The Morphology and Syntax of Topic and Focus: Minimalist inquiries in the Quechua periphery

The Morphology and Syntax of Topic and Focus Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik AktueU!Linguistics ...

Author: Prof. Liliana Sánchez

94 downloads 1098 Views 12MB 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 Morphology and Syntax of Topic and Focus

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik AktueU!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

VVerneri\braharn

Elly van Gelderen

University ofVienna I Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Josef Bayer University of Konstanz

Christer Platzack University of Lund

Cedric Boeckx ICRENUniversitat Autonoma de Barcelona

Ian Roberts Cambridge University

Guglielmo Cinque University of Venice

McGill University

Liliane Haegeman University of Ghent

StenV!kner University of Aarhus

Hubert Haider University of Salzburg

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart University of Groningen

Lisa deMena Travis

Terje Lohndal University of Maryland

Volwne 169 The Morphology and Syntax of Topic and Focus. Minimalist inquiries in the Quechua periphery by Liliana Sanchez

The Morphology and Syntax of Topic and Focus Minimalist inquiries in the Quechua periphery

Liliana Sanchez Rutgers University

fohn Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam I Philadelphia

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 Sanchez, Liliana. The morphology and syntax of topic and fucus : minimalist inquiries in the Quechua periphery I Liliana sanchez. p. em. (LinguistikAk:tueU!Linguistics Today, ISSN o166-o829; v. 169) Includes bibliographical references and index. Quechua language--Grammar. 2. Quechua language--Morphology. 3· Quechua language--Syntax. 4· Minimalist theory (Linguistics) I. Title. II. Series. PM6303.S36 498'.3235- -dC22 ISBN 978 90

272 5552 5 (Hb ; alk. paper)

ISBN 978 90

272 8752 6 (Eb)

© 2010 -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

In memmy ofCesa.r C. Sanchez Montenegro To my loved ones: Jose, Yesica and Lucla Camacho and Irma Alvarado, Irma Sanchez and Marla del Carmen Sanchez.

Table of contents

Acknowledgements Abbreviations

XI XIII

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Peripheral domains and agreement in Southern Quechua 1.1 Peripheral domains 1 1.2 The syntax/morphology and the syntax/PF interfaces at the edges 7

1

CHAPTER 2

An overview of Southern Quechua morphology and syntax The Quechua family of languages: Geographical and demographic information 9 2.2 A brief outline of Quechua morpho syntax 10 2.3 Basic sentence structure and canonical word order 12 2.4 The internal structure ofVP and TP 13 2.5 The CP-layer 16 2.6 Subject and object agreement 18 2.7 Licensing and identification of null subjects 22 2.8 Licensing and identification of null objects 26

9

2.1

CHAPTER 3

Morphology, syntax, and informational structure in Quechua Morphological markings on the left edge 29 3.2 Morphological markings and PF phenomena at the right edge 3·3 Minimalist assumptions 40 3-1.1 Defining topic, focus, and contrast in Quechua 42 3-3.1.1 Topic 42 3-3.1.2 Focus 47 3·4 An Agree-based proposal 50

29

3.1

36

vm Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua CHAPTER 4

Agree, morphological syncretism, and peripheral constituents 53 Morphological syncretism and the ordering of functional categories 53 4.2 Agree and move 57 4-2.1 Focus/evidentiality and topicalization 59 42.2 Polar interrogatives, negation, focus, and intervention effects 73 4-2·3 More evidence of intervention effects: Impressive -ma, emotive -yd, and topic -rl 83 42.4 Quantified expressions, focus, and the suffix -chu 87 4·3· Morphology and the right periphery 90 43.1 Are topic particles syncretic? 91 43.2 Topic particles to the right 93 43·3 Other PF strategies: Breathy voice 98 4.1

CHAPTER 5 Clausal analyses and the left and right peripheries of DPs 99 5.1 Strong person agreement in NP 105 5.1.1 NomP and AgrP/DP 108 5.1.2 Floated quantifiers 111 5.1.3 Discontinuous DPs u8 5.1.4 NP-ellipsis 122 5.1.5 Nominalizations 123 5.2 Articulating the C and D-domains: movement from the D-periphery to the C-periphery 126 5.2.1 Wh-extraction 126 5.2.2 Focalization out of nominalizations 128 5·3 Evidentiality and focus morphology inside DP: The limits of syncretic morphology 130 CHAPTER 6 The limits of agree in the left-periphery: wh-words, polarity items, and intervention effects 6.1 The syntactic distribution of wh-words 134 6.2 Polarity sensitive items 136 6.3 Agree with non-veridicality operators 139 6.4 Scope relations and intervention eftects 148

133

Table of contents CHAPTER 7

The limits of syncretism: wh-movement 7.1 The typology of wh-movement 153 7.2 Wh-fronting in main and subordinate clauses in Southern Quechua 7.2.1 Wh-fronting in main clauses 158 7.2.2 Wh- in situ and wh-fronting in subordinate clauses 163 7·3 Multiple wh-questions 168 CHAPTER

153 156

8

The left and the right periphery in narrative discourse

175

8.1 EvidentiaVfocus markers and the left periphery 182 8.2 Continuity of topics and right detached material 186 8.3 Morphology; intonational patterns, and word order 218 8.;p Intonational pattern in left fronted structures without

morphological marking

221

8.3-2 Intonational patterns in left fronted structures with

morphological marking 222 8.3-3 Intonational patterns in right fronted structures with morphological marking 225 8.3-4 Intonational patterns in right fronted structures with no morphological marking 226 9 Concluding remarks CHAPTER

Index

229

IX

Admowledgements

As a learner of Quechua who fell in love with the language first as a child but was only able to acquire it as an adult, I am grateful to all Quechua native speakers who have shared their language with me throughout the years in places such as Cuzco, Chitapamapa, Ulcumayo, and Lamas. Special thanks to Vidal Carbajal Solis and Hip6lito Peralta Ccama for their invaluable help as language consultants. Without their patience and generous sharing of their knowledge of the language, this book could never have been written. For discussions on different topics covered in this book. I would like to thank Mark Baker, Jimmy Bruno, Jose Camacho, Ellen Courtney, Veneeta Dayal, Jose EHas-Ulloa, Carlos Fassola, Jane Grimshaw, Carlo Linares, Pieter Muysken, Roger Schwarzschild, and the audiences at the Linguistics Colloquium at USC, the Spring 2009 Rutgers St@r meeting, WISCLA 2008 and CILLA 2009. Special thanks to Marla Luisa Zubizarreta for her detailed comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. For help with Praat I would like to thank Jose Elias Ulloa and Jimmy Bruno and for prootediting I would like to thank Jimmy Bruno and Peter Fabian. For editing suggestions I would also like to thank the editors of the Linguistik Aktuell Series. I would also like to thank Balbina Aruhuanca Callisana, speaker of Quechua, Aymara, and Spanish, and the first trilingual person I met, for teaching me some words in Que chua when I was child. Special thanks to Irma Alvarado and my family in Peru and to Marina Camacho in Spain. Finally, I would like to thank Jose, Yesica, and Lucfa for their love and their infinite patience.

Abbreviations

1 2

3 ACC ADD AG ATT ATTPAST AUG CAUS CIS COND CON} CONT CONTIN DAT DES DIM DIR DISCO NT ERG EMOT EUPH EVID E..XCL EXHORT FILL FIN FOC FUT GEN GER IMP IMPR

first person second person third person accusative additive agentive attested attested past augmentative causal cislocative conditional conjunction contrastive continuative dative desiderative diminutive directional discontinuative ergative emotive euphonic evidential exclusive exhortative filler final focus future genitive gerund imperative impressive

INCL INCH INT INTENS INTENT IO ITER LIM LOC NEG NEG IMP NOM

0 OB PAST PERF POSS PROG PRONOST PL REFL REG RELOC REPORT REPORT PAST

s su ss SUB TOP TRANS TRANSF

v

inclusive inchoative interrogative intensifier intentional Indirect Object iterative limitative locative negation negative imperative nominalizer Direct Object Oblique Object past perfective possessor progressive pro no sticative plural reflexive regressive relocative reportative reportative past singular subject same subject subordinate topic translocative transformative verb

CHAPTER 1

Introduction Peripheral domains and agreement in Southern Quechua

1.1

Peripheral domains

In traditional generative studies, work on the information structure of sentences has been characterized by its emphasis on notions such as focus, broadly understood as new information, and topic, also broadly understood as old information. Since the early work of Jackendoff (1972) and Chomsky (1976), concepts such as focus have been at the center of the relationship between information structure and the syntactic component. Jackendoff (1972: 246) analyzed focused expressions as quantificational elements similar in their interpretation to wh-expressions and in their syntactic behavior in that both involved movement to the left periphery of sentences. In their view, English wh-movement was overt, but Focus movement was a covert operation that took place at the interpretive level or LF. English expressions such as (1) with a stressed or focalized direct object (MARY) were analyzed as involving leftward LF movement with a quantificational interpretation similar to that of the wh-word in (2): (1) I saw MARY (2) What (x) did you see (x)? Some forms of fronted topics in languages other than English, most prominently Romance languages with a rich left periphery field, have also been analyzed as involving base generation at the left periphery or leftward syntactic movement. Constructions such as topicalizations and clitic left dislocations (CLLDs) were analyzed by Cinque (1990: 57) as involving A'-positions in the left periphery. Cinque (1990) proposed that topicalizations such as (3) involved an empty operator while CLLD constructions such as (4) did not:

(3) lroP Gianni] [ep op, [rop Gianni] [ep Op1 'I have seen Gianni'

[IP

h-o

[IP

have-1s PERF seen e1]

2

Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua

(4) lroP Gianni] [ep [IP l'ho vistoeJ lroP Gianni] lcp [IP CL have-1SPERF seen e1] 'I have seen Gianni'

(Cinque 1990: 14)

This distinction opened up the possibility of analyzing the C-domain as a multilayered domain able to host more than one fronted element in different structural configurations. Later analyses of Romance languages such as Italian (Rizzi 1997, Poletto 2000, Beninca 2001, Poletto, andZanuttini 2003) and Spanish (Uriagiereka 1995, Zubizarreta 1998, Ordonez & Trevino 1999) have posited that the basic representations of main clauses involve a structured layer of functional categories in the CP-area whose features are discourse-related. For Italian, Rizzi (1997: 257) has proposed a divided left periphery characterized by a fixed ordering of functional heads that bear features associated with the information packing of sentences such as topic, or old information, and focus, or new information. His proposal is sketched in (5): (5)

[ForceP

Force lropP Top

[FocP

Foe lropP Top

[FinP

Fin

[IP I]]]]]]

In Rizzi's (1997) view the left periphery can host multiple topic projections but only one focus projection. Another complex view of the left periphery has been put forth by Cinque (1999: 55). In Cinque's (1999) proposal multiple functional heads related to discourse and modality are projected on a hierarchy of relative ordering of suffixes in languages such as Korean, Turkish, Una, Tauya, and Chinese, among other languages. He proposes the following hierarchy of functional projections in the left periphery: (6) Moodspeech Act > MoodEvaluallve > MoodEvtdential > MoodEplstemlc > Tense > Aspect > Voice. In this book I will adopt an articulated view of the left periphery in Southern Quechua that is based on previous proposals that include functional projections posited by Muysken (1995), Rizzi (1997) and Cinque(1999). The evidence on which I will base my proposal comes from overt morphological markers associated with these projections in Southern Quechua and from intervention effects between constituents associated with them. As in Cinque's (1999) analysis, I will propose a high Speech Act projection in the C-domain, an Evaluative projection and an Evidential projection (originally proposed for Quechua by Muysken (1995)). As in Rizzi's (1997) proposal, I will propose that the left periphery in Southern Quechua hosts multiple Topic projections (see Chapter 8 for a more detailed account) and a Focus projection. The proposal is presented in more detail in Chapter 4. I would like to mention at this point that in elaborating the proposal, I make the following assumptions: (a) functional features may be scattered across

Chapter 1. Introduction projections (as in Giorgi and Pianesi's 1997 proposal), (b) not all functional features are present in the grammar of every language (Grimshaw 2005) and (c) not all functional features available in the grammar of a particular language are included in the numeration of each sentence. In addition to proposals that aim at providing a structural account for therelationship between information structure and left periphery, other proposals have been put forth that present arguments in favor of positing IF-internal structural positions for focalized elements on the right periphery of sentences. These analyses are based on evidence from the positioning of wh-words in languages such as Malayalam (Jayaseelan 2001: 40) and clitic right dislocated constructions or right dislocated objects in Romance languages (Cecchetto 2000: 56, Belletti 2005: 12). As Jayaseelan (2001: 39-40) notes, in Malayalam, an SOV language, wh-words must appear in their in situ pre-verbal position as shown by the following contrast: (7) Ninn-e amx a.Ticcu? You-Ace who beat-PAST Who beat you?

(8)

*aarx Ninn-e aTiccu? Who you-ACC beat-PAST Who beat you?

(Jayaseelan 2001: 40)

On the basis of the impossibility of having a fronted wh-word, and also on the basis of data from clefting questions and scrambling in Malayalam, pseudogapping and cleft focus in English, as well as scrambling facts in German and Dutch, Jayaseelan (2001) proposes an IF-internal Focus Phrase. A schematic view of his proposal is shown in (9), in which a Focus Phrase is located in the position immediately dominating the higher vP: (9)

[FocP Foe

[vP v

[VP V DO]]]

(based on Jayaseelan 2001: 41)

This analysis has been extended to phenomena such as clitic right dislocation (10) and eli tic doubled strong pronouns (11) in the right periphery of languages such as Italian by Cecchetto (2000: 58), Italian and Spanish by Belletti (2005: 24), and others. (10) Io l'ho visto, Gianni. I CL-have seen, Gianni 'I saw Gianni' (11) Gia.nni verra lui. Gianni come he 'Gianni himself will come'

(Cecchetto 2000: 49)

(Belletti 2005: 10)

3

4


In this line of analysis, a maximal projection that Belleti (2005: 2) following Cecchetto (2000: 56) labels big DP is formed by the direct object clitic pronoun as the head of big DP and the DP Gianni as its complement in (10) and by two DPs, one in the spec ofbig DP and another as a complement with a null D head in (11). A subconstituent of this big DP moves to the specifier of the IP-internalfocus position (the DP Gianni in (10) and the strong pronoun lui in (11)) and appears as the right dislocated position while the remnant elements in the "big DP" structure are raised to spec ofTP. 1 In order to account for topic interpretations of the right dislocated element, Belleti (2005: 9) proposes a structure parallel to the one proposed for the C-domain by Rizzi (1997: 237) that includes not only IP-internal focalized elements but also topicalized ones: (12) [TopP Top [FocP Foe [TopP Top [VP]]]]

If Rizzi's (1997: 237) and Belletti's (2005: 24) extended analyses are correct, the availability of these left and right peripheral positions opens up the following question: Are these structural positions available in all languages or are they simply A'-positions that receive their interpretation at the syntax/semantic interface with intonational cues from the syntax/PF interface. 2 1his question is of current theoretical relevance, given that there are at least two approaches to the syntactic representation of focused and topicalized peripheral elements across languages available in the literature. On the one hand, there is the view that left peripheral positions in the C-related domain are the positions in which functional features such as focus or topic are checked (Rizzi 1997: 237) and right peripheral positions are the replicate of these C-domain positions in the IP-internal domain. Determining the distribution of these functional projections at the peripheries has been termed the "cartographic" approach to the C-domain (Rizzi 1997: 236). On the other hand, there are views that advocate a less complex view of structural projections at the periphery (L6pez 2003) and a more complex interaction between the phonological, syntactic, and information levels of language representation (Vallduvi 1995, Zubizarreta 1998, Alexopoulu and Kolliakou 2002, Junker 2004) in which information structure may not have a one-to-one correspondence to syntactic structure, although it may interact with it along with other language components. In fact, efforts have recently been made to treat discourse prominent Cecchetto (2000: 41) argues against an analysis in which right dislocated elements in Italian result from a series ofleftward movement operations in which there is an original topicalization movement of the direct object Gianni and later remnant movement of the IP to the left.

1.

2. L6pez (2003: 204) uses the term presupposition and contrast to refer to linguistic features that are assigned to the EPP feature by the interpretive component he terms pragmatics, which he assumes can be accessed throughout a derivation (i.e. it is defined as invasive following Epstein, Groat, Kawashima and Kitahara 1998).

Chapter 1. Introduction

constituents on the edges of sentences in languages such as Italian and Russian as linear phenomena that must not be treated as part of the core syntax (Pereltsvaig 2004). According to Pereltsvaig (2004: 326), what the syntactic component provides is the availability of sentence marginal positions (A'-positions to the left or right) that may host topicalized or focused elements but there is no specific feature that must be checked in those positions. It is worth noting that some of Pereltsvaig's arguments are based on data from languages in which prominence encoding heavily involves intonational patterns rather than morphology. The theoretical implications of adopting what has been termed the "cartographic" approach to the peripheries of the clause or a more constrained view of how the narrow syntax interacts with PF and the interpretive component are manifold. At this point, I will raise only two of the most salient questions that require an answer in light of this debate. First, the adoption of one or the other position crucially aftects the theoretical status of features such as focus and topic. Are they part of the feature inventory available to all human languages or are they a by-product of the interaction of many components and have no theoretical status as functional features? Secondly, if they are part of the feature inventory, can they be uniquely and distinctively characterized in terms of the syntactic operations that they trigger? In order to be able to distinguish between these two approaches, the analysis oflanguages in which focus and topic involve syntactic operations is needed. Socalled discourse configurational languages have for a long time now provided empirical data to test these competing hypotheses. Pioneering work by Horvath (1986: 51-54) and Szabolcsi (1983/4: 92) on Hungarian has shown that structural positions in the left periphery are assigned to constituents bearing prominent information status. Evidence for such positions has come from the study of European, Asian and African, and American Indian languages (Kiss 1995: 20). 3 In languages such as English most of the encoding of this information is done at PF by means of intonation, while in many Romance languages the encoding of information status involves both the PF component and syntactic positions in the left periphery (Rizzi 1997: 237, Uriagereka 1995: 93 among others). Even if in those languages discourse prominence notions such as topic and focus can be analyzed as the result of linear non-hierarchical operations, there are other human languages in which discourse-prominence information is encoded in other components such as morphology.

3- Junker (2004: 348) shows that the left periphery plays a role in the packaging of information in East Cree. At the same time, she derives word order phenomena in East Cree as the result of the alignment of three constraints: the person hierarchy (or obviation), the adjunct position ofNP phrases, and the linear ordering of phrasal constituents.

5

6


This is true of Amerindian languages such as Quechua (Muysken 1995: 375, Cerr6n-Palomino 1994: 136) and also of some Romance languages such as Italian in which morphological markers such as clitics spell out inherent syntactic and semantic properties of structures such as imperatives (Paletta & Zanuttini 2003: 175) and in which wh-words have been shown to be doubled by clitic-like elements (Paletta & Pollock 2004: 250). Whereas the syntax/PF interface has been intensively explored with respect to information structure, less is known about the contribution of morphology to the syntax/interpretive interface. While it is widely known that many languages mark propositional-level material such as the validity or the evidentialityvalues of a sentence using morphological markers (Aikhenvald 2004: 2, Speas 2004: 256), the precise interaction between morphology, syntax, and the information structure of sentences in languages that do not privilege the syntax/PF interface to convey distinctions in information structure is still in need of further exploration. In this book, I will present evidence of the interaction between syntax and morphology at the left and right periphery of sentences in favor of an analysis of C-related functional features such as focus, evidentiality, topic, and interrogative (Q) features involved in syntactic operations and not as the by-product of nonstructurallinear operations at the syntax/PF interface. I will also present evidence of the syncretic nature of morphology in Quechua that allows for the spell-out of several C-related features such as focus and interrogative features along with other features such as negation and polarity features. The evidence will come mostly from Quechua languages, focusing on Southern Quechua varieties in particular.4 As it will be shown, in Southern Quechua, the privileged interaction that yields different focus or topic interpretations for a sentence is not located at the syntax/PF interface in the intonational component but is evidenced by the relationship between syntax and morphology. In the next subsection, I will introduce some of the properties of the left and right peripheries in Quechua and their interaction with the morphological and PF components.

