DS = V+ phi features (including person) SS = V + Ø

As Haiman and Munro note, this pattern can vary. The SR morphemes are not limited to those found in agreement configurations. However, one thing never seems to occur: we never find that the SS marking is morphologically more complex than

 Norbert Hornstein

is the marking for DS. So, we find cases, as noted above, where DS is clearly more morphologically loaded than is SS and we find cases where the amount of morphology is not easy to compare but we never find cases where the SS markings are clearly more morphologically involved than is the marking for DS. This is exactly what we would expect if SS were actually a reflex of movement (i.e. control) and DS is an obviation process that results from binding being blocked by the availability of SS. If SS intepretation is due to movement then we would expect that the clauses from which the movement occurs would be morphologically “reduced,” just like infinitives are reduced forms of clauses. Given the intimate connection between movement and feature checking, we would expect (and we find) that SS (i.e. movement) is tied to weak agreement and non-movement (DS) correlates with strong agreement. Once one assumes that agreement does not enter into comparing derivations, then SS and DS will compete when they share numerations and the former will trump the latter. This results in obviation for DS structures. This proposal is very similar to the one proposed for SR in Hermon (1985). It argues that SR in Quechua is essentially obligatory control (in SS constructions) coupled with something like an Avoid Pronoun Principle (in DS structures).46 We also take SS as an instance of control as, but now due to movement. Obviation is the result of blocking by the OC structure and is just another instance of Move over pronominalize. This approach, just like Hermon’s, which it closely follows, reduces SR to a combination of control plus obviation understood as economy. Let’s illustrate the logic with some Quechua examples. Hermon (1985) analyses Imbabura Quechua, a language where the DS and SS markings are not clearly distinguished with respect to morphological complexity. However, Hermon offers (to my mind) convincing evidence that shows that the SS subjects are in non-agreeing clauses while DS subjects live in agreeing clauses. Hermon (1985) uses several kinds of evidence to show this. First, Hermon discusses the differences between “non-finites” subjunctives (i.e. ngapaj) that allow PRO but not overt lexical DPs and “finite” subjunctives (i.e. chun) that show the converse. With munana (want) there exist subjunctive agreeing and nonagreeing complements. One can get control with infinitive subjunctives (79:21): (67)

nuka-ka [PRO miku-ngapaj] muna-ni I nom-top eat-inf-subj want-1

One cannot get PRO in “finite” chun clause as (80:22): (68) *nuka-ka [PRO miku-chun ] muna-ni I want to eat-finite-subj .

Hermon (1985) uses a version of Avoid Pronoun proposed in Bouchard (1983),

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

One cannot get Lexical Subjects with the infinitival ngapaj but can with the finite chun (80:23,24): (69) *nuka-ka [Juan miku-ngapaj] muna-ni I Juan eat (infin)-subj want (70)

nuka-ka [Juan miku-chun] muna-ni I J eat-finite want ‘I want that John eat’

The same facts are observed in adverbial clauses. The verbs in these clauses also come in non-finite and finite form (shpa vs. pti). However, in the adverbial paradigm, there exists evidence from related Quechua languages that these forms are distinguished by agreement. In Ancash Quechua adverbial clauses, for example, we find no agreement markers for SS but have obligatory agreement in DS cases (107:70): (71)

Lima-chaw ka-{shpa/*shpa-a} rika-shqa-yki Lima-in be SS DS -1 see-fut-1-2 ‘When I am in Lima, I will see you’

(72)

Lima-chaw ka-{*pti/pti-i} rika-ma-rqu-nki Lima-in be SS DS -1 see-1 OM-past-2 ‘When I was in Lima, you saw me’

Ancash Quechua -pti is cognate to Imbabura Quechua –jpi. Consider now obviation effects. Subjunctive complements (-chun) and adverbial clauses (-ipi) with an overt pronoun or pro in subject position display a disjoint reference effect. In finite indicative complements there are no restrictions on coreference with a matrix subject (108:71): (73)

Juan1 kri –n [pro1/pay1 llugshi-na-ta] J believe-3 he leave-nom-acc ‘J believes that he will leave’