4· Most of the examples used in this book will correspond to Southern Quechua varieties (see Chapter 2) and come from my own fieldwork. Some come from recordings of adult and children's narratives whereas others come from grammaticality judgment questionnaires. I would like to thank all participants in various studies (ZWliga, Sanchez. and Zacharias 2000, Sanchez 2003) and to the research assistants who partidpated in data collection in them. Some date come from interviews with language consultants who are native speakers. For invaluable their help as consultants, I am very thankful to Hlp6lito Peralta Ccama from Cuzco and to Vidal Carbajal from Apurfmac. Data from other sources is cited

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.2

The syntax/morphology and the syntax/PF interfaces at the edges

In minimalist research, morphological encoding has gained importance. In many recent proposals morphological markers such as pronominal clitics are viewed as the spell-out of an agreement relationship between a functional head and an element in its relevant checking domain (Torrego 1998: 16-17, Poletto & Pollock 2004: 253). If a language uses morphology to encode prominence related to the information structure of a sentence, then the question which arises is to what extent would morphology be sufficient to mark prominence of a constituent as old or new information and to what extent would movement of constituents or external merge be needed to mark discourse relative prominence relationships. Whereas the phonology/syntax interface has been explored particularly with respect to focus and displacement (Selkirk 1984, Nespor & Vogel1986, Zubizarreta 1998, Donati & Nespor 2003), the interaction between the morphological encoding of topic and focus and syntactic movement or displacement to the left and right peripheries remains an area open for cross-linguistic research. For many researchers in the field of syntax, discourse-related interpretable features may trigger agreement or movement, but linguistic structures derived from the need to accommodate discourse prominent elements are not the result of core syntactic operations. As mentioned above, recent proposals have considered some forms of word order alterations attributed to displacements as linear operations that affect the PF-component but are not necessarily part of the core syntax (Pereltsvaig 2004: 326). In this book. I focus on Southern Quechua, a family oflanguages that encodes the status of information (old versus new information), through two mechanisms: morphology and displacement. In most Quechua languages, the left periphery hosts focalized and topicalized elements that appear in fronted positions and are morphologically marked as shown by the following examples: (13) [Wasi-ta-qa] Pirdu-m ruwa-rqa-n. 5 House-Ace-TOP Pirdu-Foc/EVID build-PAST- 3s 'The house, Pirdu built' (14) [Pirdu-m] [wasi-ta-qa] ruwa-rqa-n. Pirdu-Foc/EVID house-Ace-TOP build-PAST-3 s 'It was Pirdu who build the house' In (13) the direct object wasita 'house' is a topic. It appears in a left-fronted position and is marked with the morpheme -qa, a suffix usually attached to topics (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 227). In (14) the subject Pirdu is new information. It is 5· I use normalized Quechua alphabet for Southern Peruvian Quechua (Coronel Molina 1996, Cerr6n Palomino 1994) in all cases except in some quotations from other authors.

7

8


marked with the suffix -m (an allomorph of -mi), a suffix that indicates focus and evidentiality, as we will see in more detail in the subsequent chapters. I propose that these constituents are morphologically marked for focus or topic features as a result of the operation Agree, which is triggered by functional features in the C-domain that interact with other sentence-level operators such as evidentiality and negation. The right periphery, on the other hand, does not interact with sentence-level operators such as evidentiality or negation, although it may host elements that require morphological marking with IF-internal topic or focus features. While they may appear unmarked in oral speech, speakers do not accept them in unmarked form in grammaticality judgments. I will show evidence that unmarked right peripheral elements in Southern Quechua are not part of the intonational contour of the sentence. They exhibit PF properties that are not shared by elements in the left periphery and that indicate that they are not part of the syntactic computation in the narrow syntax. In order to illustrate these differences, I will examine some examples of the diverging properties ofleft and right peripheral elements in Quechua in Chapter 3. In order to better understand the syntactic nature of peripheral elements, I provide in the next chapter a general overview of the basic morphological and syntactic properties of Quechua. In Chapter 4, I provide a more detailed presentation of syncretism and Agree and how it is affected by intervention effects. Chapter 5 focuses on an extension of the complex articulation of the C-domain to the D-domain. In Chapter 6, the implications of Agree and syncretic morphology for the interpretation of wh-words and polarity sensitive items are discussed. Finally, in Chapter 7, an approach to wh-movement as a solution to the limits of Agree and syncretic morphology is presented.

CHAPTER 2

An overview of Southern Quechua morphology and syntax

2.1

The Quechua family oflanguages: Geographical and demographic information

The Quechua family of languages is one of the two dominant language groups in the Central Andes (Adelaar & Muysken 2004: 34). As noted by Adelaar and Muysken (2004: 168) it is the most important language family in the Central Andes. The languages that belong to this family are spoken in several countries in South America: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina (Adelaar & Musyken (2004: 169). There are two main Quechua families: the one spoken in the Central Andes of Peru labeled Quechua I by Torero (1964) (Quechua Bin Parker's (1963) classification) and the large family of Quechua dialects spoken in Colombia, Ecuador, some Amazonian regions as well as the Northeastern slopes of the Andes and the Southern Andes of Peru, Bolivia, the north of Chile, and of Argentina labeled Quechua II by Torero (1964) and Quechua A by Parker (1963). Southern Quechua is a group of dialects included in the Quechua II group (in Torero's 1964 classification). In this book, I use the term Southern Quechua to refer to the sub-family Southern Chinchay (QIIC) which includes the varieties spoken in the Peruvian departments of Apurimac, Ayacucho, Huancavelica and, Cuzco as well as in Bolivia and Argentina (Cerr6n-Palomino 1987: 242). 1 The majority of the examples presented in the book are from Cuzco Quechua. Some are from Apurimac Quechua, which can be classified as a sub-variety of Ayacucho Quechua. Occasionally, some examples from Bolivian Quechua or Quechua I or B languages taken from the pre-existing literature will be introduced and discussed. In terms of the number of speakers of Quechua, data from the most recent census from the three countries where the languages are widely spoken (Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru) indicate that the Quechua languages have approximately 5 million speakers. The 2007 Census carried out by the Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Informatica in Peru reports 3,360,331 native speakers of Quechua languages at the Peru was traditionally divided in political units called departments. Many language varleties received the name of the department or region where they are spoken.

1.

10


national level in Peru (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Informatica 2010). Of the total number of the population that participated in the census, this number constitutes 13.02%. In the department of Apurimac the total number of native speakers reported in the 2007 Census is 266,336. This number constitutes 70.58% of participants in the census (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Informatica 2010) in that area. In the department of Cuzco the total number of native speakers reported in the same census is 566,581, 51.40% of the population censed in that department. In Bolivia, according to the Bolivian Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (2010) the total number of native speakers of Quechua who are 15 years old or older is 1,555,641. In Ecuador according to the Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Censos (2010) the total number of indigenous speakers of Quichua is 451,783. Despite the language shift from Quechua to Spanish that is currently taking place among most indigenous populations in these countries, the Quechua languages continue to be a family with a wide geographical distribution in South America as well as with a significant number of speakers across various countries.

2.2

A brief outline of Quechua morphosyntax

The Quechua family oflanguages has been characterized as agglutinative due to a high correspondence between affixes and grammatical relations expressed by those affixes (Cerr6n-Palomino 1988: 261). This is shown by examples from Cuzco Quechua such as: (1) Mikhu-naya-chka-sunki-chu. 2 Eat-DES-PROG-3-2-INT 'Do you feel like eating'

(Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 88)

This example illustrates several of the morphological characteristics of Quechua. First, Quechua languages are suffixal. Secondly, while Quechua has been characterized as agglutinative, some suffixes may be the morphological expression of more than one grammatical feature, indicating some level of synchretism. In some cases such as with the suffix -sunki (3 to 2 person) in example (1) (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 167), a single morpheme may express more than one grammatical feature. The suffix -sunki syncretically expresses a third person subject and a second person object.

2. I follow the orthographic convention (Coronel Molina 1996, Cerr6n Palomino 1994) according to which the Cuzco Quechua suffix -sha is spelled as -chka.

Chapter 2. An overview of Southern Quechua morphology and syntax A third important characteristic of Quechua is the strict ordering of suffixes. This is exemplified in (1). The derivational desiderative suffix -naya precedes inflectional suffixes such the progressive -cha or the person suffix -sunki. The last suffix is the yes/no interrogative marker -chu that some traditional grammars classify as 'independent' suffixes due to their distribution, namely. the tact that they can be attached to nouns or verbs. As noted by Cerr6n-Palomino (1988: 267), in Quechua languages the basic word structure is the following: (2) Root+ Derivational Suffix+ Inflectional Suffixes+ Independent Suffixes As we will see in the following chapters, the final position of independent suffixes such as the interrogative -chu will be of relevance to our analysis of the relationship between left peripheral syntactic categories and features and TP-internal constituents. In the next subsection, I will provide an outline of main clause word order in Quechua languages. Finally, another important characteristic of Quechua morpho syntax is the distinction between nouns and verbs. While noun roots may appear as independent words without any type of morphological marking, verb roots are bound morphemes (Cerr6n-Palomino 1994: 76). This is illustrated by the following contrast: (3)

U1·qu. 'Mountain'

(4)

(Cerr6n-Palomino 1994: 76)

Wata'Tie'


There is also a subclass of roots that allows for both noun and verbal suffixes such as: (5)

T'ika'Flower/Bloom.'


There is also a rich class of derivational suffixes that allow nominal roots to become verbs and verbal roots to become nouns. An example of a nominalizing suffix is the suffix -q shown in (6). (6) Llanka-q Work-NOM 'Work-ing' or 'Work-er' This morphosyntactic property will become relevant when discussing nominalization structures. In the next subsection, I will present the basic sentence structure and canonical word order.

11

12


2.3 Basic sentence structure and canonical word order

Quechua has been described as a language with a canonical SOV word order and other possible variable word orders (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 61, Cerr6n-Palomino 1987: 291-292, Adelaar & Muysken 2004: 207). In this subsection, I provide the canonical word orders for main clauses with intransitive, transitive, and ditransitive verbs. In most Southern Quechua varieties, canonical word order in sentences that convey new information with intransitive verbs is SV, as shown by the following example from Cuzco Quechua: (7) Warmi lluqsi-mu-n. Woman leave-cis-3 s 'A woman left' While Cuzco Quechua, like all other Quechua languages, allows null subjects, as shown in example (4), and has a robust paradigm of subject agreement on the verb (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 152, Cerr6n-Palomino 1988: 268-269), it does not allow verb-subject inversion with intransitive verbs, not even with unaccussative verbs, a property that has been ascribed to other null subject languages with rich subject agreement morphology such as Italian. 3 (8) pro lluqsi-mu-n. pro leave-cis-3 s '(S!he) left' The ungrammaticality of verb-subject inversion in Quechua when the whole sentence is new information as the answer to the question 'What happened?' is shown in: (9) ""Lluqsi-mu-n wa1·mi. Leave-cis-3s woman 'A woman left' This is so despite the fact that word order in Quechua sentences with transitive verbs has been argued to be relatively free. This fact will be relevant when discussing the way in which non-canonical word orders in sentences with transitive verbs arise. 3·

Expletive subjects in Quechua are obligatorily null as they are in other null subject languages: (i) pro para-chka-n. pro rain-PROG-38 'It rains'

Chapter 2. An overview of Southern Quechua morphology and syntax

In sentences in which the whole sentence is new information and the verb is transitive, the canonical word word order is SOV, as shown in:

(10) Mariya papa-ta ranti-chka-n. Mariya potato-Ace exchange-PROG-3 s 'Maria is buying potatoes' In the next chapters, it will be shown that alternative word orders can be generated when suffixes that are related to informational structure such as topic and focus markers appear on constituents in the left and right margins of the sentence. In the case of ditransitive verbs, the canonical word order in sentences conveying new information is subject, indirect object, direct object and verb as shown in:

(11) Tayta churi-n-man wasi-ta qu-n. Father son-3 s- DAT house-Ace give-3 s 'The father gives the house to his son' In Chapter 3, the possible alterations of canonical word order according to differences in the informational structure of sentences with transitive and intransitive verbs will be presented.

2.4 The internal structure of VP and TP

Internally to the VP, direct objects receive the accusative marker -ta as shown in example (10) and indirect objects receive the dative marker -man. In this book. I will adopt an analysis of Quechua VPs based on the original Larsonian VP-shell proposal (Larson 1988: 342) and the standard assumption in the field according to which there is a higher vP projection on top of the projection of the lexical V (VP) (Chomsky 1995: 352). I will also adopt a Kaynian approach (Kayne 1994: 35-38) to the representation of headedness in Quechua so that the OV word order is derived by movement of the direct object from its initial position as a complement of V to the specifier of the first VP inside the clause. The syntactic representation of a vP with a transitive verb such as the one in (10) is as follows 4:

4 This type of movement is not triggered by the need to check Case features. It is triggered by the need to avoid post verbal right detached positions, which are always presupposed material in discourse, as I will show later in Chapters 4 and 8.

13

14

Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua (12)

vP

~'---...... Ma1·iya. v'

~ v

VP

~ V'

papata.1

~ V DP rantichkan

t1

In the case of ditransitive verbs the syntactic representation involves an additional VP. The indirect object is located in the specifier position of the additional VP. as shown in the tree in (13) for sentence (11): (13)

vP

~'---...... Tayta v'

~ v

VP

~ V'

churin-man

~ V

VP

~ wasi-ta1

V'

~ V DP

It is worth noticing that in addition to direct objects, VP-internal adjuncts such as manner adverbs may also be marked with the accusative suffix -ta, as shown by the following example: (14) Huwan allin-ta papa-ta tarpu-sqa-n. Huwan good-Ace potato-Ace sow-PAST-3SG 'Huwan sowed potatoes well'

Chapter 2. An overview of Southern Quechua morphology and syntax This fact has been noted by Van de Kerke (1996: 94-95) and indicates that VP-internal constituents that are not inherently marked for cases such as dative receive accusative marking from the verb. In terms of the structure ofTP, one important characteristic of Quechua is the absence of passive constructions. The following example illustrates the ungrammaticality of a passive-like structure:

Mariya-ta. (15) *Papa suwa-sqa ka-rqa-n Papa steal-NOM be-PAST-3SG Mariya-Acc 'Potatoes were stolen (by) Mariya' In example (15), the theme of the verb suwa 'steal' appears in subject position and agrees with the auxiliary verb karqan 'was'. Notice that the main verb appears marked with a nominalizing suffix -sqa that can be analyzed as some form of past participle that would make this sentence similar to a passive in languages such as English. At least two factors indicate that passives are not possible in Quechua. First, there is no morphological marker in Quechua that indicates passive voice. Secondly, there is no morphological marker that can be used with an adjunct that bears a th-role agent so that it can be understood as a by-phrase. While accusative case assignment for VP-internal material is available even for adjuncts, it is not available for the agent that has been demoted to an adjunct position. The ungrammaticality of this sentence as well as the unavailability of morphological markers that could indicate the type of syntactic operations usually found in passive sentences indicate that TP-internal movement of subject constituents exclusively for case reasons is not found in Quechua. Another important aspect of the internal syntax of TP is the absence of verb movement in canonical word order. This is shown by the contrast between the grammaticality of preverbal adverbs and postverbal adverbs:

tarpu-sqa-n. (16) Huwan allin-ta. papa-ta Huwan good-Ace potato-Ace sow-PAST-3SG 'Huwan sowed potatoes well? (17)

*Huwan tarpusqa-n

allin-ta

papa-ta.

Huwan sow-PAST-3SG good-Ace potato-Ace 'Huwan sowed potatoes well: I take this contrast as an indication that there is no verb movement internally to TP. Taken together, the unavailability of passives and the lack of verb movement internally to TP seem to indicate that in Quechua neither XP nor x movement are triggered in the core syntax. This opens the question of what is the status of the

15

16

Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua fronted topicalized and focalized constituents shown in sentences (13) and (14) in Chapter 1. I will address this question in Chapter 3.

2.5 The CP-layer In this subsection, I will provide only a very general overview of the CP-layer which will be explained in detail in the following chapters. When analyzing most languages of the world, it is usually the case that an active C-domain is evidenced by the availability of wh-fronting and subordinate clauses headed by complementizers. Relative clauses headed by either relative pronouns or complementizers are also taken as evidence of a CP-layer. As we will see in this book, evidence of an active C-domain in Southern Quechua will come from other aspects of the C-domain such as the availability of evidentiality. focus, and topic features. There is however, some evidence of wh-fronting in Southern Quechua, as shown by the following example from Cuzco Quechua: (18) Ima.-ta.-taq paqarin-ri ruwa-nki? What-ACC-CONT tomorrow-TOP do- 2 S 'And what are you doing tomorrow' (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 258)

In sentence (18) the wh-word imatataq 'what' (contrastive) appears to the left of the temporal adverb paqarin 'tomorrow' which indicates that some type of leftward fronting has taken place. The other traditional sources of evidence of an active C-domain, complement, and relative clauses are of a less transparent nature in Quechua languages given their nominalized status. They have been the matter of extensive studies (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988, Weber 1996, 1983). In this section I will only provide a brief descriptive sketch of nominalizations in Southern Quechua. As noted by Lefebvre & Musyken (1988: 74-77) and (Adelaar & Muysken 2004: 226) nominalized verbs in most Quechua languages have syntactic and morphological characteristics of nouns and at the same time exhibit some properties related to their verbal nature. For instance, they can be marked for case as DPs and at the same time they take internal complements that are case marked. The following example from Lefebvre & Musyken (1988) illustrates this set of properties: (19)

[Tanta-ta ruwa-y-ta]

muna-ni.

Bread-Ace make-INF-ACC want 1 s 'I want to make bread'

(Lefebvre & Musyken 1988: 250)

In this example, the complement clause t'antata ruwayta 'to make bread' is marked with accusative case and at the same time the direct object inside the nominalization


t'antata 'bread' is also marked with accusative case. Another important characteristic of this complement clause is that it does not exhibit an overt form of a complementizer. This is even more salient in complement clauses in which the subject is ditrerent from that of the main clause as in the following examples: (20)

[Huwan hamu-sqa-n-ta]

yacha-ni

Huwan come-NOM- 3s-Acc know-1 s 'I lrnow that Huwan had come: (21)

[Huwan hamu-na-n-ta]

yacha.-ni.

Huwan come-NOM- 3s-Acc lrnow-1 s 'I lrnow that Huwan will come: (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 113) In both examples the complement clause is marked with accusative case. The verb root hamu 'come' is modified by a nominalizing suffix in each case. In (16) the suffix -sqa indicates that the event referred to by the nominalization precedes that of the main clause. In (21) the suffix -na indicates that the event in the complement clause follows the event in the main clause. Furthermore, in nominalizations person agreement on the nominalized verb is marked with a morpheme that belongs to the same set of morphemes used in nominal possessive expressions as illustrated by the following examples: (22) Nuqa-p wasi-y. I-GEN house- 1s 'My house'

hamu-sqa-y-ta yacha-n. (23) Huwan-mi Huwan-Foc/EVID come-NOM-1 s-Acc know-3s 'Huwan lrnows that I came' Notice that in the possessive form in (22) as well as in the nominalization in (23) the first person singular suffix is -y whereas in the main verb yachani 'I know' in ( 20) it is -ni. Nominalizations in most Quechua languages are also characterized by the absence of an overt complementizer. This characteristic along with its external nominal properties (case marldng and possessive person marking) make nominalizations less likely to be analyzed as CP structures. These characteristics are also found in relative clauses whether they are internally headed (also lrnown as headless) or headed (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988): (24) Warma 1·iku-sqa-y-ta, hamu-nqa. (HEADLESS) Girl see-NOM-ls-Acc come-FUT 3s 'The girl I saw will come' (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 187)

17

18

Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua (25) Riku-sqa-y-ta warma, hamu-nqa. (HEADED) See-NOM-1s-Acc girl come-FUT 3s 'The girl I saw will come' (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 187) In (24) the head remains inside the relative clause and there is no overt complementizer. In (25) the head can be analyzed as external since it is not marked for accusative case and appears to be outside the relative clause. Notice that, as in (20), there is no overt complementizer. Therefore, the evidence for a robust C-domain, at least in main clauses, appears to be more closely related to the left fronted elements we saw in Chapter 1 and the fronted wh- expression in (18) in this chapter. The differences between the C-domain in main clauses and subordinate clauses will become relevant in the following chapters as they reveal a fundamental di:ffurence in the complexity of the CP layer in main clauses (Chapter 4) and DP nature of some subordinate clauses (Chapter 5).

2.6 Subject and object agreement

Another important aspect of the syntax of Quechua languages is that they exhibit a robust paradigm of subject agreement markers that emerges clearly with intransitive verbs. With transitive and ditransitive verbs the subject agreement morphological paradigm becomes more complex because it interacts with a set of second and first person direct object agreement markers (Lakiimper & Wunderlich 1998). The complete paradigm of person suffixes is shown in Table 1 (from Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 152):

Table 1. Subject Agreement suffixes on Cuzco Quechua verbs Indicative Generic

-y (ku)

No future -ni

Conditional

Imperative

-waq

-y

Future -saq (-sqa)

-n (chik)

2

-nki

3

-n

-su

(-su)

(-qa)

(-chu)

Chapter 2. An overview of Southern Quechua morphology and syntax Cusihuaman (1976/2001) notes that in the absence of plural suffixes, the first person marker in non-future tenses in indicative mood is -ni: (26) Llanka-ni. Work-1 s 'I work.'

(Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 158)

He also points out that suffixes such as -y and -n mark first person when they appear followed by plural suffixes that indicate inclusive and exclusive first persons, as shown by the following examples: (27) Rima-y-ku. Talk- 1-PL 'We talk~ (Addressee excluded)

(Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 153)

(28) Rima-n-chik. Talk-1-PL 'We talk.' (Addressee included)

(Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 153)

The last two examples illustrate the robust nature of subject agreement morphology in Cuzco Quechua that, in addition to marking first person, marks an inclusive first person plural which refers to the speaker and the addressee and potentially to others, and an exclusive first person plural which refers to the speaker and others. but excludes the addressee. In the future tense, the first person suffix is: (29) Llanka-saq. Work-1 PUT 'I will work.'

(Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 165)

According to Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 165), in the case of transitive verbs some special first person suffixes appear as in: (30)

Yacha-chi-saq-yki. Learn-cAus-1 s- 2s 'I will teach you~

(Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 165)

Cusihuaman (1976/2001) also includes as a first person subject agreement marker the marker that indicates an inclusive first person inclusive and the addressee, as in: (31) Llank'a.-su-n. Work-1s- 3s 'Let us work.'

(Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 165)

Cusihuaman (1976/2001) does not include in his table special first person suffixes in conditional mood or in imperatives.

19

20

Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua In the case of second person subjects, Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 167) lists -nki as the second person suffix in indicative mood and although not included in the table he also points out that there is a plural second person:

(32) Ri-nki. Go-2s 'You go=

Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 167)

(33) Rin-nki-chik. Go-2s-PL 'You (PL) go=

Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 167)

Conditional second person subject marking when there is no interaction with a first person object suffix is -waq: (34) Yaw taytay, qipi-rqu-ku-waq-chu? Hey father, carry-PERF-REF-2 s COND-INT 'Hey sir, would you carry (a packet)?' Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 169) The only suffix classified as a second person morpheme in imperative by Cusihuaman is -y: (35) Hamu-y. Come-IMP 'Come!'

Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 172)

Third person suffixes in indicative form are-nand -su according to Cusihuaman (1976/2001). The first one is used for intransitive verbs or for transitive verbs with third person objects whereas -su emerges when there is a second person object which may be an indirect one. Examples of both uses are provided in: (36) Rima-n. Speak- 3s '(S/he) speaks=

Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 154)

(37) Qu-su-nki. Give-3s SUBJ- 2s OBJ '(S/he) gives you:

Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 155)

Cusihuaman (1976/2001) classifies -qa as a third person marker in the future tense in combination with -n. I will consider -nqa as a single suffix: (38) Rima-nqa. Speak- 3 S FUT '(Sihe) speaks:

(Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 154)


In conditional mood in intransitive verbs all persons (with the exception of second) are spelled out with the regular suffix and -man. The following example illustrates a third person case: (39) Apa-n-man. Carry- 3s- COND '(S/he) would bring=

(Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 170)

Before presenting the paradigm of object agreement marking, I would like to briefly discuss the view of subject agreement morphology that I will adopt. I take the position that subject agreement in Southern Quechua is verbal morphology and that it is not of a pronominal nature, namely; it does not correspond to an incorporated pronoun. There are at least two reasons to take this view. First, although Southern Quechua exhibits great morphological complexity with respect to subject agreement and has great variation in sentential word order, it cannot be considered a full-fledged polysynthetic language as defined by Baker (1996: 280-281) because it lacks one of the main characteristics for polysynthetic languages: Quechua does not exhibit a robust process of noun incorporation. Noun incorporation in Quechua, though possible, is not highly productive, as shown by the impossibility of sentences such as: (40)

*Pla.tanu-ranti-rqa-n. Banana-buy-PAST-3s 'S/he bought the/a banana:

Secondly, as we will see in the last chapter of the book, Southern Quechua dialects have null subjects that are identified by discourse-related functional features in left peripheral positions and not by the agreement marker. As exemplified in (37), Cuzco Quechua exhibits object agreement marking in combination with subject agreement marker. Lakiimper & Wunderlich (1998: 113) note that subject and object marking in Quechua languages are not two independent morphological systems. They propose that subject and object marking systems in most Southern Quechua languages (including Cuzco Quechua and excluding the Potosi and Santiago del Estero varieties, spoken in Bolivia and Northern Argentina respectively), are subject to a constraint that they label the Object-Subject Constraint defined as follows: (41) a.

Object-Subject Constraint (OSC): The object may be marked separately from the subject only if it refers to a person that is higher on the hierarchy of person than the person to whom the subject refers.

b. Hierarchy of person: 1 > 2 > 3. Lakiimper & Wunderlich (1998: 127)

:n

22


According to this constraint, in example (37) the second person object receives morphological expression because it is located higher in the hierarchy of person than the third person subject. On the other hand, if the subject and the object are third person (the lowest rank in the hierarchy) the object is not morphologically marked as seen in: (42) Rikhu-n. See-3s '(S/he) sees: As we will see in later chapters of this book, the asymmetry between subject and object morphology resulting from the existence of the OSC has important consequences for the interpretation of null subjects and null objects and for their recoverability from discourse contexts by means of morphological markings.

2.7 Licensing and identification of null subjects

Having shown that Southern Quechua is a language with a strong subject agreement paradigm and a morphological complex object agreement paradigm, I will now address the issue of how null arguments are licensed in Southern Quechua. In this sub-section, I present the distribution of null subjects in Southern Quechua and a proposal for how they are interpreted following Frascarelli's (2007) analysis based on Agree relations between C-level topic operators and null pronouns in subject position. Traditional work on null subject languages identified a set of parametric values associated with the availability of null subjects. The properties initially discussed for Romance null subject languages such as Italian or Spanish by Chomsky (1981: 240) are: (a) null subjects, (b) free verb-subject inversion (c) 'long whmovement' of subjects (d) empty resumptive pronouns in embedded clause, and (e) absence of that- trace effects. Other important characteristics that were pointed out as part of this cluster are: (e) the availability of null expletive subjects (Burzio 1986: 104) and (f) the obligatory status of post verbal subjects in interrogative sentences (Rizzi 1996: 78). While in the initial formulation of the theory of Principles and Parameters these were thought of as a cluster of parameters related to the Extended Projection Principle and to the availability of a null pronominal in subject position (Chomsky 1981: 240), later work has shown that these properties can be analyzed independently of each other and that some of these phenomena may not necessarily involve a null pronominal element (Longobardi 2000: 691 and Alexiadou & Agnostoupoulu 1998: 494 among others).

Chapter 2. An overview of Southern Quechua morphology and syntax I would like to stress that the early attempts to provide a unified analysis for these varied properties were based on a close examination of Romance languages such as Italian and Spanish with strong subject agreement paradigms. Alternative analyses emerged when the availability of null subjects in languages such as Chinese was shown to not correlate with some of the properties previously posited as part of the cluster of null subject parameters. For instance, in Chinese null subjects are licensed despite the unavailability of a strong agreement paradigm (Huang 1986: 534-537). Even in analyses that treated these properties as forming a cluster, the availability of null subjects, their interpretation, and possibly their distribution were treated as the results of different syntactic operations. For instance, in Rizzi's (1986: 519-520) original proposal, licensing and identification of null subjects were analyzed as two different operations related to a specific functional category (X0). In Rizzi's (1986) proposal pro (null subjects) is licensed through government by an X 0 category and is interpreted by identity in feature specifications with X 0 • This proposal was based on the distribution and interpretation of null subjects in languages such as Italian and Spanish in which the availability of null subjects coincides with strong and rich morphological paradigms of subject agreement. A different proposal for the licensing and identification of null elements was originally proposed by Huang (1986) for Chinese, a language that allows null subjects and null objects but lacks subject or object agreement morphology on the verb. In his proposal, empty categories (ECs) in Chinese are pronominal "if and only if they are free or locally bound by an element with an independent thematic role" (Huang 1986: 543), otherwise they are non-pronominal. Furthermore, he proposes that "a nonpronominal EC is an anaphor if and only if it is locally A-bound and a variable iflocally A-bound." (Huang 1986: 543). In his view, ECs are different syntactic objects and their distribution is an indicator of their different syntactic nature. The following examples from Huang (1986) illustrate the differences. In sentences (43a, b) they are unbound and therefore pronominal ECs: (43) a. e lai-le Come-LE 'He came'

b. Lisi hen xihuan e Lisi very like 'Lisi likes (him) very much=

(Huang 1986: 53)

In sentence (44a.) the EC is bound by the subject in the main clause which is in an A-position and is therefore a pronominal. In (44b.),the EC is bound by a null topic in an A-position and therefore is a variable:

23

24


(44) a. Zhangsan shuo [e bu renshi Lisi]. Zhang san say [e not know Lisi]. 'Zhangsan said that (he) did not know LisC b. [Top e1]. [Zhangsan shuo [Lisi bu renshi e]]. lrop e1], [Zhangsan say [Lisi not know e]]. 'Zhangsan said that Lisi did not know (him):

(Huang 1986: 537)

(Huang 1986: 542)

More recently, Frascarelli (2007) has proposed a different analysis for the identification of null subjects in languages such as Italian. Frascarelli's (2007) analysis of null subjects in Italian ressembles Huang's analysis of Chinese null arguments because in Frascarelli's proposal null subjects are identified by means of an Agree relation between an Aboutness Topic operator and a clause-internal null subject As we will see in more detail in the last chapter of this book, this approach to the interpretation of null subjects is relevant to the interpretation of Topics and changes of Topic in Southern Quechua. In this subsection, I present some of the main characteristics of the distribution of null subjects in Southern Quechua that will be relevant to the discussion of how elements in the left periphery that are morphologically marked as new or old information may interact with null subjects in Southern Quechua. The first relevant property to understand the main properties of null subject licensing and interpretation in Southern Quechua is the fact that referential subjects may optionally be null as shown by the following sentences: (45) Huwan-mi papa-ta mikhu-n. Huwan-Foc/EVID potato-Ace eat-3 s 'Huwan eats potatoes' (attested) (46) pro papa-ta mikhu-n-mi. Pro potato-Ace eat-3s-Foc/EVID '(He/she) eats potatoes: The sentence in (45) has an overt subject while the sentence in (46) has a null subject. Both options are possible in all Quechua languages. While referential subjects may optionally be null, expletives are obligatorily null, as shown by the following contrast: (47) pro pam-chka-n-mi. Pro rain-PROG-3s-Foc/EVID 'It's raining: (48) *Pay/*Kay para-mu-chka-n. ((S)he/This) rain-CIS-PROG-3 S 'It's raining:

(Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 150)


In sentence (47) the subject of a verb such as paramuchkan 'is raining' is null. The sentence in (48) shows that Quechua does not allow overt expletive subjects. In the case of a pronoun such as pay '(s)he~ the ungrammaticality could be due to the fact that this pronoun has a +human feature. However, even when replaced by a demonstrative pronoun such as kay 'thiS. the sentence does not improve in grammaticality. As we saw in Subsection 2.3 of this chapter, unlike other null subject languages such as Italian, subjects in Southern Quechua are not inverted with unaccusative verbs. Verb-subject inversion is not required either in wh-questions, as shown by the following example from Cuzco Quechua: (49) Ima-ta-taq pana-yki-ri ruwa-chka-n? What-ACC-CONT sister-28-TOP do-PROG-38 'And what is your sister doing?' (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 256)

In this example the fronted wh-word is the direct object. Wh-fronting does not trigger verb-subject inversion. The same is true of wh-fronting of non-argumental constituents, as shown in: (50) Imayna-taq Awankay llaqta-ri ka-sqa? How-CONT Awankay town-TOP be-PAST REP 'How is Abancay City?' (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 105) I take this to clearly indicate that neither verb-subject inversion in declarative sentences (with unaccusative verbs) nor verb-subject inversion in wh-questions are properties shared by all pro-drop languages with strong subject agreement paradigms. In this respect Southern Quechua differs from Romance languages such as Italian or Spanish. Despite not sharing the property of requiring post-verbal subjects in the contexts mentioned above, Southern Quechua languages do share an important characteristic with null subject languages with strong subject agreement paradigms and even with those lacking subject agreement morphology: null subjects can be bound by quantified expressions, as shown by example (51) from Cuzco Quechua:

yuya-ymana-nku (51) Llapan yacha-q-kuna-n 1 All learn-AG-PL-Foc/EVID think- REM-3PL pro 1yuya-y-sapa ka-sqa-nku-ta.. pro 1 think-INF-AUG be- NOM-3 PL-ACC 'All students think (they) are intelligent: This contrasts with the unavaibility of bound readings for overt pronouns:

25

26


yuya-ymana-nku (52) Llapan yacha-q-kuna-n 1 All learn-AG-PL-Foc/EVID think- REM-3PL pay-kuna-qJI"lyuya-y-sapa ka-sqa-nku-ta. s/he-PL-AG think-INF-AUG be- NOM-3 PL-ACC 'All students think that they are intelligent: Interestingly, this property has been associated by Frascarelli (2007: 695) with her re-interpretation of the Avoid Pronoun Principle postulated by Chomsky (1981). According to Frascarelli's (2007) proposal null subjects are located in spec of AgrSP (in an A-position) while overt pronouns (of the strong type in Italian) are in an A-position and serve a discourse function that may be that of topics or focus. Therefore, they are excluded from contexts with a bound interpretation. These properties will become relevant in the last chapter of this book when discussing the relationship between topicalized constituents and null arguments in Southern Quechua.

2.8 Licensing and identification of null objects

On the basis of data from Imbabura Quechua, Cole (1987) proposes that empty categories in that variety of Quechua are not variables as proposed for Huang for some ECs in object position in Chinese. Cole (600-601) provides the following arguments for the pronominal nature of null ECs in Imbabura Quechua: null objects in Quechua do not obey Strong Crossover as they are possible in relative clauses and in conjoined NPs despite the impossibility of extraction of wh-words from relative clauses or conjoined NPs. This distribution is also found in Southern Quechua languages. The following sentence from Cuzco Quechua illustrates the case of a null object pronoun inside a subordinate nominalization that is as shown by the following examples from Cuzco Quechua:

ni-n. (53) Husi 1 [.Mariya pro1 muna.-na.-n-ta] Husi [Mariya pro love-NOM-3 s-Acc] say- 3 s 'Husi1 says Mariya will love him1: (Based on an Imbabura Quechua example from Cole 1987: 600) Even though extraction out of a relative clause is not allowed (Sanchez: 2010) a null object inside a relative clause may corefer with an argument in the main clause, as shown by the following contrast:

Chapter 2. An overview of Southern Quechua morphology and syntax 27 (54) *Ima-ta-m1

Pawla [runa e1 ruwa-sqa-n-ta] What-Acc-Foc/Evm 1 Pawla [man e1 make-NOM-3s] riqsi-rqa-n? know-ATT PAST-3S 'Pawla knew the man who built what?'

(55) Huwa.n1 [runa pro1 maqa-sqa-n-ta]

riqsi-n. Huwan [man pro beat-NOM-3s-Acc] know-3s 'Huwan knows the man who beat him:

I take these facts to indicate the pronominal nature of null objects in this variety of Quechua as is the case in Imbabura Quechua. Unlike in the case of null subjects, null objects do not correlate with a strong object agreement paradigm in Quechua. As we saw in Subsection 2.6, object agreement marking on the verb is subject to the OSC. As a result of this ranking constraint, third person objects, which are ranked the lowest in the constraint, do not appear morphologically marked on verbs. This includes the case in which the subjects are third person. Therefore, third person objects may be overt or null pronouns but they are not expressed as agreement markers, as shown in: (56) Mariya-m

(pay-ta) riku-(!1-n. Mariya-Foc/EVID (slhe-Acc) see-0-3S 'Mariya sees (him/her)'

I take this to indicate that the contrast between overt and null objects in third person is of a similar nature as the one between overt and null subjects. As we will see in the last chapter of this book, null objects receive their interpretation as continuing topics from an operator that establishes an Agree relation with them. To summarize, in this chapter I have presented a brief sketch of some of the most important morphological and syntactic characteristics of Southern Quechua that will be relevant to understand the main proposal made in this book.

CHAPTER 3

Morphology, syntax, and informational structure in Quechua

3.1 Morphological markings on the left edge

In most Southern Quechua languages a direct object may be fronted when it is focalized due to its salient and possibly contrastive interpretation as shown by the question-answer pair in (1) from Cuzco Quechua uttered in a context in which a man has been loading packages onto a truck and both speakers have been observing the scene. Speaker A leaves for a moment and when he returns he sees a single package in the middle of the road and asks speaker B: (1) a. A:

b. B:

Jlman ka-sqa? (1) What-FOC be-PAST 'What happened?' Kustal-ta-m qunqa-rqu-n Package-Ace-FO c/EVID forget-PERF-3s chay chufir. 1 that driver 'The driver forgot ONE PACKAGE'

In (1b) in the direct object kustal-ta-m 'package' appears in a left edge position followed by the verb and the subject in a non-canonical OVS word order. In that position, the direct object is interpreted as being contrastive with respect to the set of packages that were being loaded in the previous scene.2

The morpheme -mi is interpreted either as a focalizing particle or as an evidential particle. In the latter case, -mils interpreted as attested information. It has allomorphs: -m, -n in most varieties ofSouthernQuechua (Cerr6n-Palomino 1987: 287). It forms a paradigm with the morphemes -sl, -s interpreted as reported information and cha,-ch known as a dubitative particle (Cerr6n-Palomino 1987: 287, Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 233). 1.

2. I will use the term "fronting" as a cover term for both the movement and the base generated analyses. In subsequent chapters, I will present the differences between moved and base generated left fronted elements in Quechua. In sanchez (2003: 32) I proposed that when the fronted direct object is marked for topic OVS word order is derived by movement of the direct object to spec of TopP and subsequent verb movement to the head of a Focus Phrase. A similar

30


In (2) we see an example of a fronted indirect object: (2)

[Chay runa-man-!!!!) papa-ta hatunmama qu-rqa-n. [That man-DAT-Foc/EVID] potato-Ace grandmother give-PAST-3 s 'It was to that man that the grandmother gave potatoes' (attested by the speaker)

In (2) the indirect object chay runaman-mi 'to that man' appears in a left edge position in a sentence in which the subject appears in preverbal position but following the direct object indicating a non-canonical OI OD SV word order. A very important aspect in the understanding of how left edge material is licensed in Quechua is the role that morphological markers play in indicating that a constituent has been marked as focalized or topicalized. Thus, in examples (1b) and (2) the fronted element has been marked with the focalizing particle -mi. 3 Morphological markings also appear with focalized and topicalized elements in their base positions. Muysken (1995: 380) points out that a sentence with a transitive verb and a neutral SOV word order such as (3) receives a different interpretation if the object is marked with a focus morpheme as in (4): (3) Pirdu wasi-ta ruwa-n. Pirdu house-Ace build-3s 'Pirdu builds a house' ruwa-n. (4) Pirdu wasi-ta-n Pirdu house-Acc-Foc/EVID build-3s 'It is the house that Pirdu builds'

(Muysken 1995: 380)

In (4), but not in (3), the direct object constituent is morphologically marked with -n (an allomorph of the focalizing particle -mt) and receives a focus interpretation and also an evidential one as attested information. This fact has also been noted by Cerr6n-Palomino (1994: 146) and indicates that, in Quechua, alterations in the information structure of the sentence are achieved not only through fronting, as shown above, but can be expressed using morphological markers with in situ elements. Topicalized elements also appear morphologically marked in left fronted positions marked with the suffix -qa, a topic marker that indicates presupposed information (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 227). In sentence (5) the subject atuq-qa 'the fox' is interpreted as presupposed information because it is marked with -qa: proposal could be made for focalized phrases: the fronted focalized expression moves to Spec of FocP and the verb moves to the Focus head. 3· Focalizing particles in Quechua may also function as evidential particles (Cuslhuaman 1976/2001: 229, Muysken 1995: 376, Weber 1996: 547-551, Faller 2002: 13 among others). The syntactic analysis of this dual property will be extensively discussed in the next chapter.