This is not possible with subjunctives (108:72): (74) *Juan1 muna-n [pro1/pay1 miku-chun] J want-3 he eat (75) *Juan-ga1 [pro1/pay1 trabaja-ju-jpi-mi] puglla-n J -nom he work-prog play-3 ‘While he is working, Juan plays’

(73) shows no obviation effect because it is finite. Only in cases where the finite subjunctive has a non-finite alternative form and so competes with it, will obviation effects surface. The characteristic feature of SR languages is that dependent clauses always come in SS/DS pairs that differ only in whether the embedded

 Norbert Hornstein

inflection is non-finite (and so permits movement) or is finite (and so supports lexical subjects). If this difference is not sufficient to block comparison, then the obviation effect noted in the finite forms can be seen as yet another instance of the competition proposed to handle similar effects in earlier sections.47

.

Conclusion

This paper has tried to motivate an alternative approach to principle B effects. The impetus has been the observation that principle A should be discarded if the widely held assumption that reflexives move is adopted. If, however, principle A is removed from the binding theory then B should be as well if we are to explain the well known complementary distribution between reflexives and pronouns. In other words, given certain currently plausible assumptions, we need to rethink how binding works within UG. The alternative investigated here returns to the earliest approaches to these phenomena by Lees and Klima recast in a more contemporary setting; obviation as an effect of economy of derivation. We noted that an economy approach to the complementarity of reflexives and bound pronouns has some appeal in a minimalist setting, most particularly in those minimalist concretions that evaluate alternative derivations against some economy metric. The particular proposal was that derivations via movement were superior to those that required pronoun use. In this setting, I argued that the following ideas fit together rather neatly. If principle B effects are actually the effects of derivational economy then it must be the case that sentences like (76a,b) are comparable: (76)

a. John1 saw himself1 b. *John1 saw him1 i. To be comparable, they must have a common numeration. ii. Thus, pronouns and reflexives are not part of a numeration. iii. But, if bound pronouns and reflexives are not elements in numerations, then, by the Inclusiveness Condition, they can have no interpretive features as otherwise they could not be added to a derivation. iv. Thus, their phi-features cannot be interpretable.

We saw evidence that this was so in Section 5 of the paper. The converse is equally plausible.

. Note, that there are SR effects in both adjuncts and complements supports the view that movement can take place out of adjuncts. See (Hornstein 2001) for discussion.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting 

a. If the features of E are not interpretable then E is not lexical. vi. If the numeration is composed exclusively of lexical elements then such expressions are not part of a numeration. vii. An element not part of a numeration is not counted for purposes of derivational economy. viii. Thus, the sentences in (76) have a common numeration and so if derivational economy holds, their derivations should be subject to it.

All we added to this reasoning was the suggestion that what makes for economy in such cases is Movement. In particular, if a derivation can converge without the use of pronouns, it must so converge. In short, Move trumps Pronominalize. This idea is conceptually motivated once one assumes that reflexives are formed by movement. It is empirically supported by the observation that obligatory control also functions to block pronominal binding. Three more points before ending: First, I started this paper by noting that the GB approach to pronouns had two problems; the status of B once movement replaced A and the fact that GB had nothing general to say about pronouns, restricting its interest to the potentially bindable ones. This last point was related to the observation that pronouns are a motley group without a common core of properties. The present account treats pronouns as a sort of patch on the derivational system. It is what the system uses when movement fails. The fact that movement can fail in many ways suggests that we might expect many kinds of pronouns. So, pronouns can be used to “save” islands (i.e. intrusive pronouns), they can be used for binding when movement does not suffice (i.e. we get bound pronouns), they can be introduced to allow convergence when there is nothing else in the numeration (i.e. expletives). These all function differently as they all patch up different derivational difficulties. Perhaps one interesting feature of the present proposal is that it rationalizes what seems to be a general feature of pronouns, viz. that they form a varied group. Second, there are many economy based approaches to binding on the minimalist (and non-minimalist) market at present. The proposal above endorses the idea that binding phenomena are best seen in a “competitive” grammatical setting. However, competition comes in many flavors. The distinctive feature of the present proposal is that it ties comparison to competition among derivations and so requires that numerations be the same between the competing options. A consequence of this is that the phi-features of reflexives and bound pronouns should be uninterpretable. Not all competition accounts will have this consequence. I do not mention this to suggest that this is the right competition theory (though if the reader feels the need to draw this conclusion, far be it from me to stop him/her). Rather, I simply note it to observe that there are many different

 Norbert Hornstein

ways to implement the competition idea and that it is hardly original with this paper. Third, let me repeat the cautionary remark made at the outset of our little journey: the above remarks are intended to be suggestive, not definitive. I have not provided a theory of pronouns. At best, what has been sketched are some general features that such a theory might have. This essay is more in the nature of a prolegomenon to a future theory than a concrete proposal. If roughly correct, lots still remains to be done to technically implement and refine the main ideas presented. But this, as they say, is work for the future.

References Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagastopoulou, Elena. 2001. The subject in situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 193–231. Arnold, Mark. 1995. Case,Periphrastic, Do, and the loss of Verb Movement in English. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Aoun, Joseph, Choueri, Lina & Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Resumption, Movement and Derivational Economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 371–403. Barbosa, Pilar. 1994. A new look at the null subject parameter. Talk delivered at University of Maryland, College Park. Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Boeckx, Cedric. Hornstein, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo. 2007. Overt copies in reflexive and control structures: A movement analysis. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 1–45. Bošković, Zeljko. 1997. The syntax of non-finite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Bouchard, Denis. 1983. The avoid pronoun principle and the elsewhere principle. In Proceedings of Nels 13, P. Sells & C. Jones (eds), pp. 29–36. Amherst MA: GSLA. Burzio, Luigi. 1998. Anaphora and soft constraints. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax,’ Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis & David Pesetsky (eds), Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht : Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York NY: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Chomsky 1995b. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Chomsky 1995b. Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. Categories and transformations., In Chomsky 1995b. Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. The minimalist program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Enç, Mürvert.1986. Tense without scope. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Engdahl, Elisabet. 1985. Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns, and subject extractions. Linguistics 23: 3–44. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2003. Prolific domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pronouns in a minimalist setting  Haiman, John & Munro, Pamela. 1983. Switch-reference and universal grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hermon, Gabriella. 1985. Syntactic modularity. Dordrecht: Foris. Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move!. Oxford: Blackwell. Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. On control. In Minimalist Syntax, Randall Hendrick, (ed.), 6–81. Oxford: Blackwell. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1981. Topics in romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, Richard. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and Explanation, Samuel David Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds). Oxford: Blackwell. Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don’t exist. In Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages, Samuel Jay Keyser (ed.). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic structure meets the minimalist program. In Lasnik 1999. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Lee, Felicia. 2003. Anaphoric R-expressions as bound variables. Syntax 6: 84–114. Lees, Robert B. & Klima, Edward. 1963. Rules for English pronominaliztion. Language 39: 17–28. Lidz, Jeffrey & Idsardi, William. 1997. Chains and phon-logical form. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 5.1: 109–125. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford: OUP. Mortensen, David. 2003. Two kinds of variable elements in Hmong anaphora. Ms., UC Berkeley. Pires, Acrisio. 2001. The syntax of gerunds and infinitive: Subjects, case and control. PhD Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park. Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 439–492. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Ross, John R. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Safir, Kenneth J. 1997. Symmetry and Unity in the Theory of Anaphora. In H. Bennis and P. Pica eds. Atomism and Binding. Foris: Dordrecht. 341–79. Safir, Kenneth J. 2004. The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: OUP. San Martin, Itziar. 1999. Control in Basque. Generals Paper. University of Maryland, College Park. San Martin, Itziar & Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Obviation as anti-control. International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology. Xxxv-1: 367–384. Shlonsky, Ur. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 443–468. Vukić, Saša 2003. On features and the minimal link condition. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 2002. Issues related to a derivational theory of binding. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Samuel David Epstein & T.Daniel Seely (eds), 269–304. Oxford: Blackwell.