Chapter 3. Morphology, syntax, and informational structure in Quechua

(5)

[Atuq-qa] kusi-ku-n. Fox-TOP happy-REFL-3s 'As for the fox. he is happy'

This sentence contrasts with sentence (6) in that in the latter the subject is not marked as a topic and no element in the sentence is interpreted as presupposed information. (6) Atuq kusi-ku-n. Fox happy-REFL-3s 'The fox is happy'

In addition to subjects, other constituents may appear at the left edge of a sentence bearing a topic marker, as is the case of the direct object in the following example from Lamas Quechua (Quechua II family): (7)

[Kay sapitu-ta-ka] tortuga miku-naya-yka-n. This toad-ACC-TOP turtle eat-DES-PROG-3S 'As for this toad, the turtle is about/wants to eat (it)' (Sanchez 2003: 33)

In question-answer pairs, presupposed information contained in the question may also appear in left fronted positions with a topic marker. This is shown in (9) as an answer to (8). The topic-marked phrase can also appear in situ as shown in (10):4 (8) Pi-n wasi-ta ruwa-rqa-n? Who-FOC/EVID house-ACC build-PAST-3S 'Who built the house?' (9)

[Wasi-ta-qa] Pirdu-m ruwa-rqa-n. House-Ace-TOP Pirdu-Foc/EVID build-PAST- 3s 'The house, Pirdu built'

(10) Piniu-m [wasi-ta-qa.] 1·uwa-rqa-n. Pirdu-Foc/EVID house-Ace-TOP build-PAST-3 s 'It was Pirdu who build the house'

This distribution is similar to that of morphologically marked focalized elements in (lb) and (4).

There is a third possible word order shown in (i), in which the direct object appears in a right-edge non-canonical position. I will discuss these cases in Chapter 4. (i) Pirdu-m ruwa-rqa-11 wasi-ta-qa.

4

Pirdu-Foc/Evm build-PAST- 3s house-Ace-ToP ~for the house, it was Pirdu who built (direct evidence).

u:

31

32


In situ marking of direct object topicalized constructions is possible but is considered ungrammatical in sentences in which the subject has not been focalized as shown in (11) but it is perfectly possible in sentences with multiple topics, as shown in (12): (11) Mariya-*(n) [wasi-ta-qa] riku-rqa.-n. Mariya-*(Foc/EVID) house-Ace-TOP see-PAST-38 'Mariya saw the house' (12)

[Runa-qa.] [wasi-ta-qa] ruwa.-rqa.-n. Man-TOP house-TOP build-PA8T-38 'As for the man, he built the house'

One could argue that the direct object in (12) is not in situ and that it has been fronted. However, evidence from binding facts shows that when direct objects remain inside the VP, they can be topicalized. Sentence (13) is possible with a pair reading: (13) Sapanka mama.-n1 wawa.-n-ta-qa.1 1·iku-rqa-nku. Each mother-38 child-38-ACC-TOP see-PA8T-3PL 'Each mother saw her child'

In order for the quantified expression sapanka maman 'each mother' to bind the direct object wawantaqa. 'her child' it must c-command it. This is only possible, if the quantified subject is in spec of vP or in spec of TP and the topicalized direct object is in its VP-internal position where it is marked for topic. For the direct object to be fronted it would have to be in a position higher than the subject. This distribution shows that left fronting of morphologically marked elements and morphologically marked elements in situ are two co-existing strategies used in Quechua to indicate that a constituent has been topicalized or focalized. The co-existence of morphologically marked focalized and topicalized constituents at the left edge and in situ has a similar distribution to that of the yes/no question morphological marker. This marker has scope over the whole sentence but it can also have scope over one constituent The following examples from Cuzco Quechua based on examples from Huallaga Quechua by Weber (1996: 430) illustrate this: (14) Huwan-ta-chu riku-saq? Huwan-ACC-INT see-1 FUT 'Is it Juan that I will see?' (15) Huwan-ta-qa riku-saq-chu? Huwan-ACC-TOP see-1 FUT-INT 'As for Juan, will I see him?' In (14) the interrogative marker has scope over the direct object only, while in (15) it has scope over the whole sentence. As noted by Muysken (1995: 390), the

Chapter 3. Morphology, syntax, and informational structure in Quechua distribution of the interrogative particle -chu is similar to that of the focalizing particle discussed previously that can appear on various constituents and on the verb. 5 The previous examples show a pattern in which morphology is used to mark fronted as well as in situ focalized and topicalized constituents. This distribution is similar to that of stress in some Indoeuropean languages such as English in which stress can be used in combination with fronting to mark some constituents as salient or to mark in situ constituents, as shown by the following pair of sentences: (16) PETER, I know. (17) I know PETER. In many Indoeuropean languages different intonational patterns distinguish declarative and broad focus yes/no interrogative sentences. The following examples from Spanish and their corresponding intonational contours shown in Figures 1 and 2 (from Prieto 2003: 29) illustrate how the only difference between these two types of sentences is provided by final raising tone in the interrogative sentence: (18) Abn~ la ventana. Open the window '(S/he) opens the window' (19) ~ln·e la. venta.na? Open the window 'Does (s/he) open the window? As noted by O'Rourke (2005: 170), there is substantial evidence from ditrerent varietiesofQuechua suchaslmbabura (Cole 1985: 15-17), Cuzco (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 84-87, Samanez Flores 1996: 111 and O'Rourke 2005: 49) that in declarative and interrogative sentences there is a final falling intonational pattern. O'Rourke (2005: 192) shows that in Cuzco Que chua (a variety of Southern Quechua) yes/no questions with broad focus have a falling intonational pattern, as shown in Figure 3.6

5·

Focus particles appear to be able to attach to a wlde range of constituents (DPs and verbs)

in Quechua. M we will see at the end of this chapter, I will propose that this is so because they

are the spell out of an Agree relationship established between left-peripheral features and a constituent in situ or a constituent merged in its specifier position. In cases in which the particle appears to have scope over the whole TP, as in sentence (15) and (21) below, one possible analysis ls for the Focus head to establish an Agree relation with the whole TP that ls spelled out only in the last word of the constituent. Another possible analysis is for the TP to be merged in the Spec of the relevant Focus head and for the last word of the constituent to receive the marking in an analysis similar to that proposed by Julien (2002: 100-1 02) for head-final languages. 6. Ladd (1996: 115) has found a similar intonational pattern in yes/no questions in Hungarian. As in the case of Quechua, there is a H.L% edge tone sequence. It is worth noting that in Hungarian focusing of certain constituents is done by syntactic means, that is, by fronting of a direct object, for example to a pre-verbal position

33

34

Syntax ofTopic and Focus in Quechua

w...u

-

--

a

HI

... 1111

•

-·----

1----

llrl! l.a

-

,.

'

-

I ms

--- ----

- --~

----- ---5I

n.a

t,;

Ultll

~

I

I

I

I

1a.J

1000

1~

Figure 1. Intonational contour of a Spanish declarative sentence (Prieto 2003: 29)

-~

--

•r•

.1.4

•••

li

HI

a

'

--

2DD

. IL

'"'lOD liD

,; ~

---~-

..

....

~ ~·

... I

'lilt

211

na1

t.1

.,. ..... .. !

·--·

""

-..