Index

A Absolute genitival construction  Agree ,  Avoid pronoun ,  B Bă-sentences  Basque  Bavarian  Binding theory ,  Brazilian Sign Language (LSB)  Bulgarian ,  C Chain Reduction , , , , ,  cyclic chain reduction  Chamorro  Clause Typing Hypothesis  Clitic ,  auxiliary clitic  Complementary distribution  Complementizer complementizer agreement  complementizer doubling  Compound compound verb  resultative compound  Control  Coptic Egyptian  Copy  copy deletion  copy spell-out  internal structure of copies  multiple copies  multiple copy spell-out  pronominal copy 

reduced copy  verbal copies  Copy theory  copy theory of movement  Copying-control construction  Copy-raising construction 

Floating tone  Focus new information focus  polarity focus  Free word order  French ,  Fundamental frequencies  Fusion , , , , 

D Danish  Deletion deletion of copies  see also Copy scattered deletion ,  Distinct  non-distinct  Distributed Morphology  Downdrift  Downstep  Duplication focus duplication  postposition duplication  Duration/frequency expression ,  Dutch  Middle Dutch  Tegelen Dutch  Wambeek Dutch 

G German , ,  Gerund  Greek , 

E Economy , ,  Emphatic emphatic affirmation  emphatic answers  emphatic declaratives  emphatic verb reduplication  EPP/Occurrence feature  Ergativity shift  F Finnish  First Conjunct Agreement 

H Hmong ,  I Icelandic  Illasi  Imbabura Quecha  Imperatives  Inclusiveness Condition  K Korean  L Last resort , ,  Late insertion  Left dislocation  Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) , , , , ,  Linearization  linearization of chains  Lower copy pronunciation , ,  M Macedonian  Malay ,  Mandarin Chinese 

 Index Manner de-clause  Monno  Morphological morphological merger  morphological reanalysis ,  morphological restrictions ,  Movement A-movement  head movement  LF –movement  long A-movement  optional movement  PF-movement  remnant movement ,  successive-cyclic movement  verb movement  Multiple multiple case checking  multiple copy spell-out  see also Copy multiple wh-fronting ,  N Nominal copula  Norwegian ,  Nuclear Stress Rule  Nupe  O Object shift  Obviation  P Panara  Phase Impenetrability Condition , 

Phi-features Interpretability of phi-features  Pitch declination  Portuguese Brazilian Portuguese ,  European Portuguese  Postposition  PP-internal doubling  Predicate displacement  Probe  Prolepsis  ’s-prolepsis  Proleptic agreement  Pronominalization  Pronoun  bound pronoun  expletive pronoun  resumptive pronoun , ,  Prosodic Inversion  R Reconstruction effect  Reflexive copying  Reflexivization ,  Relative clause  Relative tense  Resultative de-clause  Romanian , ,  S San Lucas Quiavinì Zapotec ,  Scope ,  Serbo-Croatian , ,  Serial verb construction  Sideward movement  Sigma phrase 

Spanish ,  Argentinean Spanish  Spec-Head agreement  Spurious article  Stress assignment  Subject doubling  Subjunctive  Swedish  Switch reference  Syllabic contraction  T Tonal coarticulation  Trace  PF realization of traces  Trace theory  U Unselective binding  V Vata  Verb copying  Verb topicalization  Verbal repetition  verbal repetition construction  Vocabulary insertion  V2-requirement  W Wh-agreement  Wh-clitic doubling  Wh-copying construction ,  Wh-movement covert wh-movement  Wh-phrase echo wh-phrase  in-situ wh-phrase , 

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 109 ChoCano, Gema: Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form. Scrambling in the Germanic languages. 2007. x, 333 pp. 108 Reuland, eric, Tanmoy BhaTTaChaRya and Giorgos SpaThaS (eds.): Argument Structure. v, 241 pp. + index. Expected September 2007 107 CoRveR, norbert and Jairo nuneS (eds.): The Copy Theory of Movement. 2007. vi, 388 pp. 106 dehé, nicole and yordanka Kavalova (eds.): Parentheticals. xii, 310 pp. + index. Expected August 2007 105 haumann, dagmar: Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. 2007. ix, 438 pp. 104 JeonG, youngmi: Applicatives. Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. 2007. vii, 144 pp. 103 WuRff, Wim van der (ed.): Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar. Studies in honour of Frits Beukema. viii, 339 pp. + index. Expected July 2007 102 BayeR, Josef, Tanmoy BhaTTaChaRya and m.T. hany BaBu (eds.): Linguistic Theory and South Asian Languages. Essays in honour of K. A. Jayaseelan. 2007. x, 282 pp. 101 KaRimi, Simin, vida Samiian and Wendy K. WilKinS (eds.): Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. 2007. vi, 424 pp. 100 SChWaBe, Kerstin and Susanne WinKleR (eds.): On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Generalizations across languages. 2007. vii, 570 pp. 99 maRTínez-Gil, fernando and Sonia Colina (eds.): Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. 2007. viii, 564 pp. 98 piReS, acrisio: The Minimalist Syntax of Defective Domains. Gerunds and infinitives. 2006. xiv, 188 pp. 97 haRTmann, Jutta m. and lászló molnáRfi (eds.): Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. From Afrikaans to Zurich German. 2006. vi, 332 pp. 96 lynGfelT, Benjamin and Torgrim SolSTad (eds.): Demoting the Agent. Passive, middle and other voice phenomena. 2006. x, 333 pp. 95 voGeleeR, Svetlana and liliane TaSmoWSKi (eds.): Non-definiteness and Plurality. 2006. vi, 358 pp. 94 aRChe, maría J.: Individuals in Time. Tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction. 2006. xiv, 281 pp. 93 pRoGovaC, ljiljana, Kate paeSani, eugenia CaSielleS and ellen BaRTon (eds.): The Syntax of Nonsententials. Multidisciplinary perspectives. 2006. x, 372 pp. 92 BoeCKx, Cedric (ed.): Agreement Systems. 2006. ix, 346 pp. 91 BoeCKx, Cedric (ed.): Minimalist Essays. 2006. xvi, 399 pp. 90 dalmi, Gréte: The Role of Agreement in Non-Finite Predication. 2005. xvi, 222 pp. 89 velde, John R. te: Deriving Coordinate Symmetries. A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match. 2006. x, 385 pp. 88 mohR, Sabine: Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions. Impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages. 2005. viii, 207 pp. 87 Julien, marit: Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. 2005. xvi, 348 pp. 86 CoSTa, João and maria Cristina fiGueiRedo Silva (eds.): Studies on Agreement. 2006. vi, 285 pp. 85 miKKelSen, line: Copular Clauses. Specification, predication and equation. 2005. viii, 210 pp. 84 pafel, Jürgen: Quantifier Scope in German. 2006. xvi, 312 pp. 83 SChWeiKeRT, Walter: The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. 2005. xii, 338 pp. 82 Quinn, heidi: The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. 2005. xii, 409 pp. 81 fuSS, eric: The Rise of Agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. 2005. xii, 336 pp. 80 BuRKhaRdT, petra: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Representing and interpreting dependency. 2005. xii, 259 pp. 79 SChmid, Tanja: Infinitival Syntax. Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. 2005. xiv, 251 pp. 78 diKKen, marcel den and Christina m. ToRToRa (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. 2005. vii, 292 pp. 77 ÖzTüRK, Balkız: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x, 268 pp.