~---

/

~~~

I ?SO

J

I Ill!

Figure 2. Intonational contour of a Spanish Yes/No question (Prieto 2003: 29)

0

0.65702 Time (s)

tapu-sa-yki-chu

[ta.pu.saj.kitfu]

ask-FuT-2oBlsuBJ-INT

'Shall I ask you?'

Figure 3. Yes/No question with 'broad focus' in Quechua with L% final boundary tone. (from O'Rourke 2005: 192)


In this respect, broad focus yes/no interrogative sentences are not different from declarative sentences in Southern Quechua in terms of their final boundary tone? In fact, rather than a difference in final boundary tones, the distinction between declarative and interrogative sentences rests on the use of the interrogative particle -chu, as shown by the following contrast: (20) Hatunmama-cha sara-ta tipi-rqa-n. Granny-DIM corn-Ace sow-PAST ATT-3s 'A granny peeled off corn' (21) Hatunmama-cha sara-ta tipi-rqa-n-chu. Granny-DIM corn-Ace sow-PAST-3S-INT 'Did the granny pee1off corn?' The declarative sentence in sentence (20) is not intonationally different from the interrogative sentence in (21). They contrast only with respect to the particle -chu that marks the interrogative nature of sentence (21). Notice that in Quechua yes/ no questions the verb does not move nor is an auxiliary verb required as in English cases of do-support. Further evidence of the interaction between morphology and syntax comes from wh-words. Wh-words must be morphologically marked for focus: (22) Pi-(*n) hamu-rqa-n? Who- (*FOC/EVID) come-PAST-3S 'Who came?' (23) Ima-ta-(*m) muna-nki? What-Acc-(*Foc/EVID) want-2s 'What do you want?' The following example from Huallaga Quechua shows that this is so even when it is clearly the case that the wh-word has been fronted. Notice that the adverbial wh-word has been fronted to the left of an overt pronominal subject and is morphologically marked with a contrastive focus marker -taq (see below): (24) May-taq qam ka-nki? Where-CONTR you be-2s 'And where are you from?'

(Weber 1996: 433)

Although Weber (1996) does not provide a clear gloss for the suffix -taq it has been traditionally analyzed as a contrastive suffix in other varieties of Quechua such as Cuzco Quechua (Cusihuaman 1971/2001: 240). 7· O'Rourke (2005: 197- 200) does note that there are some non-neutral yes/no questions such as emphatic and echo yes/no questions that exhibit slightly different intonational patterns.

35

36

Syntax ofTopic and Focus in Quechua

'

.!41

250 N'

J: ........

..c::

125

~

.

~·

'

.

~~;~~:;

·~~~~ •

.~.-~~

~

i

•ro~~ . . lftr. .~

-.;--

",.~...,

f

I ---------------------------------------------~--------

c.. 0 0

0.74494

Time (s)

ima ni-yki-man

[Lma nij.ki.man]

what say2oBlSUBJ-COND 'What should I tell you?' Figure 4. Pronominal question in Quechua with L% final boundary tone. (from O'Rourke 2005: 185)

As in the case of yes/no interrogatives, O'Rourke (2005: 185) shows that wh-questions in Quechua, which she labels pronominal questions, also have a low final boundary tone. This is illustrated in Figure 4. To summarize, in Quechua, morphological markings of focus and topic appear on left edge elements as well as on in situ elements in a distribution similar to that of stress with respect to the scope of focus in languages such as English. They also have a distribution similar to that of interrogative particles in yes/no questions. Of interest is the fact that interrogative particles are the only property that distinguishes declarative from interrogative sentences in Quechua, a distinction that is associated with intonational patterns in languages such as Spanish or English. In the following subsection, I will show that right edge material, although it can be morphologically marked, interacts with the PF component.

3.2 Morphological markings and PF phenomena at the right edge

As noted by Muysken (1995: 383), although it is possible for a constituent to appear to the right of a main verb in a sentence with non-canonical word order, rightward edge material in a non-canonical position cannot be marked for focus:


(25) Mariya Xwana-man qu-n libru-ta. 8•9 Maria Juana-DAT give-3s book-Ace 'Maria gives the book to Juana'

(26) *Mariya Xwana-man qu-n libru-ta-n. Maria Juana-DAT give-3s book-Acc-Foc/EVID (Muysken 1995: 383) 'It is the book that Maria gives to Juana'

In fact, Muysken (1995: 383) notes that focalized elements cannot appear to the right of the verb in Quechua. 10 On the other hand, constituents marked with a topicalization particle may appear at the right edge in post verbal position as in: (27) Piniu-m ruwa.-rqa.-n wasi-ta-qa. Pirdu-Foc/EVID build-PAST-3s house-Ace-TOP 'It is Pirdu who built the house'

In this respect, right edge positions differ from left edge positions. They can only host topicalized constituents and not focalized ones. The constituents in the right edge can be morphologically marked or not, as shown in examples (25) and (27) respectively, although some speakers prefer the morphologically marked version in (27). This indicates that if a right peripheral structure below IP is available in Quechua, it is restricted to Topic Phrase since focalized elements are not possible at the right edge. Another striking characteristic of right edge elements, at least in some varieties of Southern Quechua, is that, in narrative style, constituents in the right periphery show PF properties not shared by elements at the left periphery. Contrary to the canonical subject-object-verb word order of the language, direct objects and

8. Consultant Hip6lito Peralta Ccama, native speaker of Cuzco-Collao Quechua, points out that right dislocated material of the object in this sentence is ungrammatical in that variety of Southern Quechua in Peru when the object is not topical!zed M we will see in the last ch.apte~ some unmarked constituents appear to the right in discourse but in grammaticality judgments at the sentence level this is not accepted 9· The normalized word for book is flawinchana tapara. 10. In sentences with canonical word order a focalized verb can appear at the end of the sentence and in those cases the full sentence is interpreted as focalized as in: (i) Mariya Huwana-ma11 flawinchanatapara-ta qu-11-mi.

Mariya Huwana-DAT book-Ace

give-3s-Foc

'Maria gives the book to Juana' A sentence with SOV word order and focus marking on the object is interpreted as having a

narrow focused object

37

38

Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua subjects may appear to the right of the verb in non-canonical positions as illustrated in sentences (28) and (29) from a child narrative:

tariru-spa ka-rqa-n pajaru-cha-ta (28) Hinaspa-n Then-FOC/EVID find-GER be-PAST-3S bird-DIM-ACC qillu-cha-ta. yellow-DIM -ACC 'Then (she) had found a yellow bird' (29) Pero, ki1·iq-mi ka-sqa chay paja.ru-cha. 11 But, sick-Foc/EVID be-PAST this bird-DIM 'But this little bird was sick' When asked about grammaticality judgments of sentences, adult consultants prefer the right dislocated element with a topic marker as in:

ka.-sqa chay urpi-cha.-qa. (30) Ichaqa, ki1·iq-mi But, sick-Foc/EVID be-PAST this bird-DIM-TOP 'But this little bird was sick' Notice that, while in (28) and (29) at least one constituent to the left is morphologically marked for focus/evidentiality, the right-most elements are not morphologicallymarked in the child narrative, although, in the adult grammaticality judgments, marking is required. As we will see in the last chapter of this book, the distribution of peripheral material has special properties in narrative style. The revealing piece of information with respect to some of these unmarked right edge peripheral elements in the child narrative is the fact that both the subject and the direct object may appear in post verbal positions in narrative style and the last one exhibits a low pitch and voiceless vowels typically associated with breathy voice.l2 This is shown in example (31) and its intonational contour in Figure 5: (31) Hinaspa, wasi-n-man apa.-pu-sqa chay Then, house-3S-DAT carry-REG-PAST that bieha.-cha chay pichingu-cha. old woman- DIM that little bird-DIM 'Then the old woman took the little bird to her house' Sentence (31) was uttered as part of narration at a point in which both the subject and the direct object had been previously introduced in discourse and were old

n. Pajaru is a lexical borrowing from Spanish. 12.

Thanks to Jose Elias and Jimmy Bruno for their help with the analysis of the vowels.

Chapter 3. Morphology, syntax, and informational structure in Quechua 39 1.78176871

cbay bieha-cba cbay picbingu-c:ba

Figure 5. Breathy voice vowels in right dislocated elements information while the predicate was new information. 13 Notice that the direct object is unmarked for case and that the voiceless vowels appear at the rightmost end of the sentence and after the lowering of the intonational peak that corresponds to the verb. This property is not shared by vowels in left-peripheral constituents in Quechua sentences. The distributional patterns evidence a difference between the left and right peripheries in Quechua in terms of the elements that they can host and their morphological marking. Whereas the left periphery is restricted to focalized and topicalized elements that are morphologically marked, the right periphery in some oral speech can host unmarked constituents that have been previously introduced but this happens along with special phonological properties. The distribution of topicalized and focalized constituents in Quechua provides an ideal testing ground for views according to which functional features that are interpreted in discourse such as focus and topic are projected inC-related positions as opposed to views in which the edge positions (right or left) do not involve specific features that must be checked. In the next subsections, I will introduce the basic assumptions that I make about the information structure of sentences and the definitions that I will refine throughout the book in discussing the left and right peripheral elements in Quechua. The data comes from the studies reported in ZWiiga, Sanchez and Zacharias (2000) and Sanchez (2004).

13.

40

Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua 3·3 Minimalist assumptions

Before presenting the main proposal for this book, I will sketch some of the minimalist notions that I assume as the theoretical apparatus for the analysis of the left and right peripheries in Quechua presented in this book. One of the main tenets of Chomsky's (1995, 1998) view of human language is that humans are endowed with an innate computational system (Cm_) that relates sounds and meanings (Chomsky 1995: 131, 1998: 13, 2004: 106). This computational system is characterized by basic operations (Merge, Agree and Move), economy principles and primitive grammatical features whose values may vary across languages. Language acquisition in Chomsky's (1998) view results from a selection of features [F], the construction oflexical items LEX and the innate computational system for human language (Cm_) (Chomsky 1998: 13). Of the three operations Merge is the most basic one. When applied to two linguistic expressions (a, 13), Merge generates a new linguistic object K (a, 6). Agree is the operation that establishes a relationship between a linguistic expression and a specific feature in a restricted domain allowing the deletion of the feature that is required for a derivation to converge. Move is the operation that creates a chain formed by a linguistic object a and its trace t(a). A chain CH (a, t(a)) must meet three conditions (Chomsky 1995: 253): (a) the C-command Condition according to which: "a must c-command its trace, so that there cannot be an operation that lowers a or moves it "sideways"; movement is raising in the specific sense of c-command=' (Chomsky 1995: 253), (b) the Last Resort Condition "which expresses the idea that Move is driven by feature checking, a morphological property (Chomsky 1995: 253), and (c) a uniformity condition on the syntactic phrasal nature of the head and the tail of the chain. In later minimalist versions, Chomsky (1998: 37) views Move as a third operation that combines Merge and Agree. Move establishes agreement between a syntactic object a and a feature F and merges the projection FP determined by F to the specifier of aP. From a minimalist perspective, human languages do not differ with respect to the number of syntactic mechanisms available to them since it is assumed that the three operations previously mentioned are the only ones that characterize human language. Cross-linguistic variation resides in the value of the functional features that are selected for a particular numeration. In this respect, the minimalist program preserves the distinction between lexical and functional categories (but see Baker 2003) and follows earlier Principle and Parameters-based views in which functional categories are the locus of cross-linguistic variation (Ouhalla 1991). In the minimalist program, one crucial distinction is made between interpretable and non-interpretable features. Interpretable features are those that bear semantic content and must be read at the interpretive component. Checking and deletion of


these features is not required at the interfaces and therefore they do not trigger agreement or movement. Uninterpretable features, on the other hand, must be deleted at the interfaces in order to avoid the crashing of a derivation and they must be deleted either by the syntactic operation Agree or by Move as a last resort operation. A paradigmatic example of an uninterpretable feature is Case. Case features must be checked at the syntax/phonology interface for a derivation to converge (Chomsky 1998: 14). Feature checking is most economically achieved by Agree, but when the Agree operation cannot take place in an appropriately local configuration then Move is needed as a last resort operation to save the derivation (Chomsk-y 1998: 37). The division between uninterpretable features, which must be checked before the derivation reaches the interpretive component, and interpretable features, which must be available at the interpretive component, poses the question of how to account for interpretable features that appear to trigger movement, a property reserved to uninterpretable features. Such is the case of movement to focus and topic positions in languages with material at the peripheries. Focus and topic features are part of the inventory of functional features available in human languages. If structural accounts of peripheral domains in which focus and topic features are functional features that must be checked are to be sustained, it is then of theoretical relevance to determine whether these features trigger Agree and Move in peripheral domains. If approaches that propose the existence of functional categories at the left edge of the sentence such as those posited for languages such as Italian by Rizzi (1997: 237) and other researchers are correct, we expect syntactic elements at the left edge to have di:ffurent properties from syntactic elements at the right edge with respect to their interaction with morphology and PF and with respect to their scopal interaction with sentence-level quantificational elements. Even if the parallel analysis for IF-internal focalized and topicalized elements is correct, we expect di:trerent scopal interactions between sentential operators and elements in left and right peripheries. The central hypothesis that I will present in this book is that peripheral domains in Quechua, a language traditionally considered a discourse-configurational language, namely one in which topic and focus are expressed by particular structural relations (Kiss 1995: 6), provide evidence of difterent properties in leftedge and right-edge elements. Left-peripheral elements can be focalized or topicalized and they must be morphologically marked while right edge elements are restricted to presupposed elements that may be morphologically marked for topic or not. PF phenomena such as voiceless vowels are found only in right edge elements. These different patterns of distribution provide evidence for a view of sentential structure in which the left periphery involves active topic and focus features that can be checked through Agree with elements in situ or, in certain configurations,

41

42


could require movement of a constituent that must be merged into the specifier of the relevant functional head in the C-domain. As it will be shown in the next chapters, left peripheral elements (heads and fronted constituents) interact with sentence-level operators such as negation and interrogative features in ways in which right peripheral elements do not. Topicalized elements on the right periphery, on the other hand, even if they are in a sentence-internal right dislocated position do not necessarily exhibit overt morphological marks of agreement with functional features. The right periphery is also the area where material that falls outside the edge of the sentence is located. If this view is correct, it will provide evidence against proposals in which leftperipheral elements and right peripheral phenomena are indistinguishable in terms of functional features, and it will also provide evidence in favor of a view in which languages may diverge in how pragmatic values once formally encoded as abstract functional features may interact at the syntax/PF and at the syntax/morphology interfaces. In the next subsections, I present some ofbasic definitions of topic, focus, and contrast that I will assume when analyzing peripheral elements in Quechua that are related to the information structure of the sentence. 3.1.1

Defining topic, focus, and contrast in Quechua

Before presenting the evidence in favor of the analysis of morphological marking of topic and focus as resulting from the operation Agree triggered by a functional feature in the left periphery, some assumptions about the terms used in this book to refer to the notions of focus, topic, and other areas of information structure need to be made explicit. The literature on the distinctions between topic and focus is abundant and it may lead to confusion. Rather than presenting a detailed overview of all the previous proposals, I will present some basic definitions of topic and focus that will inform my discussion of the Quechua data and the analysis proposed. I will later refine these notions as they correlate with the distribution of different syntactic structures in Quechua. 3·3·1.1 Topic

Topic has been assumed to be the part of the sentence that conveys old information. Different proposals have treated this notion as part of a dichotomy between theme and rheme (Contreras 1976), or a dichotomy between topic and focus. Some approaches have considered the dichotomy insufficient and have added a third component that is neutral with respect to distinction between new and old information (Holloway King 1995: 77). This tripartition corresponds, as noted by


Pereltsvaig (2004: 327), to a traditional distinction between theme, transition, and rheme (Firbas 1965). Zubizarreta (1998: 10) proposes an alternative to the tripartion. She distinguishes between the syntactic structure of a sentence and its Assertion Structure (AS). Based on the distribution of focus in answers to simple and multiple wh-questions, she proposes that the focus structure of a sentence should be captured by AS, an abstract level of representation that has two ordered assertions: the first assertion is the existential presupposition provided by the wh- question and the second assertion is an equative relation between a definite variable whose restriction is the presupposition provided by the wh-question and a value. In this way, the focus/presupposition structure of sentences can be interpreted in cases in which there is no correspondence between the non-presupposed elements and a syntactic constituent as is the case in the pair: (32) a. What happened to the pie? b. [[pJohn] [[pate] [the pie]]

(Zubizarreta 1998: 17)

In (31 b.), the two focalized elements do not form a syntactic constituent and could not be the target of a syntactic operation such as LF movement. 14 I will follow Zubizarreta's (1998) proposal and I will not assume a tripartion of the information structure of the sentence but rather the existence of an Assertion Structure where the relationship between a focalized element and the existential presupposition introduced by the wh-question is interpreted. I will assume that the existential presupposition is not necessarily equivalent to the notion of old information conveyed by a topicalized constituent. For the moment, I will assume Pereltsavig's definition of what constitutes a topic: "Topic is the part of the clause that denotes discourse accessible information that is the matter of common concern for the speaker and the addressee:' (Pereltsvaig 2004: 327) Previous work on Quechua has identified the suffix -qa as the morphological marker that identifies information that is discourse accessible and is a matter of common concern by speaker and addressee. Weber (1996: 514) and Muysken (1995: 381) note that -qa is restricted to full main clause constituents, as the following contrast from Huallaga Quechua illustrates: (33)

[Hatun wasi-ta-qa] muna-: Big house-Ace-TOP want-1 s 'I want a big house'

14· As we will see later, this type of multiple focalization is not possible in the overt syntax of Quechua due to restrictions imposed by the syncretic nature of Quechua morphology and its interaction with left peripheral functional heads.

43

44


(34) *[Hatun-qa] wasi-ta muna-: Big-ToP house-Ace want-ls 'I want a big house'

(Weber 1996: 515)

Sentence (33) shows that the direct object can be fronted and marked with the topicalizing particle -qa and sentence (34) shows that a subpart of it cannot be fronted. 15 This is also the case in Southern Quechua. The impossibility of marking a subcomponent of the direct object as old information indicates that only constituents can be topicalized. Another important characteristic of topicalized expressions is that they are restricted to main clauses. It is not possible for a constituent inside a nominalized subordinate clause to be topicalized: 16 (35) *[Huwan-pa papa-ta-qa miku-sqa-n-ta] yacha-ni. Huwan-GEN potato-Ace-TOP eat-NOM-3 s-Acc know-1 s 'I know (that), potatoes, Huwan eats' However, as noted by Muysken (1985: 382) a constituent may be topicalized in some inflected subordinate clauses (that are found in few varieties of Southern Quechua but are otherwise rare in Quechua languages): (36) [Huwan-pa. papa-ta-qa miku-sqa-n chay-ta.] [Huwan-GEN potato-ACC-TOP eat-NOM-3 S that-ACC] yacha-ni. 17 know-IS 'I know that, potatoes, Huwan eats' (Muysken 1985: 382)

Howeve~ Weber (1996: 515) notes that discontinuous NPs (also analyzed by Lefebvre and Muysken (1988: 163)) allow fortopicallzationofthe adjective to the right of the sentence as in:

15.

(i)

Wasi-ta muna: hatun-ta-qa. House-Ace want-ls big-Ace-ToP 'I want a big house'

(Weber 1996: 515)

There are at least two possible analyses for this type of constructions: one in which the noun has moved leftward and one in which the adjective is either displaced or base-generated in a position to the right of the verb and marked with -qa as a result of Move or Agree. In Chapter 4, I will discuss this special type of construction 16. This is so even for speakers who do not accept the genitive as in:

*[Huwan papa-ta-qa miku-sqa-11-ta] yacha-ni. Huwan potato-Ace-ToP eat-NoM-3 s-Acc know-1 s 'I know (that), potatoes, Juan eats' 17. Some speakers of Cu:zco Quechua do not accept this type of finite subordinate clause as grammatical. (i)


These facts indicate that topicalization targets full constituents in main clauses and cannot target constituents in subordinate clauses. if these are non -finite. This indicates that topicalized elements are possible inside CPs but not inside IP. Another important characteristic of topicalized elements is that several components may appear marked with -qa in a main clause as shown in example (12) repeated here as (37): (37) Runa-qa wasi-ta-qa ruwa-rqa-n. Man-TOP house-TOP build-PAST-3s 'As for the man, he built the house' As noted by Lefebvre & Muysken (1988: 180) for Cuzco Quechua, although several elements can be topicalized in the main clause, it is not possible to front topicalized elements from inside an embedded clause. For instance, they cannot be extracted from a relative clause, as shown in (38). They cannot appear in the right periphery of the main clause either, as shown in (39): (38)

*Hamu-q (-ta) (-qa),

Santiyagu warma-ta riku-n. Come-AG- ACC-TOP, Santiago girl-Ace see-3 s 'Santiago sees the girl that is coming'

(39) *Santiyagu warma-ta 1·iku-n, hamu-q (-ta) ( -qa). Santiago girl-Ace see-3s, come-AG-ACC-TOP 'Santiago sees the girl that is coming' (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 180) Weber (1996: 516-517), based on personal communication with Peter Landerman, notes that the topicalizing suffix -qa tends to appear in a position preceding that of an element marked with the focalizing/evidential particle in a pattern such as the one in (40) where P, Q, R, and S are constituents: (40) a. P-mi Q R S b. P-qa Q-mi R S P-qa Q-qa R-mi S Muysken (1995: 385), based on Weber's (1996: 516-517) observation, proposes that between zero and two -qa phrases may occur preceding a focalized element and between zero and three -qa phrases may occur in post-verbal position in main clauses. Muysken (1995: 385) provides the following formula for the distribution of topicalized and focalized expressions in main clauses: (41) X-qa 2-0 {V/XP} -EVID/Foc ... {Z-qa 3-0} Muysken (1995) does not provide examples of cases in which more than two -qa phrases can follow the focalized verb, however, examples of two pre-verbal

45

46


topicalized phrases can be found in sentences in which an adverbial and a subject appear in left fronted positions followed by a focalized verb, an indirect and a direct object marked as topics (see example 42). As noted by Walck (1976: 4), some of these examples can be pragmatically odd. They require a context in which most of the material except the verb is discourse accessible information that concerns speaker and addressee, but, as we saw before, a competing PF strategy is used with presupposed information at the right edge. Notice that (42) contains post-verbal material of an argument nature: (42) Qayna puncha.w-qa tayta-n-qa. qu-1·qa-n-mi Yesterday-ToP tather-3s-ToP give-PAST-3s-Foc/Evm

wasi-ta-qa