76 STavRou, melita and arhonto TeRzi (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 366 pp. 75 di SCiullo, anna maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and computation. 2005. xviii, 398 pp. 74 heGGie, lorie and francisco oRdóñez (eds.): Clitic and Affix Combinations. Theoretical perspectives. 2005. viii, 390 pp. 73 CaRnie, andrew, heidi haRley and Sheila ann dooley (eds.): Verb First. On the syntax of verbinitial languages. 2005. xiv, 434 pp. 72 fuSS, eric and Carola TRipS (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004. viii, 228 pp. 71 GeldeRen, elly van: Grammaticalization as Economy. 2004. xvi, 320 pp. 70 auSTin, Jennifer R., Stefan enGelBeRG and Gisa Rauh (eds.): Adverbials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004. x, 346 pp. 69 KiSS, Katalin é. and henk van RiemSdiJK (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. 2004. vi, 514 pp. 68 BReul, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. 2004. x, 432 pp. 67 mišeSKa Tomić, olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004. xvi, 499 pp. 66 GRohmann, Kleanthes K.: Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. xvi, 372 pp. 65 manninen, Satu helena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. xii, 275 pp. 64 BoeCKx, Cedric and Kleanthes K. GRohmann (eds.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp. 63 BoeCKx, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. xii, 224 pp. 62 CaRnie, andrew, heidi haRley and maryann Willie (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar. In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp. 61 SChWaBe, Kerstin and Susanne WinKleR (eds.): The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. vi, 403 pp. 60 TRipS, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv, 359 pp. 59 dehé, nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp. 58 di SCiullo, anna maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. 2003. vi, 309 pp. 57 di SCiullo, anna maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp. 56 Coene, martine and yves d’hulST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. 2003. x, 295 pp. 55 Coene, martine and yves d’hulST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp. 54 BapTiSTa, marlyse: The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003. xxii, 294 pp. (incl. CD-rom). 53 zWaRT, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner aBRaham (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26–27, 2000). 2002. xiv, 407 pp. 52 Simon, horst J. and heike WieSe (eds.): Pronouns – Grammar and Representation. 2002. xii, 294 pp. 51 GeRlaCh, Birgit: Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon. 2002. xii, 282 pp. 50 STeinBaCh, markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. 2002. xii, 340 pp. 49 alexiadou, artemis (ed.): Theoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp. 48 alexiadou, artemis, elena anaGnoSTopoulou, Sjef BaRBieRS and hans-martin GäRTneR (eds.): Dimensions of Movement. From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp. 47 BaRBieRS, Sjef, frits BeuKema and Wim van der WuRff (eds.): Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp. 46 panaGioTidiS, phoevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. ‘Pronominality’ and licensing in syntax. 2002. x, 214 pp. 45 aBRaham, Werner and C. Jan-Wouter zWaRT (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002. xviii, 336 pp. 44 Taylan, eser erguvanlı (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii, 267 pp.

43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7

feaTheRSTon, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp. alexiadou, artemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x, 233 pp. zelleR, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. xii, 325 pp. hoeKSema, Jack, hotze Rullmann, víctor SánChez-valenCia and Ton van der Wouden (eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. 2001. xii, 368 pp. GeldeRen, elly van: A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Person, Self, and Interpretability. 2000. xiv, 279 pp. meinunGeR, andré: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000. xii, 247 pp. luTz, uli, Gereon mülleR and arnim von STeChoW (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking. 2000. vi, 483 pp. GeRlaCh, Birgit and Janet GRiJzenhouT (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. 2001. xii, 441 pp. hRóaRSdóTTiR, Thorbjörg: Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO. 2001. xiv, 385 pp. Reuland, eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. 2000. xii, 255 pp. puSKáS, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. The syntax of Ā-positions. 2000. xvi, 398 pp. alexiadou, artemis, paul laW, andré meinunGeR and Chris WildeR (eds.): The Syntax of Relative Clauses. 2000. vi, 397 pp. SvenoniuS, peter (ed.): The Derivation of VO and OV. 2000. vi, 372 pp. BeuKema, frits and marcel den diKKen (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. 2000. x, 324 pp. miyamoTo, Tadao: The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The role of the verbal noun. 2000. xiv, 232 pp. heRmanS, Ben and marc van ooSTendoRp (eds.): The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory. 2000. viii, 322 pp. RůžičKa, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study. 1999. x, 206 pp. aCKema, peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1999. viii, 310 pp. felSeR, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. 1999. xiv, 278 pp. ReBuSChi, Georges and laurice TulleR (eds.): The Grammar of Focus. 1999. vi, 366 pp. GiannaKidou, anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. 1998. xvi, 282 pp. alexiadou, artemis and Chris WildeR (eds.): Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. 1998. vi, 388 pp. Klein, henny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1998. x, 232 pp. laenzlinGeR, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Adverbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1998. x, 371 pp. JoSefSSon, Gunlög: Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Word formation in Swedish. 1998. ix, 199 pp. alexiadou, artemis: Adverb Placement. A case study in antisymmetric syntax. 1997. x, 256 pp. BeeRmann, dorothee, david leBlanC and henk van RiemSdiJK (eds.): Rightward Movement. 1997. vi, 410 pp. liu, feng-hsi: Scope and Specificity. 1997. viii, 187 pp. RohRBaCheR, Bernhard Wolfgang: Morphology-Driven Syntax. A theory of V to I raising and prodrop. 1999. viii, 296 pp. anaGnoSTopoulou, elena, henk van RiemSdiJK and frans zWaRTS (eds.): Materials on Left Dislocation. 1997. viii, 349 pp. alexiadou, artemis and T. alan hall (eds.): Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation. 1997. viii, 252 pp. aBRaham, Werner, Samuel david epSTein, höskuldur ThRáinSSon and C. Jan-Wouter zWaRT (eds.): Minimal Ideas. Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework. 1996. xii, 364 pp. luTz, uli and Jürgen pafel (eds.): On Extraction and Extraposition in German. 1996. xii, 315 pp. CinQue, Guglielmo and Giuliana GiuSTi (eds.): Advances in Roumanian Linguistics. 1995. xi, 172 pp. GeldeRen, elly van: The Rise of Functional Categories. 1993. x, 224 pp. fanSeloW, Gisbert (ed.): The Parametrization of Universal Grammar. 1993. xvii, 232 pp. ÅfaRlí, Tor a.: The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. 1992. xii, 177 pp.

6 5 4 3 2 1

BhaTT, Christa, elisabeth lÖBel and Claudia maria SChmidT (eds.): Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. 1989. ix, 187 pp. GReWendoRf, Günther and Wolfgang STeRnefeld (eds.): Scrambling and Barriers. 1990. vi, 442 pp. aBRaham, Werner and Sjaak de meiJ (eds.): Topic, Focus and Configurationality. Papers from the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen, 1984. 1986. v, 349 pp. aBRaham, Werner (ed.): On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks (3e Groninger Grammatikgespräche), Groningen, January 1981. 1983. vi, 242 pp. ehliCh, Konrad and Jürgen RehBein: Augenkommunikation. Methodenreflexion und Beispielanalyse. 1982. viii, 150 pp. With many photographic ills. KlappenBaCh, Ruth (1911–1977): Studien zur Modernen Deutschen Lexikographie. Auswahl aus den Lexikographischen Arbeiten von Ruth Klappenbach, erweitert um drei Beiträge von Helene MaligeKlappenbach. (Written in German). 1980. xxiii, 313 pp.

The Copy Theory of Movement (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Movement Theory of Control (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Phase Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Experimental Pragmatics Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Multiple Wh-Fronting (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Parentheticals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 106)

Argument Structure (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Emergence of Order in Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Structure of Stative Verbs (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Syntatic Aspects of Topic and Comment (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Adverbials and the Phase Model (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 177)

Scrambling and the Survive Principle (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Quantifier Scope in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Linguistics Enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Theoretical Approaches to Universals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Grammaticalization As Economy (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 71)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication And Equation (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Agreement Systems (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, Volume 92)

Continuity and Change in Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Copy Theory of Movement (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Movement Theory of Control (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Phase Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Experimental Pragmatics Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Multiple Wh-Fronting (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Parentheticals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 106)

Argument Structure (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Emergence of Order in Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Structure of Stative Verbs (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Syntatic Aspects of Topic and Comment (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Adverbials and the Phase Model (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 177)

Scrambling and the Survive Principle (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Quantifier Scope in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Linguistics Enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Theoretical Approaches to Universals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Grammaticalization As Economy (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 71)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication And Equation (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Agreement Systems (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, Volume 92)

Continuity and Change in Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Recommend Documents