churi-n-man-(qa).

house-ACC-TOP son 3S-DAT-TOP 'Yesterday; the father, gave the house to his son' The restriction to two topicalized elements to the left of a focalized element is somewhat reminiscent of Rizzi's (1997: 237) proposal for Italian according to which there is only one focus phrase per clause in the C-domain although two Topic Phrases are available in CP. In order to pursue the parallelism, I will analyze the first topicalized constituent qayna punchaw-qa 'yesterday' as a Hanging Topic (Cinque 1990: 58, Zubizarreta 1998: 108). The second topicalized constituent sits in the Spec of the first Topic Phrase. 18 (43)

[Hanging Top

Chayna punchaw-qa

[TopP

taytan-qa

... ]]

Belletti's (2005: 5) proposal of an IP-internal functional projection for right dislocated elements in Italian can also be extended to Quechua. In such an extension, the topicalized direct object wasi-ta-qa 'house-ACC-TOP' can be the result of a movement operation to spec of a lower TopP while the indirect object remains in its base position or is adjoined to the VP. In the latter case, remnant movement of the material left in the VP, namely the verb, to a higher position would be needed. A schematic sketch of the possible structure is shown in (44): (44)

Chayna punchaw-qa lropP tayta.n-qa. [[FinP Fin ... [[ropP wasita-qa.] [yp lwtr .. chu1·inman-qa]]]]]]] [Hanging Top

18. I assume a head-initial representation for Quechua despite the fact that it is an SOV language because demonstratives precede nouns. If one assumes the DP hypothesis for Quechua then a diverging headedness between DPs and VPs would emerge. This forces a derivation of SOV word orders via movement of the direct object to the Spec of vP. A more detailed explanation will be provided in Chapter 2.


In Chapter 4, I will present a detailed discussion of how this line of analysis could work and how it can account for the apparent discourse configurationality of Quechua as a result of the availability in this language of several functional projections whose abstract heads are marked for features that can be checked in situ through Agree or through Merge in the left periphery. 3·3·1.2

Focus

I will follow traditional generative definitions of focus according to which focus is defined in terms of presupposition (Jackendoff 1972: 246, Zubi:zarreta 1998: 1-4). Focus elements correspond to the non-presupposed material in a clause. Cerr6n-Palomino (1994: 144-146) has noted that fronted elements bearing morphological markings such as -mi 'attested information', -si 'reported information: and -cha 'dubitative' in addition to their evidential meanings, are interpreted as non-presupposed material. 19 He provides the following examples: (45) Allqu-m kawallu-ta kani-n.20 Dog-Foc/EVID horse-Ace bite-3s 'It is the dog that bites the horse'

(46) Kawallu-ta-m allqu-qa kani-n. Horse-Acc-Foc/EVID dog-TOP bite-3s 'It is the horse that the dog bites' (47) Kani-n-mi ka·wallu-ta allqu-qa. Bite-3s-Foc/EVID horse-Ace dog-TOP 'The dog BITES the horse'

As noted before, focalized constituents can remain in situ or be fronted. When fronted, they require morphological marking as shown by the contrast between word order alteration without morphological marking (in 48b) and with morphological marking in (48c) as responses to (48a) in a context in which only the verb is non-presupposed information: (48) a. Ima-n ka-sqa? what-FOC be-PAST 'What happened?'

19. As I will show below, focus features can be conveyed by other markers such as -chu in yes/ no interrogative sentences.

In some Quechua varieties the topicalizing particle -qa in some contexts is also used to mark definiteness (Sanchez 2003: 20).

20.

47

48


b. *Qapari-mu-n warmi. Yell-cis-3s ~on1an 'The ~on1an SCREAMED'

c. Qapari-mu-n-mi warmi. Yell-cis-3s-Foc/EVID ~on1an 'The ~on1an SCREAMED' Muysken (1995: 381-384) has listed several syntactic properties of focus n1arkers in Quechua to ~hich I Mll refer in detail in Chapter 4. For the n10n1ent, I Mll concentrate on son1e of the n1ost relevant properties for the n1ain proposal in this book. First, they are al~ays constituent external as sho~n by the contrast between the focalization of a den1onstrative versus that of a full DP: (49) [Chay wasi-ta-n] riku-nki-chu? That house-ACC-FOC/EVID see-2-INT 'Do you see THAT HOUSE?'

(SO) *[Chay-mi wasi-ta] riku-nki-chu? That-FOC/EVID house-ACC see-2-INT 'Do you see THAT house?'

(Muysken 1995: 385)

It is interesting to note that focus particles do not behave as stress in other languages in that they n1ay not have scope over sub-parts of a constituent and therefore are never used for contrastive or corrective purposes as in the folloMng English expressions: (51) Do you see THAT house (as opposed to this house)? (52) I ~as talking about THAT house. Another salient property of focused elen1ents also noted by Muysken (1995: 381) is that they are restricted to one per clause. Expressions such as (53) are ungraDlDlatical and uninterpretable in Quechua:

miku-n-mi Mariya-m (53) *Papa-ta-m Potato-Acc-Foc/EVID eat-3s-Foc/EVID Maria-Foc/EVID 'It is potatoes that MARIA EATS' Focus n1arkers cannot appear one len1ents inside a subordinate clause, as sho~ in (54) and (55): (54) *[Huwan-pa

papa-ta-m miku-sqa-n-ta] yacha-ni. Hu~an-GEN potato-Acc-Foc/EVID eat-NOM-3 s-Acc kno~-ls 'I kno~ (that), potatoes, Juan eats'

Chapter 3. Morphology, syntax, and informational structure in Quechua 49

(55) *[Xwan-pa-n hamu-sqa-n-ta] yacha-ni Juan-GEN-FOC/EVID come-NOM-3 S-ACC know-1 S 'I know that Juan has come' (Muysken 1995: 382) Focus markers cannot occur on imperatives: (56) a. Mikhu-y! Eat-IMP 'Eat!'

b.

*Miku-y-mi! Eat-IMP-FOC/EVID '(It is) Eat!'

(Muysken 1995: 382)

Finally they cannot occur in expressions with gappings, such as those in which verbs have been elided: (57) a. Mama-y-qa. Qusqu-ta-n 1·i-rqa-n; Mother-1 s-TOP Cuzco-Acc-Foc/EVID go-PAST-3S; tayta-y-taq chakra-ta. father-Is- CONT field-Ace 'My mother went to Cuzco; my father to the field'

b.

*Mama-y-qa

Qusqu-ta-n ri-rqa-n; Mother-1 s-ToPCuzco-Acc-Foc/EVID go-PAST-3s; tayta.-y chaha-ta.-n. father-lS-CONT field-ACC-FOC/EVID 'My mother went to Cuzco; my father to the field' (Based on examples from Muysken 1995: 383)

The last three properties support Muysken's (1995: 388) view that focus particles (which he dubs evidentials) must be supported by a tensed verb. As in the case of topicalized constituents, the restricted distribution of focalized constituents is compatible with a limited distribution of functional features in the sentential structure of Quechua. The property of being restricted to one per main clause is compatible with Rizzi's (1997: 237) view that only one Focus Phrase is available at the CP-level. Their impossibility in contexts of subordinate nominalizations is also compatible with Rizzi's (1997) analysis since nominalized subordinate clauses do not share all the properties of finite sentences (as sketched in Chapter 2 and will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5). In fact, Muysken (1995: 386) proposes the following analysis for focus markers ('evidentials' in his terminology): (58) [EvP XP{-mi,-si,-cha} Ev [IP]]

50


My proposal incorporates Muysken's (1995: 386) analysis of focalized/evidential phrases and generalizes this analysis to topicalized and focalized structures in Quechua in which the left periphery hosts functional features that are the target of syntactic operations.

3·4 An Agree-based proposal I propose that in Quechua morphological marking is the most economical mechanism to mark the information status of a constituent without altering the canonical word order or the intonational pattern of a sentence. Morphological marking of focalized and topicalized elements is the morphological realization or spell-out of the Agree relationship that holds between a probe in the left periphery of CP and a goal in an IF-internal position. A rough schematization of how this F feature is checked in the case of in situ elements is provided in:

This proposal is consistent with a minimalist view that constraints the operation Move and considers it only a last resort mechanism. In the next chapters, I will demonstrate that while Agree is the most economical mechanism to check focus and topic features borne by a probe in the left periphery; in some derivations Merge or leftward movement are required due to a combination of two factors: (a) the need to avoid potential intervention effects triggered by sentence-level operators and (b) the syncretic nature of Quechua morphology. Morphological markers used for focus in Quechua also convey information on the speakers' perspective about the source of information and are called evidentiality markers in the literature (Weber 1996, Faller 2002). They distinguish between first hand information and hearsay information. A sentence such as (60) differs from (61) in the perspective of the speaker with respect to the source of information on which the assertion is based. While in (60) the speaker provides first hand information in (61) the speakers removes herself from the set of first hand sources of the information conveyed by the assertion: (60) Papata-m ranti-rqa-nku. Potato-Foc/EVID buy-PAST-3 PL 'They bought potatoes (first hand information)' (61) Papata-s ranti-sqa-ku. Potato-Foc/EVID buy-PAST-3PL '(They say) they bought potatoes (2nd hand information)'


As evidentiality markers, focus morphemes are attached to the first constituent of the sentence resulting in complex interpretations for sentences such as: (62) Huwan-mi

misa-ta pakiru-rqa-n. Huwan-Foc/EVID table-Ace break-PAST-3s 'It was Huwan who broke the table' (first hand information)

This multiple interpretation has been discussed previously by Muysken (1995: 386) as a case in which the sentence receives two analyses: the reading with a focused subject involves syntactic movement of the subject to a leftmost position while there is an independent evidential reading that corresponds to a sentences in which there is no such movement, only encliticization of the -mi particle at a superficiallevel. In Chapter 4, I propose that the two readings coexist due to the syncretic nature of morphology in Quechua and its interaction with functional features in the left periphery. I argue that, in declarative sentences, focalization in situ is the most economical mechanism but last resort movement must take place when sentence-level scope must be marked outside nominalized embedded sentences. In declarative main clauses, left fronted constituents are merged and not moved to the left periphery. These structures have a p1"0 in argument position. From this it follows that there is no optional movement, but two different derivations: one involving pro and another one with an argument in situ. The right periphery, on the other hand, can host two types of elements: topicalized elements in adjunct positions that are part of the sentential structure and extra-sentential material where elements that are no longer salient in discourse are dislocated. They tend to be at the margins of the sentential intonational contour and this corresponds to their non-contrastive information status. In the next chapters, I will show how this repeated pattern of morphologically marking left fronted and in situ elements can be accounted for by a minimalist analysis in which in situ focus, topic, and interrogation particles are the phonological overt instantiation of the Agree relationship in which a probe in the C-domain checks off a formal feature [F] that determines the relative scope of the operator. Left fronted elements on the other hand can be divided in, at least, two types: (a) those that are base generated in dislocated positions as in the case ofleft fronted topicalized and focused constituents in declarative sentences and (b) those that are fronted because they are targets of Move in derivations as in the case of wh-questions involving intervening operators.

51

CHAPTER4

Agree, morphological syncretism, and peripheral constituents

4-1 Morphological syncretism and the ordering of functional categories

One of the most comprehensive earlier attempts to analyze the syntax of clausal level operators such as focus and evidentiality markers in Southern Quechua from a generative perspective has been set forth by Muysken (1995: 386). 1 He addresses the issue of the apparently double function that discourse particles such as -mi, -si, and -cha have in Southern Quechua as evidential and as focus markers.2 Evidential markers are morphological expressions that encode evidentiality. Definitions of evidentiality are based on the notion of source of information. Aikhenvald (2004: 3) defines evidentiality as the "linguistic category whose primary information is source of information" (Aikhenvald 2004: 3). Faller (2002: 1) adopts a definition that also refers to source of information but limits it to the case of assertions. In her view, evidentiality is "the linguistic encoding of the speaker's ground for making a speech act which in the case of assertions corresponds with his or her source of information" (Faller 2002: 1). The fact that the same markers are used in Southern Quechua to express evidentiality and focus in assertions generates the question of what syntactic representation could account for such a dual nature. In order to answer that question, Muysken (1995: 381) lays out the distribution of evidential markers in Southern Quechua. He notes the ambiguity in expressions such as:

1. The analysls presented here focuses on the syntax of the set of suffixes that have a syncretic value as evidentials and also as focus markers. For a detailed analysis of the semantics of evidentials ln Cuzco Quechua, a variety of Southern Quechua, see Faller (2002) and Fassola (2007). Also, see Floyd (1999) for an analysis of evidentials based on a cognitive linguistics framework ln a different variety of Quechua (Wanka Quechua). The focus of the analysis presented here is the syntactic properties of the structures in which evidential/focus particles occur. For that reason, I will occasionally refer to their semantic properties but only when they are relevant to the syntactic analysis. 2. 1hls double property has been noticed by early grammarians (Gonzales Holguin 1842/1607) and by modern grammars (Cusihuaman 1976/2001:228-230,233, Cerr6n-Palomino 1987:287, Faller 2002;13, among others).

54


(1) Pirdu-(n) ·wasi-ta ruwa-n. Pirdu- (Foc/Evm) house-Ace build-3 s 'It is Pirdu that builds a house' 'Pirdu builds a house' Muysken (1995: 381) According to Muysken (1995: 381), sentence (1) is ambiguous between a reading in which the subject is marked for focus and a reading in which the sentence is understood as conveying first hand information and the whole sentence conveys new information. 3 Muysken (1995: 386) accounts for this ambiguity by providing different syntactic derivations for each reading. The first reading, in his proposal, corresponds to one in which the subject raises to the specifier of Evidential Phrase located higher than IP as shown in: 4 (2)

(Based on Muysken 1995: 386)

EvidP

~ Evid'

DP

~ (subject) Evid

IP

-mi -si -cha The second reading arises when the evidential marker "phonologically encliticizes onto the first major constituent of IP" (Muysken 1995: 386). Note, however, that the ambiguity remains when a direct object is marked in situ: 3· Faller (2002: 91) questions the contribution of -mi, which she terms direct evidential, and reportative -si to the propositional content of the sentence. In her view evidential markers should be distinguished in semantic terms from epistemic modals. In the analysis presented here, -ml and -sf are analyzed as the morphological reflex of a high functional head, Evldentiality Phrase, as originally proposed by Cinque (1999) and may have scope over the whole sentence. 4· In that respect evidentials such as -ml are morphemes related to an evidential head located in the C-domain higher than IF and correspond to the type ofiF-external evidentials proposed by IDaine and Dechaine (2007: 259). IDaine and Dechaine (2007: 258) propose an Evidential Domain Hypothesis according to which evidentials might be distributed in the clause at different levels: CF-external, IF-external, AspF-external and VP-external. Southern Quechua, as well as other varieties of Quechua, also distinguishes between an attested and a reportative past tense form that have been argued to carry an evidential meaning (Cuslhuaman 1976/2001: 160-163, Sanchez 2004: 149). For an alternative view of the distinction between those two types of past tense see Faller (2002, 2004). Since the goal of this book is to provide an analysis of clause peripheral material, I will not discuss the relationship between IF-external markers of evidentialtty and IF-internal markers of evidentiality such as tense.

Chapter 4. Agree, morphological syncretism, and peripheral constituents

(3) Pirdu wasi-ta-n ruwa-n. Pirdu house-Acc-Foc/EVID build-3 s 'It is a house that Pirdu builds' (first hand information) (Muysken 1995: 380) (4) Pirdu wasi-ta-s ruwa-n. Pirdu house-Acc-Foc/EVID mak.e-3 s 'It is a house (they say) that Pirdu builds'

As the previous sentences show, the evidential reading does not disappear when a constituent is focused in situ. I follow Muysken's (1995) line of inquiry and I attempt to account for this multiple specification for focus and evidentiality by proposing that, in Southern Quechua, there is syncretism in functional features in the left periphery of the type proposed by Giorgi & Pianesi (1997: 69) for tense and aspect in Romance languages and for tense and subject agreement in languages such as English. Giorgi & Pianesi (1997: 69) propose that the association between morphemes and features can be a one-to-one association as in the so-called isolating languages or it can be a one-to-many association between a morpheme and several functional features. This one-to-many association between morphemes and features is what they call a syncretic category. For example, in English verbs forms such as 'love-s' and 'lov-ed' have subject agreement and tense fused in the morphology. In their analysis, this corresponds to a hybrid category that disallows the scattering of features throughout the syntactic structure resulting in the projection of a single functional head that has both the properties ofT and A GR. I extend their proposal about syncretic categories to the focus/evidential marking particle in Southern Quechua. The morphemes -mi and -si are a case of a one-to-many association between morphemes and features. They can check both focus and evidential features. In their proposal Giorgi & Pianesi (1997: 14) assume that the universal components of grammar are (a) the inventory of features (specific grammars may select some of the features in this inventory) and (b) an ordering in the checking of features. They formalize the latter as a: (5) Universal Ordering Constraint Features are ordered so that given F1 > F2, the checking ofF 1 precedes the (Giorgi & Piane si 1997: 14) checking of F2. 5 Another important aspect of their proposal is a principle that allows for the scattered distribution of features in a syntactic representation: 5· The symbol> refers to the universal ordering relation. I follow Giorgi and Pianesi's (1997: 14) proposal according to which the ordering may correspond to a structure in which F3 is higher than F2 and F2 is higher than Fl. This implies that the checking ordering proceeds from the lower to the higher projections.

55

56


(6) Feature Scattering Principle Each feature can head a projection.

(Giorgi & Pianesi 1997: 14)

According to this principle, bundles of features must be projected in at least one node but they can also be scattered across projections. In this chapter, I will adopt Giorgi & Pianesi's (1997: 14, 39) proposal for syncretic categories and their parametric approach to the Feature Scattering Principle and its application to Cinque's (1999) idea that there is an ordered hierarchy of functional projections related to the left-periphery that form part of the articulation of the C-system oflanguages. These extensions make it possible to understand how syncretic morphemes express Agree relations in Southern Quechua between clause-level operators in the C-domain and constituents marked for these formal features. This proposal is grounded on a view of syntax as related to but independent from morphology in the sense of the model of Distributed Morphology proposed by Halle & Marantz (1993). 6 In that view, morphemes can be specified for multiple features and, in some cases, they may even be underspecified for certain features and there may not be a one-to-one correspondence between abstract features and morphemes. Assuming Giorgi & Pianesi's (1997) proposal as well as Halle & Marantz's (1993) implies that while morphemes can be syncretic (namely, they can be specified for multiple features) they may also be underspecified for some features. Assuming morphological syncretism makes possible an analysis that accounts for a one-to-many relationship between morphological markers and functional heads in the C-domain. If a functional head is marked with features that trigger Agree, then features such as evidentiality, negation and polar interrogation (also known as yes/no interrogation) need not involve movement to the left periphery. Instead, I propose that there is more than one representation possible for constituents marked with C-related features in Southern Quechua. This accounts for the apparent optionality of constituents in situ and on the margins in Southern Quechua that are marked with morphemes that are the spell out of C-related functional features. In the first type of representation, these morphemes are the expression of Agree relations between higher functional heads in the C-domain and in situ constituents, and no operation other than Agree is needed. Other representations involve Agree but also other operations such as Merge and Move. In the second type of representations there is an Agree relation between a C-related functional head and an XP in its specifier position that has been merged in that position. Merge takes place at the left periphery of the clause and movement takes place when a 6. See Marantz (1991), Bobalijlk and Brannigan (2006), Baker & Vinokurova (2010) for proposals that treat the syntactic configuration required for case assignment as independent from the actual morphological markers of case.


constituent is moved to the specifier of the head of a main or a nominalized subordinate clause to make Agree between the constituent and the functional heads possible. In some cases such as with verbs, x-movement takes place to the head of the left periphery projection. I will argue thatXP-movement arises when potential interveners block an Agree relation between a left-peripheral functional head and a constituent in situ. In these cases, movement is a necessary operation. I will also discuss the extension of this multiple-featured approach to the analysis of focus/evidential particles in Southern Quechua to other morphemes such as -chu, which is multiply specified as a polar question, a negative, and a focalizing particle (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 235-237). The interaction of this particle with the negative head mana will be discussed as a case in which the negative feature triggers Agree and the syncretic nature of the morpheme allows it to also value the Focus feature. Although both features can be valued by Agree, it is only the Focus feature that triggers Move in order to establish the scope of the focus with respect to the element negated? Finally, I will present an account of the restrictions on focalized elements in the right periphery in Southern Quechua that is based on the unavailability of an Evidential Phrase in the lower IP-domain. From this unavailability, it follows that rightadjoined constituents can only be marked with the spell out of topic features. Since in Southern Quechua there are no evidential features available in the lower periphery inside the IP-domain proposed by Belletti (2005: 9) and evidential features are always expressed via syncretic morphology, the right margin of the sentence does not exhibit the complex interaction between multiply specified morphology partially marked for evidentiality and focus and the relevant C-related features.

42 Agree and move

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Cinque (1999: 55) proposed a complex sequence of multiple functional heads related to modality based on a hierarchy of relative ordering of suffixes in languages such as Korean, Turkish, Una, Tauya, and Chinese, among others (Cinque 1999: 55). I will adapt the hierarchy that he proposes as well as previous proposals by Rizzi (1997) and Musyken (1995) to a hierarchy of functional heads in the left periphery of the sentence. This is shown in (7):

7· In Chapter 6, this proposal will also be extended to wh-words in Southern Quechua, which are interpreted as wh-content words when moved and as NPis in the scope of negation. I will argue that, as in the case of the evidential/focus features, wh-words are multiply specified for features but, in some contexts, they can only check the abstract wh- feature via Move.

57

58

Syntax ofTopie and Focus in Quechua (7)

SpActP

~ SPAct'

~ SpAct Eval Mood P ~ EvalMood'

~ Eval Mood EvidP ~ Evid' ~ Evid TopP ~ Top'

~ Top FoeP ~ Foe' ~ Foe Top ~ Top' ~ Top Tp ~

In Southern Quechua some of these C-related functional heads are morphologically expressed with a set of suffixes that carry information of the type proposed by Cinque (1999). These suffixes are labeled in traditional grammars as enclitic partides. In discussing the enclitic particles of Southern Quechua, Cusihuaman ( 1976/200 1: 226-248) presents a classification that can be related to the functional categories that Cinque (1999: 106) locates on the left periphery, although not all of the functional heads proposed by Cinque (1999) have a corresponding 'enclitic' in Southern Quechua. I assume that the selection of the features relevant to this articulated left-periphery is subject to cross-linguistic variation and that languages may vary as to which of these features are grammatically encoded. Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 226) proposes four groups of enclitic particles. These enclitics are characterized by the fact that they attach to any constituent in the sentence,


although, as we saw before for focus and topic markers, there are some restrictions that operate on their distribution. Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 226) divides them into four groups: (a) focus, (b) topic, (c) specificational and (d) relational enclitics. I will concentrate on the correspondences between the first two categories of enclitics and some of the functional categories proposed by Cinque (1999). I will also propose that there are other categories such as negation which may yield potential intervention effects that affect the distribution of constituents marked with focus and topic enclitics. In some cases, constituents marked with specificational and relational enclitics might also exhibit intervention effects that block Agree with focus and topic marked constituents. 42.1

Focus/evidentiality and topicalization

As noted above, focus and evidential features are expressed in Southern Quechua by the suffixes -mi and -si and their allomorphs (and possibly the so called dubitative suffix -chd, see Footnote 34). They have the following distribution (noted by Muysken 1995: 380-384):8 8. Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 226-248) also includes in the paradigm of focus ditics the following ditics: interrogative and negative -chu, emotive suffix -yd, impressive -md (which will be discussed below) as well as the dubitative suffix -chd which according to Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 233) may have different meanings depending on the constituent to which it attaches. When it attaches to any constituent that is not an interrogative word, then it expresses an speculation that the speaker makes about the actual realization of an event as in: (i) Uuy-ta-chd papa-ta-qa kurura-pu-chka-n. All-ACC-PRONOST potatO-ACC-TOP worm-REG-PROG-3S "Surely, all the potatoes are becoming infected with worms" (Cuslhua.trW.n 1976/2001: 233)

It may also refer to a probable event: (li)

Mana-pas-chd

tukumu-saq-chu

sapa-lla-y-qa.

Neg-ADD-PRONOST finish-1 s PUT-NEG alone-LIM-1S-TOP "Maybe I will not be able to finish this alone" (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 233) When it ls attached to an interrogative word, it expresses doubt, uncertainty or a certain level of conjecture as in: (iii)

Ima-ta-chd

chay runa-qa ruwa-ka-mu-n-pas

kuna-kama?

Wh.at-ACC-PRONOST this man-TOP do-REPLEX-CIS-3S-ADD noW-LIMIT "(I do not know) what is this man doing until now?" (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 234) Faller (2002: 93) considers -chd an epistemic modal that is in the overlap between necessity and evidentiality. While I will discuss negative/interrogative -chu, emotive -yd and impressive -md, I will not discuss -chd because as an epistemic modal it has syntactic properties that interact with other modal operators in addition to focus and evidentiality. For a semantic approach to -chd see Faller (2002: 93). Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 235) notes the enclitics -su11a and -slna found in Cuzco Quechua have a similar interpretation to -chd.

59

6o


a. b. c.

They are constituent external. They are limited to one per clause. They can only appear in main clauses or in subordinate clauses with tensed verbs (these are possible only in some varieties of Southern Quechua) and are banned from nominalizations, which are the most common forms of complement and adverbial clauses. d. They cannot occur in imperatives. e. They cannot occur in gapping expressions. f. They cannot occur in elements unmarked for case as in: 9 (8) Domingu-ta/pi-n foria ka-nqa.w,u Sunday-Acc/Loc-Foc/EVID market be-3 s FUT 'Sunday there will be a market' (9)

*Domingu-n

feria

ka-nqa.

Sunday -Foc/EVID market be-3 s FUT 'Sunday there will be a market'

(Muysken 1995: 384)

Muysken (1995: 386) takes these restrictions as an indication that evidentials have scope at S-structure over the clause or over an individual NP or DP constituent. At LF, they have scope over the clause for evidential force and over a constituent for focus. In current minimalist terms, an account of these multiple specifications can be provided as a case of multiple feature checking. When a constituent is in situ, the multiply specified or syncretic suffix is the overt morphological realization of the checking of an abstract [+FOC] feature and the evidentiality feature for first hand or attested information. The functional heads act as probes that establish Agree relationships with the constituents in situ. Sentence (10) illustrates the case of a multiple feature checking in the context of a syncretic category. The constituent

Muysken (1995) also notes thatthey cannot occur on post-verbal constituents. These examples are taken from Muysken (1995). The language is undergoing a process of revitalization. AB suggested to me by Hip6lito Peralta Ccama, the revitalized form (without Spanish loans) would be: 9·

10.

Intichay-pl-n hatun qhatu ka-nqa. Sunday-wc-Foc/Evm big market be-3FUT 'On Sunday there will be a market' n. The only apparent exception to this descriptive generalization ls the use of the suffix - nN as a quantifier meaning 'all' on the word domb1gu 'Sunday' as shown in (Hlp6lito Peralta Ccama p.c.): (ii) Domingu-11ti-n hatun qhatu kanqa. Sunday-coNJ-FOC/Evm big market be-3FUT 1\11 Sunday there will be a market' Of course, one could argue that -11ti ls both a quantifier and a case marker. (i)


papa-ta-m 'potato-ACC-FOC/EVID' is marked for evidentialityand focus features. Focus is projected lower than evidentiality and must check the [+ FOC] feature first according to the Universal Ordering Constraint introduced above. The evidentiality feature is checked afterwards. However, the checking of both features receives only one morphological spell-out, which is the suffix -m (an allomorph of -m{). 12 (10) Huwan papa-ta-m miku-n. Huwan potato-Acc-Foc/EVID eat-3 s 'It is potatoes that Juan eats' (attested)

Syntactically, the head of the Focus projection acts as a probe that values the [+FOC] feature and the head of EvidP is the probe that values the evidentiality feature attested [ATT]. In the following representation the higher projections such as Speech Act and Evaluative Mood are omitted: (11)

EvidP ~ Evid' ~ Evld FocP [+ATT]

~ Foe' ~ Foe ~ Foe TP ~ [+FOC] Huwan T' ~ T vP ~ v'

~

v

VP

~

papata-m1

V'

~ V DP

I do not assume movement of Focus to Evldentiality because in some cases Focus can be spelled out syncretically with negation and in those cases the checking of focus features is independent from the checking of evidential features. 12.

61

62


This analysis accounts for several of the properties mentioned by Muysken (1995: 380-385). First, the marker must be constituent external because Agree takes place between the c-commanding head and a constituent. With respect to the second restriction that there can be only one focus/evidential marker per clause, two possibilities can be contemplated: (a) the restriction applies to focalized elements or (b) the restriction applies to the evidentiality feature. Let us examine first the impossibility of two focalized constituents. There is evidence from languages such as English, in which focus is expressed by stress, that multiple foci are possible in a sentence with a complex focus interpretation (Krifka 1991: 19): (12) John only introduced BILL to SUE

(Krifka 1991: 19) 13

So, one could conceive of more than one focalized element in a Southern Que chua main clause or of a discontinuous constituent bearing focus. Cases such as those discussed by Zubizarreta ( 1998: 17), and in traduced in Chapter 3 in which discontinuous elements carry new information and are marked for [+FOC], are relevant to this discussion. Zubizarreta's (1998) examples are question-answer pairs characterized by the fact that the question introduces a constituent that becomes shared knowledge and in the answer two discontinuous elements carry new information. The equivalent question-answer pairs in Southern Quechua show that only one element is morphologically marked. The question in (13) introduces the direct object t'antata 'bread-ACC'. It becomes shared information for the interlocutor before she utters the response in (14). This implies that the subject Huwan and the verb mikurun 'ate' in (14) are new information, but only one constituent is morphologically marked. 14 While morphological marking of the subject is allowed, marking of the verb in situ is not felicitous in ( 15) as an answer to (13): (13) Imanarun-mi t'anta-ta? What happened-Foc/EVID bread-Ace 'What happened to the bread?'

t'anta-ta miku-1·u-n. (14) Huwan-mi Huwan-Foc/EVID bread-Ace eat-PERF-3 s 'It was Juan who ate the bread (attested)'

Multiple foct might also be cases of contrastive topics paired with a focus. Thanks to Maria Luisa Zubizarreta for pointing this out to me.

13.

14 Another possibility is that rather than having two foci, there could be some accommodation of the presupposition: "Someone ate the bread~ (Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, p.c.).


(15) #Huwan tcmta-ta miku-ru-n-mi. 15 Huwan bread-Ace eat-PERF 3 s-Foc/EVID 'Juan ATE the bread' (attested) The restriction on marking more than one constituent with a focalizing/evidential particle disallows the double marking in (16): (16)

*Huwan-mi

t'anta-ta

miku-ru-n-mi.

Huwan-Foc/EVID bread-Ace eat-PERF-3 s-Foc/EVID 'HUWAN ATE the bread' Fronting of the verb is not accepted either in this context: (17) #Miku-ru-n-mi

t'a.nta-ta

Huwan.

Eat-PERF-3 s-Foc/EVID bread-Ace Huwan 'Huwan ATE the bread' This implies that only the discontinuous constituent closest to the head can be marked with the focus/evidentiality morpheme. While they are interpreted as both carrying new information only one of them can be morphologically marked. The restriction does not seem to hinder their interpretation as forming a complex focus structure (Krifka 1991: 21) in which both sub-constituents are new information, but it is revealing of a restriction on the distribution of the syncretic morpheme. This is compatible with the idea that the restriction is not on the focus feature but on the evidential one. While multiple or complex foci are possible and can be found in languages other than Southern Quechua, multiple evidentiality features of the same type (both C-related) would be redundant and multiple evidentiality features with opposite values (also C-related) would be odd, if they have scope over the same proposition and, as proposed by Faller (2002: 14), they have illocutionaryforce. For instance, if one follows Faller's (2002: 21) proposal according to which -mi as an evidential expresses the fact that the speaker has the best possible grounds for believing an assertion, it would be repetitious for the speaker to indicate twice that she has the best possible grounds for a belief, therefore the unacceptability of (16). Also, it would be infelicitous for the speaker to indicate that she has the best possible grounds for such belief and that, at the same time, she lacks them. From this follows the ungrammaticality of (18): (18) *Huwan-si t'anta-ta miku-ru-n-mi. Huwan-Foc/EVID bread-Ace eat-PERF-3 s-Foc/EVID 'HUWAN ATE the bread' (reported and attested) 15. The symbol# will be used to indicate a sentence that is grammatical but pragmatically inappropriate.

63

64

Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua Notice also that the constituent closest to the focus and evidentiality heads is the one morphologically marked. Sentence (15) is inappropriate as an answer toquestion (13) because in it the whole sentence is focused. If the syncretic nature of -mi as a focus and an evidential marker makes double marking with -mi impossible, then it makes sense that at least one of the constituents that is new information is marked. In (14) the closest constituent is the subject. This follows from Agree being triggered by the relevant value of the evidentiality feature (in this case ATT) and by focus features as in the representation in (11). The unacceptability of (17) in this context indicates that moving the verb to satisfy the need to check focus or evidentiality features is a costly option that is avoided in this context. In fact, there is no evidence of verb movement inside TP in Southern Quechua. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the position of verbs in sentences with wide focus and intransitive verbs is sentence final. This is also the case in sentences with wide focus and transitive and ditransitive verbs. In canonical word order sentences verbs do not appear higher than adverbs as shown by the contrast from Cuzco Quechua introduced in Chapter 2 and repeated here for ease of exposition:

tmpu-sqa.-n. (19) Huwan a.llin-ta papa-ta. Huwan good-Ace potato-Ace sow-PAT- 3 s 'Huwan sowed potatoes well' allin-ta tarpu-sqa-n. (20) ?Huwa.n papa-ta Huwan potato-Ace good-Ace sow-PAT- 3 s 'Huwan sowed potatoes well' As mentioned in Chapter 2, Southern Quechua does not exhibit passive sentences as shown in: (21) *Papa. suwa.-sqa. ka-rqa-n Mariya. Potato steal-NOM be-PAST-3s Mariya 'The potatoes were stolen by Mariya' Furthermore, verbs do not have to raise to C to form polar questions as shown by the grammaticality of the canonical polar question: (22) Papa-ta miku-nki-chu? Potato-Ace eat-2 s-INT 'Do you eat potatoes?' These facts indicate that verb raising is generally avoided in Southern Quechua and considered only a last resort operation.

Chapter 4. Agree, morphological syncretism, and peripheral constituents Object fronting, on the other hand, is more frequent. In (23) the focused constituent is the direct object and it appears in a left-peripheral position: (23)

Tanta-ta-m

Huwan miku-ru-n.

Bread-Acc-Foc/EVID Huwan eat-PERF-3 s 'It was bread that Juan ate'

In order to account for a sentence such as (23) at least two representations can be provided: (a) the constituent moves to spec of Focus Phrase or (b) the constituent is merged in Spec of FocP and checks its [+FOG] feature by Spec-head agreement or upward Agree with the Focus head and a pro sits in object position. In the first case, the derivation would be the one in (24):

(24)

Evid P ~ Evid'

~ Evid FocP

'-a

~

Tanta-ta-m 1

Foe'

"~TP Foe

~ T' ~ T vP ~ Huwan v' ~ VP

v

~

V' ~ V DP

mikuru.n

~

In this derivation, the direct object moves to the specifier of Focus Phrase where it agrees with Focus. One additional assumption is required for this derivation: it should be possible for the Focus feature to have a checking domain that includes constituents that c-command the probe and not only constituents that are

65

66


c-commanded by it, that is, upward checking must be allowed if Spec-Head Agreement is not assumed. Binding facts suggest that, if movement is possible, it involves reconstruction. This is shown by the fact that, in (25), the quantified subject binds the fronted object in a higher fronted position: (25) [Wawan-ta-n] 1 [sapanka mama] 1 anchata [Child-Acc-Foc/EVID ]i [every mother] 1 much muna-ku-nku. love- REFL-3PL 'Every mother loves her child very much' I take the possibility of binding to be an indication that although the direct object is in a position higher than the quantified subject, the subject is able to bind the object in argument position and this can be accounted for if the object reconstructs to its original position or if there is no movement but rather the fronted constituent forms a chain with a pro. As we saw before, there is no evidence of clause internal argument movement in Southern Quechua. There are no passives and there is no evidence of raising verbs of the seem type in the language. 16 Rather, XP-fronting in Southern Quechua seems to be triggered by features related to the information component. I will assume that, if there is XP-movement in this case, it takes place only to satisfy focus features and possibly to determine the scope of focus. This account does not seem entirely satisfactory given the availability of marking focus and evidentiality features in situ. Let us recall that it is also possible to have the constituent papa-ta-m 'potatoes-ACC-FOC/EVID' marked for evidentiality and focus features in situ as in examples (3) and (4). An alternative analysis would be the one in (26). The constituent papa-ta-m 'potatoes-ACC' is generated in the specifier of Focus Phrase where it checks the focus feature and the Evidential head is the probe that checks the attested value. A pro sits in argument position:

16. I will not provide arguments in favor of a movement versus a merge analysis of evidential/ focalized constituents in main clauses that are based on extraction out of subordinate clauses because, as noted by Lefebvre andMuysken(1988) and, as I will discuss in the next subsections of this chapter and in Chapters 6 and 7, there are other issues related to wh-extraction and rais-

ing out of subordinate clauses that restrict the possibilities of extraction and raising when the subordinate clause has a fully inflected verb but not when it is a nominallzed subordinate clause. Also, the semantic nature of the main clause verb (direction versus volition) generates different restrictions.

Chapter 4. Agree, morphological syncretism, and peripheral constituents 67 (26)

Evid P

~ Evid' ~ Evid FocP

~

~

Tanta-ta.-m 1 Foe' ~ Foe TP ~

Huwan

T' ~ T ~ vP ~ v' ~ v

VP

~

V' ~ V DP

mikurun

pro1

Support for a pro in argument position comes from the fact that object-drop is possible in Southern Quechua, as the following example from Cuzco Quechua illustrates: (27) Pro1 pro1 1·iku-rqa-n. Pro1 proJ see-PAST-3 s '(S/He) saw (her/him)' Insertion of pro in object position is also consonant with the strong evidence that discourse antecedents license null subjects and null objects in Quechua and that null arguments have a deictic force that makes them akin to pronominals (Sanchez 2003: 157). In this analysis, rather than reconstruction as an explanation for the binding facts in (24), one could posit that the subject binds the pm in argument position.

68

Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua While both derivations are possible, there are at least two reasons to favor the

pro analysis. The first one would be to avoid optionality in movement. The derivation with pm and the one with focalized direct objects in situ would then differ in their numerations. The second one is that, if one assumes that Move is only a last resort operation and it is not needed in the core syntax of Quechua, then one would expect it to take place only under special circumstances. As we will see later in this chapter and in Chapter 6, this type of movement takes place when a potential intervener blocks the relationship between a C-related probe and its goal. To summarize, in Southern Quechua, there is evidence of Agree between the evidential and focus heads and vP-internal constituents. When multiple foci force the need to determine the scope of focus, the closest constituent is marked for focus and evidentiality. Movement of an argument to satisfy focus features is a possible explanation for left fronted constituents, although a competing analysis with a pro in argument position has been presented that is more consistent with economy assumptions and with non-optional movement. Now, with respect to the other restrictions, the Agree analysis can also account for the fact that focalized constituents are restricted to main clauses and may not occur in nominalizations or imperatives. If one assumes that nominalizations are DPs/ AgrP (see Chapter 5 for a more detailed analysis of nominalizations as DPs), then the impossibility of evidential and focus features inside the nominalization follows from the unavailability of a CP-layer in nominalizations. Crucially, DPs do not allow DP-internal marking of focalized or topicalized constituents as shown by the ungrammaticalityof a focalized adjective in the absence of a verb in (28). As shown in (29), the sentence is grammatical only with an interpretation that involves a predication, namely, with the obligatorily null form of the verb kay in third person singular:

wasi. (28) *Yana-m Black-Foc/EVID house 'A/the BLACK house' (29)

Yana-m

wasi (*ka-n).

Black-Foc/EVID house (be-3 S) 'The house (is) BLACK' I take this to indicate that the impossibility of a focalized constituent inside a nominalization does not follow from the embedded nature of the sentence but from its DP status. It is not surprising then that in those varieties of Southern Quechua that allow inflected subordinate clauses, focalized constituents are grammatical as shown in the following example of a relativized clause from Muysken (1995: 382):


(30)

[Paqarin-mi chaya-mu-nqa chay-qa]i 7 Xwan-mi. [Tomorrow-Foc/EVID arrive-cis-3 FUT that-ToP] Xwan-Foc/EVID (Muysk.en 1995: 382) 'The person that will come tomorrow is Juan'

In this sentence the adverb paqarin 'tomorrow' is marked with a focalizing evidentiality suffix and the subordinate verb is fully inflected. The impossibility of focalizing a DP-internal constituent then follows from the lack of a functionally rich periphery inside DPs. As we will see in Chapter 5, Agree takes place between a functional head in the C-domain and a full DP or between a functional head and a DP-internal constituent that has been extracted to spec of DP. Interestingly when a DP-internal constituent is extracted out of a DP to be marked with focus, then it also receives the same case marking as that of the DP from where it is extracted. 18 Imperatives are similar to nominalizations in that they share the morphology of infinitivals, which are considered as a type of nominalization in Southern Quechua (Weber 1996: 385, Lefebvre & Muysk.en (1988: 21)). This is shown in (31) and (32): (31) Mikhu-y. Eat-IMP 'Eat!' (32)

[Mikhu-y-ta] muna.-ni. Eat-INF-Acc want-1 s '(I) want to eat'

As (32) shows, infinitivals are nominalizations that receive accusative case marking as complements of a main verb. Imperatives not only share a morphological marking with infinitivals, they also have restrictions on focalization and evidentiality features, as shown in (33): (33) *Papa-ta-n miku-y! Potato-Acc-Foc/EVID eat-IMP 'Eat POTATOES!'

17. 1hls example is not considered as grammatical by speakers of some varieties of Cuzco and Apurimac Quechua who prefer nominallzed structures as subordinates. (Hlp6lito Peralta Ccama and Vidal Carbajal p.c.) 1.8. Lefebvre and Muysken (1988: 149) explain this case-marking requirement on constituents

extracted from nominalizations by positing a COMP-CASE as the head of a nominalization.

69

70


I take this to indicate that imperatives are either a nominalization with no C-level projection or a defective CP that is not marked for discourse-related features other than an imperative feature in the head of Speech ActP. 19 With respect to gapping structures, I follow Johnson's (2000: 61, 2006: 5) proposal according to which gapping structures result from a conjunction of a projection lower than TP. In Johnson's (2000: 61, 2006: 5) proposal for English, the projection is vP. In the case of Southern Quechua, gapping structures involve coordination at the vP level and raising of the subject outside the vP to spec ofTP to satisfy EPP features. Gapping structures in Southern Quechua behave similarly to their English counterparts. They allow binding of a pronoun in the second conjunct by a noun in the first one. The Southern Quechua example in (35) corresponds to its English counterpart in (34): (34) No woman1 can join the army and her1 girlfriend the navy. (Johnson 2006: 5) papa-ta tarpu-sqa (35) [Sapankawtn·mi-n] 1 [Each woman-FOC/EVID ]1 potato-ACC SOW-PAST [wawa-n1-taq] sara-ta. [her1 child-CONT] corn-ACC 'Each woman sowed potatoes and her child corn'

Johnson (2009: 293) notes that the subject binds the pronoun in the English sentence because the two VPs are conjoined but the subject of the first conjunct is in spec of TP. From that position, it c-commands the pronoun in the second conjunct. A similar analysis can be extended to gapping in Southern Quechua. If gapping structures are cases ofvP coordination, then the impossibility offocus/evidential markers in gapping constructions follows from the lack of a higher CP level and a left periphery in the second conjunct which, under this analysis, is a vP. This would involve movement of the subject to spec of TP to check EPP features. As we saw before, the lack of passives or raising verbs indicates that such movement is not needed to check case features. Having covered the restrictions on constituents marked with focus/evidential particles, I will refer now to the restrictions on topicalized constituents. As mentioned previously in Chapter 1, topicalized constituents can appear in fronted positions and in situ (Example 24 and 25 in Chapter 1 repeated here for convenience):

19. For a classification oflanguages according to the features inC in imperative clauses see Rivero and Terzi (1995). For an alternative view of imperatives as IPs see Rupp (2003).


(36) [ Wasi-ta-qa] Pirdu-m ruwa-rqa-n. House-Ace-TOP Pirdu-Foc/EVID build-PAST-3 s 'The house, Pirdu built' (37) Pirdu-m [wasi-ta-qa] ruwa-rqa-n. Pirdu-Foc/EVID house-Ace-TOP build-PAST-3 s 'It was Pirdu who build the house'

Topicalized constituents are less acceptable in direct objects if the subject has not been focalized or topicalized as the contrast between (38) and (39) shows: (38) ?Mariya [wasi-ta-qa] riku-rqa-n. Maria house-Ace see-PAST-3 s 'Maria saw the house' (39) [Runa-qa] [wasi-ta-qa] ruwa-rqa-n. Man-TOP house-TOP build-PAST-3 s ~s for the man, he built the house' Topicalized constituents show restrictions similar to those that apply to focalized constituents. Like focalized constituents, topicalized constituents marked with -qa must be full main clause constituents. (Weber 1996: 515): (40) [Hatun wasi-ta-qa] muna-: Big house-Ace-TOP want-1s 'I want a big house' (41) *[Hatun-qa] ·wasi-ta muna-: Big-ToP house-Ace want-1 s 'I want a big house'

(Weber 1996: 515)

The full constituent hatun wasita 'Big house' is topicalized in (40), but topicalization of the adjective hatun 'big' modifying the noun wasi 'house' in (41) is not grammatical. Like focalization, topicalization is not allowed in nominalized embedded sentences in Cuzco Southern Quechua (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988). This is illustrated in sentence (42): (42) *[Huwan-pa papa-ta-qa. miku-sqa-n-ta] yacha.-ni. [Huwan-gen potato-Ace-TOP eat-NOM-3 s-Acc] know-1 s 'I know that Juan ate the potato' In this sentence, the direct object cannot be topicalized in situ inside the nominalization. Nor can elements from a relative clause be topicalized, as shown in examples (43) and (44):

71

72


(43) *Santiyagu warma-ta riku-n, [hamu-q (-ta) (-qa) ]. Santiago girl-Ace see-3 s come-AG- (Acc)-(ToP) 'Santiago sees the girl that is coming' (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 180) (44)

* [Hamu-q (-ta) (-qa)],

Santiyaguwarma-tariku-n. Come-AG- (Ace)- (ToP), Santiago girl-Ace see-3 s 'Santiago sees the girl that is coming' (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 180)

However, it is possible to have topicalized constituents inside subordinate clauses that are not nominalizations but complement clauses with finite verbs. This type of subordinate clauses is found in some varieties of Southern Quechua: (45)

[Huwan-pa papa-ta-qa miku-sqa-n chay-ta] yacha-ni. [Huwan-GENpotato-ACC-TOP eat-NOM-3 S that-ACC] know-1 S 'I know that, potatoes, Juan eats'

This distribution of topicalized constituents in the left periphery is similar to that of constituents marked with the focus/evidentiality marker -mi.20 On the basis of such similarity; I propose that the Topic head in C-domain is a probe that triggers Agree with a constituent in situ or that agrees with a constituent merged in the left periphery. To summarize, I have proposed that in Southern Quechua: a.

Agree is triggered by features in the C-domain that are related to the information structure. b. Syncretic categories allow the maximization of Agree relations. c. XP-fronting to satisfy the checking offocus or topic features is a case of Merge in the left periphery.

20.

Another restriction on topicalization is that finite verbs cannot be topic fronted: (i)

~ Mlku-ru-n-qa

t'anta-ta

Huwan.

Eat-PERF-3 s-Poc/l!VID bread-Ace Huwan juan ate the bread' The impossibility of topicalizing a finite verb is shared by many languages among them English that lack overt agreement between a Topic head in the left periphery and a TP-internal constituent but allow fronting. For that reason, I will concentrate on the other parallelisms between focalization and topicalization in Southern Quechua. The ungrammaticality of a topic fronted finite verb is shown in (ii): (ii) *Eats, he eats a lot.

This unavailability will be discussed below in the last subsection of this chapter.


42.2

Polar interrogatives, negation, focus, and intervention etrects

I will turn now to the case of the syncretic suffix -chu that is marked for the polar (yes/no) question feature [+Q], for focus [+FOC] and, when it is under the scope of a negation head, for [+ Neg]. 21 In its polar interrogative interpretation, -chu corresponds to the morphological realization of the Speech Act functional category proposed by Cinque (1999). The following pair of sentences shows the contrast between an affirmative statement and a polar question: (46) Miku-nki. Eat-2 s '(You) eat' (47) Miku-nki-chu? Eat-2 s-INT 'Do (you) eat?' As noted in Chapter 3, previous work by O'Rourke (2005: 10) has shown that in Southern Quechua varieties (and also in Imbabura Quechua; see Cole 1985) there are no intonational ditrerences between a sentence such as (46) and one such as (47) provided the latter is not an echo question. In addition to its sentence final position, -chu can also focalize a specific constituent in the polar question as in: (48) Papa-ta-chu miku-nki? Potato-Acc-Foc!INT eat-2 s 'Is it potatoes that you eat?'

In sentence (48) -chu is specified for the polar question feature, which I label [Q] following Cheng & Rooryck (2000: 1) and Uribe-Etxeberria (2002: 219), and for the [ +FOC] feature. This multiple specification for the morpheme allows it to check the features of two C-related functional categories: Speech Act [+Q] and Focus [+FOC]. This is shown in the following representation: 21. Cole (1985: 97-98) notes this type of marking for question and focus features in Imabura Quechua. Further evidence in favor of the syncretic nature of the marker comes from some varieties of Central Quechua such as Huaraz Q uechua as described by Pineda (2003: 1) that has two distinct morphemes -tsu associated with negation and -ku associated with interrogation The following examples illustrate the difference: (i) Pay-ku urya-n. 3 s-INT work-3s 'Does he work?'

(ii)

Pay-tsu urya-n. 3s-NEG work-3s 'He does not work'

(Pineda 2003: 1)

73

74


(49)

Sp ActP ~ Sp Act' ~ Sp Act FocP ~ Foe' ~ Foe TP ~ [+FOC] T' ~ T vP ~ v' ~ v

VP

~ Papata-chu1 V' ~ DP

V

mikunki

t1

In the representation in (49) the verb mikunki '(you) eat' is not marked with -chu as it is in (47). I take this to be evidence that the feature [+Q] is spelled out only once; in the DP in direct object position. As in the case of evidential and focus features presented above, the syncretic nature of morphology in Southern Quechua allows -chu to be the spell out of two features: [+FOC] and [Q]. Support for proposing a multiple specification of -chu as a polar question and a focus marker can be found in other languages such as Bulgarian in which the li particle has been argued to be multiply specified as a marker of polar questions and focus as exemplified in:

(SO) Kusta.ta li namerixte (vie)? House-the Q found-2PL you 'Was it the house-Foe that you found?' (Izvorski, Holloway-King & Rudin, 1997: 189)

Chapter 4. Agree, morphological syncretism, and peripheral constituents Izvorski et al. (1997: 187) following Rivero (1993: 567) propose that li is a clitic in C, but they differ from Rivero in their analysis of its syntactic properties. Rivero (1993: 572) proposes a lowering analysis for li, while Izvorski et. al. (1997) argue against a lowering analysis for lion two grounds. One is the undesirable theoretical status of lowering and the second one is its distribution. If li left adjoins to the verb via lowering, it should appear immediately after negation but it does not appear in that position as shown in the following contrast: (51) a. Ne znae li anglijski? Not knows Q English 'Doesn't he/she know English?'

b.

*Ne li

znae

anglijski?

Not Q knows English 'Doesn't he/she know English?' (Izvorski, Holloway-King & Rudin, 1997: 189)

In addition to this problem, Izvorski et al. (1997: 190-191) point out that itis not clear in Rivero's lowering analysis what prevents negation from raising to C and deriving the sequence neg + li which is ungrammatical: (52) 'We li mu izpratix kniga? Not Q him-DAT send book 'Didn't I send him a book?' I will follow Ivorski et ars (1997) idea that lowering of li, and by extension of -chu, is theoretically not desirable. Rather than assuming a lowering analysis for -chu, I will pursue a line of analysis in which -chu is the spell out of two Agree relations: one between the head of FocP and the sentence or a constituent and another between Q as the head of Speech Act and its complement. The distribution of the suffix -chu is, however, more complex than that of li in Bulgarian or -mi, -si in Southern Quechua because it is not restricted to interrogative clauses. When -chu is in the scope of negation, it is interpreted as a negative concord element, as shown in the following sentence: (53) Mana-m miku-nki-chu. Not-EVID eat-2 s-NEG 'You did not eat' In this negative sentence, the higher negative head mana is marked with the evidentiality -m marker whereas the lower negative element -chu appears on the

75

76


verb. 22 The syncretic nature of -chu can be observed when it is a double marker of negation and focus. In fact, Muysken (1995: 388) notes that -chu marks a specific constituent as the negated element: (54) Mana-n Qusqu-ma.n-chu 1·i-ni. Not-EVID Cuzco-DAT-NEG go-1s 'It is not to Cuzco that I go (but somewhere else)'

(Muysken 1995: 388)

If one assumes that negation is located above IP and that negative concord involves some form of a checking relation (Zanuttini 1997:44, Haegeman 1995: 106-107), then it appears to be the case that -chu is interpreted as the morphological spellout of a negative concord relationship between the negative head and a constituent It is also the spell out of the Agree relation between the focus head and the same constituent. Muysken (1995: 387) treats the suffix -chu as ambiguous between a polar question marker and a negative element. He solves the ambiguity by proposing that -chu in this type of sentence is the head of a Non Factual Phrase (NFP) which is situated lower than negation which in turn is situated lower than Evidential Phrase as shown in (55): (55)

EvidP

~ Evid'

~ Evid

NegP

~ -n

Neg'

~ Neg

NFP

~ NF'

Mana

~ {Qusqu-man] 1 -chu

NF

IP

~

22. I propose that mana is a head and -chu is an agreement marker that marks the scope of a constituent at the sentence level because ma11a appears in nominal constituents as a negation without altering its nominal interpretation. This is shown by the contrast between an expression such as: mana yachachiq 'no learner' and mana yachachiqchu 'There is no learner' or 'S/he is no learner. Once -chu is added the constituent is interpreted as a sentence with a null verb kay 'to be' and not as a DP. Mana-m 'nd is also an independent word that may appear as the sole answer to a question and is modified by an evidential/focus marker.


According to Muysken (1995: 389), the constituent Qusqu-man 'Cuzco-DIR' raises at S-Structure to the specifier of NFP and, in that position, it is in the scope of negation. Furthermore, he proposes that the suffix -n (an allomorph of -mi) phonologically encliticizes onto the negative word mana. While the empirical results of an enclitization analysis and an analysis in which -n is the spell out of an Agree relation are not crucially different, an enclitici:zation analysis in which there is lowering of the evidential head to the negative head seems less desirable than an Agree based one. Furthermore, an enclitici:zation analysis of -n raises the question of whether -qa and -chu also encliticize. An Agree analysis gives all features a unified treatment and eliminates the need for positing additional head lowering, a type of movement for which there seems to be no independent evidence in Southern Quechua. Given the assumption that the lowering of a head is not a viable solution, Agree between the evidential head in the C-domain and ma.na seems appropriate. This renders a projection such as NFP as well as the raising of Qusqu-man unnecessary. The multiple specification of -chu for focus and negation allows the Agree relations to take place following the ordering constraint: negative concord first, followed by Agree between the head of Focus Phrase and the constituent Qusquman. This in turn is followed by Agree between the head ofEvidP and the head of NegP, as shown in (56). Notice that, in this particular case, -m is the spell out of evidentiality features only because focus features have already been spelled out as -chu. Once these Agree relations have taken place, Agree between the head of Speech Act and Qusqu-man is blocked:

77

78


SpAct

~ SpAct' ~ Sp Act EvidP

Q

~ Evid' ~ Evid FocP ~ Foe' ~ Foe NegP ~ Neg' ~~ Neg TP ~~

r ~ T VP

~ rini

Despite the multiple specification of -chu for Neg, Q, and F features, and despite the fact that the ordering of Agree relations in (57) are possible, those in (58) are nol (57) a. Foe >

Q>

Neg

XP

~ Foe

XP

b.~


(58) *a. Q >

Neg

XP

~ *b. Q >

Foe>

Neg

XP

~ where> must be interpreted as succeeds.23

In (57 a), NegP is located lower in the tree and Agree values Neg features prior to focus features. In (57b), the valuing offocus features precedes that ofQ features. The problem arises when negation features are checked prior to Q as in (58a) or (58b ). Following the Ordering Constraint, when Neg and either Foe or Q are part of the numeration, negative features must be checked prior than Foe or Q. Probing of Focus into TP is not blocked by Neg but probing of Q is blocked. A sentence such as (59) cannot be interpreted as a polar question with a sentence-internal negation as in the English translation: (59)

*Mana-m

miku-nki-chu? Not-Foc/EVID eat-2 8-NEG/INT 'Do you not eat?'

The double marking of the verb with a -chu morpheme with a negative interpretation and a -chu with an interrogative interpretation is not possible either: (60) *Mana-m miku-nki-chu-chu? Not-Foc/EVID eat-2 8-NEG-INT 'Do you not eat?' Sentences (59) and (60) show that -chu cannot be interpreted both as a negative marker and as an interrogative marker, when it marks a TP-internal constituent in the scope of the negation. Even if (60) is blocked by a morphological rule prohibiting 23. For ease of exposition I use the term succeed (indicated with the symbol >) which refers to the inverse relation of precede. I reformulate Fox and Pesetsk.y's (2005) definition of precede (indicated with the symbol ~is understood as meaning that the first element dominated by ~ succeeds the last element dominated by a.

79

so


duplication of a morpheme with the same segmental units, the fact that its interpretation is unambiguously negative and cannot be interrogative shows that, once in the scope of negation, -chu can only be the spell out of negation. These facts can be explained if the Agree relationship between the head of Speech ActP and a TP-internal constituent is blocked by negation. Sentence (48) is an interrogative sentence and the XP modified by -chu is focused. Sentence (54) can only be interpreted as negative. This raises the question of why is the Agree relationship between the head of Speech Act and the verb blocked Neg features. One possible explanation for this locality restriction is to view Neg as creating an intervening domain that blocks Agree between the head of Speech Act and the verb inside TP. Speech Act must c-command the lower constituent inside TP with which it agrees but it cannot do so across the quantificational domain created by Neg. This blocking effect is reminiscent of minimality effects that affect quantificational elements in the left periphery (Rizzi 2004: 231). In the case offocus, negation and polar questions in Southern Quechua, Agree between the head of Speech Act and a sentence internal constituent is blocked by Agree between Neg and that constituent. Agree between the Focus head and a sentence internal constituent is not blocked by Neg. The following syntactic representation shows the peculiarity of the blocking effect of negation: (61)

Sp ActP

~ Sp Act'

~ Sp Act

FocP

~ Foe'

~ Foe

NegP

~ [+FOC]

Neg'

~ Neg

TP

~naQ

Chapter 4. Agree, morphological syncretism, and peripheral constituents In the structure in (61), the Neg head blocks Agree between the Speech Act head and the VP inside TP but not between Focus and the VP. There is, however, one structure that overcomes this restriction: (62) Mana-chu miku-nki? Not-INT eat-2 s 'Do you not eat?' An important assumption is crucial to understanding why (62) is possible. Once Neg has scope over a TP-internal constituent, Q features must be checked outside TP. For -chu to be spelled out on a constituent as the morphological expression of Neg, Foe, and Q features, the configuration must be one in which Neg does not block Agree with TP internal constituents. The only possible spell-out option that avoids this problem is the marking of the Neg head itself. Negative concord shows exceptionally on the negative head and not on a lower constituent to allow the checking of Q features. This is shown in the representation in (63): (63)

Sp ActP

~ Sp Act'

~ Sp Act

FocP

~ [+Q]

Foe'

~ Foe

Neg

~ [+FOC]

Neg'

~ TP

~ hamunki

In Chapter 6, a more detailed presentation of the blocking effects of negation on Agree between a Q operator in the C-domain and a TP internal constituent will be provided. In that chapter, I propose that the negative operator in Neg has scope over an event operator on T that introduces nonveridicality values (Giannakidou 2001). For an element to be able to check Q features it must be outside TP or if it

81

82


is initially merged as a TP-internal constituent, at least one of its copies must be outside TP. One additional clarification of the representation proposed in (63) is needed. The projection of a Focus Phrase in this sentence needs justification. While in sentence (54) only a constituent is focalized, in the polar question in (62) the whole sentence is focalized. I argue this on the basis of the interpretation of the sentence. It has the following presupposition: the speaker expects the interlocutor to come and has some reason to think that she is not coming. In that context it is the whole event of not coming that is contrasted with its opposite, namely the possibility that the speaker is coming. I assume that polar questions are exhaustive and have a contrastive presupposition as proposed by Vergnaud & Zubizarreta (2006: 5). The answers to this question are either yes or no. This is also the case with (48) because by focusing papa-ta-m 'potatoes' a set of other foods that could have been eaten by the interlocutor is introduced. This new set serves as the basis for the contrast. The sentence meaning is: Was it potatoes that you ate or (exclusive) was it something else? In the case of (62), the same contrastive interpretation is present as shown by the fact that, when followed by a disjunction, it is a disjunction of the exclusive type. In other words, the meaning of the sentence is: Is it the case that you are not coming or that you are coming? The presupposition is: 'I expect you to come'. (64) [+Q] [not X] or [X]? If this contrastive reading is the correct interpretation of sentence (62), it seems to be the case that negation has scope over the whole first conjunct. This first conjunct introduces the set of events to be contrasted (focused) with their affirmative counterparts in the second conjunct. In that respect, the first conjunct is negated as a whole and itis focalized. If the scope of Foe is the full sentence and it is necessary to avoid the intervention effects created by Neg and mentioned above, then the most effective way of avoiding them is to have the constituent on which Q features are checked outside TP and the best candidate to check them is the negative operator mana.. This preserves the sentential scope of Foe and avoids the intervention effects. I will now summarize the proposals made in this section. The suffix -chu is multiply specified for the features Neg, Foe, and Q. Depending on the structural configuration, one or more of these features may be spelled-out It is crucial for this analysis to assume that syncretic morphology in Southern Quechua allows multiple specification of features in morphemes and at the same time allows flexibility in the spell out, namely focus features may be spelled out as -chu or as -m. Strict adherence to the ordering constraint determines that Neg features be checked first and focus features later. The multiple specification of -chu for Neg and Foe features allows the spell out of both features. Negation triggers intervention effects


that ban Agree between Speech Act and TP-internal material in Q features. These eftects are overcome by checking of the Q feature on the head of NegP itself, provided that the scope of focus and negation is the whole sentence. As in the case of the focus/evidential morpheme -m~ the distribution of -chu provides evidence for an Agree relation between functional categories and constituents that allows the checking of features in the syntax and the spell out of those features by syncretic morphological markers. Nevertheless, syncretic morphology is not freely available in Southern Quechua. It is constrained by ordering of checking and by intervention eftects triggered by negation. 4.2.3 More evidence of intervention effects:

Impressive -md, emotive -yd., and topic -ri Further evidence for the intervention effects of negation blocking Agree between heads in the C-domain and TP-internal material comes from suffixes such as the impressive -ma and the emotive -ya treated as focalizing particles by Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 231). A dose examination of their interpretation indicates that, rather than marking focus, these suffixes correspond to the function that Cinque (1999: 56) labels Evaluative Mood. They provide the perspective of the speaker with respect to an event. For instance, in sentences (65) and (66) the suffix -ma indicates some form of surprise on the part of the speaker: (65)

A~

yuraq-ta-ma

rit'iru-sqa

urqu-ta-qa.

Ay, white-ACC-IMPR snow-REPORT PAST mountain- ACC-TOP 'Oh, it had snowed so white on the mountains' (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 232) (66) Afiafiaw! Sumaq-ta-ma papa-qa t'ikayu-sha-sqa. Great! Nice-ACC-IMPR potato-TOP bloom-PROG-REPORT PAST 'Great! The potatoes had been blooming beautifully' (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 231)

In (65a) fronted constituent, an AdjP, appears marked with -ma and the meaning of the sentence indicates surprise at how white the snow is. This is also the case in (66) where the suffix -md. appears on a fronted AdvP and the speaker expresses surprise at how nicely the potato plants have bloomed. Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 231) proposes that the impressive suffix -ma is a focalizing particle. Given its meaning indicates speaker orientation, it seems more adequate to consider it a possible morphological expression of one of the bundle of features for which Cinque's Evaluative Mode head is specified. Its distribution, similar to that of the particles that Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 231) labels focalizing

83

84

Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua particles, can be accounted for as an instance of morphological spell out of an Agree relationship between a functional head in the C-domain and a lower constituent inside TP. The same restrictions that apply to the other morphemes apply to the impressive suffix. In sentence (68), in order to avoid the blocking etrects of the head of NegP, the probe head Evaluative Mood (higher than NegP) checks off its features on the Neg head itself and not on the AdvP hina, an adjunct to VP. (67) *Mana hina-chu-ma! Khayna-ma chay-qa ka-n-pis. Not that-NEG-IMPR! That-IMPR that-TOP be-3 s-ADD 'It is not like that, it is like this' (68) Mana-ma hina-chu! Khayna-ma chay-qa ka-n-pis. Not-IMPR that-NEG! That-IMPR that-TOP be-3 s-ADD 'It is not like that, it is like this' (Cusihuam{m 1976/2001: 232) A similar eftect is found with emotive -ya: (69) *Ama phina-ku-y-na-chu-yd. NEG IMP upset-REFL-IMP-DISCONT-NEG-EMOT 'Please, do not get upset' (70) Ama-ya phina.-ku-y-na.-chu. NEG IMP-EMOT upset-REFL-IMP-DISCONT-NEG 'Please, do not get upset' (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 231) According to Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 231), the suffix -ya expresses the emotional tone of the speaker. Its meaning is consistent with being the spell out of the Evaluative Mood head. In (69) the negative head ama (used only with negative imperatives) must agree with its complement before the head of Evaluative Mood establishes an Agree relation with a lower constituent. The only option to avoid the blocking etrects of negation is to have the negative head itself as the goal as in (70). Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 227-228) also includes the suffix -ri as part of the class of enclitics. Like the previous suffixes analyzed, -ri is the morphological expression of a C-related feature. Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 227) treats it as a topic marker, but he emphasizes that the suffix indicates an interest on the part of the speaker to continue the conversation with a question. Interestingly, this suffix is found only in the context of interrogative sentences, as shown in: (71) Pi-taq qan-ri ka-sha-nki? Who-CONT you-TOP/EVAL be-PROG-2 S ~nd as for you, who are you?'

(Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 227)


(72) Lima-pi-ri runasimi-ta rima-sqa-ku-chu?24 Lima-Loc-ToP/EVAL Quechua-Acc speak-PAST-3 PL-INT 'And in Lima, did they speak Quechua?' (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 227)

While it does seem that this suffix marks a constituent that is topical in nature, it also indicates the speaker's intentions. As such, it could be thought of as a syncretic morpheme specified for topic features and a possibly Evaluative Mood feaand surprise As we saw before, negation does ture, along with emotive not seem to block Agree in focus features but it does block Agree between the Speech Act or the Evaluative Mood head and a TP-internal constituent. One could think that as in the case of focus, negation does not block topic features.25 The locality restriction operates in this case too and negation blocks Agree in Evaluative Mood features as well as in Q features (let us recall that -ri is restricted to interrogative sentences). This is shown by the ungrammaticalityofthe following example:

-ya

-ma.

(73) *Mana ch'ullu-ta-ri ranti-waq-chu? NEG cap-ACC-TOP/EVAL buy-COND 2 S-NEG/INT 'And as for a cap, wouldn't you buy (a cap)?'

The blocking etrects are shown in the following representation:

24. Runasimi is another term used to mean Southern Quechua. Literally it means "tongue of man~ 25. This is consistent with the possibility of topicalizing the direct object in a negative sentence, as in: (i) Mana ch'ullu-ta-qa ranti-waq-chu. NEG cap-ACC-TOP buy-COND 2S-NEG ~ for a cap, I wouldn't buy one'

85

86


(74)

Sp ActP

~ Sp Act

~ Sp Act

Eval Mood P

~ [+Q]

Eval Mood'

~ Eval Mood

Top P

~ TopP'

~ Top

NegP

~ Neg'

~ Neg

TP

Mana~ chullu-ta-ri ranti-waq-chu

As in the previous cases, the blocking effect is overcome by checking Neg features on the Neg head as in: (75) Mana-chu ch'ullu-ta-ri ranti-waq? Not-INT cap-ACC-TOP buy-coND 2 s 'As for a cap. wouldn't you buy a cap?' This allows the checking Topic, Evaluative and Q features on the TP-internal direct object:


(76)

Sp ActP

~ SpAct

~ SpAct

EvalMoodP

~ [+Q]

Eval Mood'

~ Eval Mo d

Top P

~ Top'

~ Top

NegP

~ Neg'

~ TP

~

4.2.4 Quantified expressions, focus, and the suffix -chu

One of the most interesting characteristics of the suffix -chu is that, in addition to being the spell out of Q and/or Neg features, it is the spell out of Foe features and indicates the scope of focus over sentence-internal constituents. In polar questions, it focalizes a sub-constituent. This is shown in the following example: (77) Llapa.-n-ta-chu ra.nti-mu-rqa.-nki. 26 All-3 s-ACC-INT exchange-CIS-PAST-2 s 'Did you buy EVERYTHING?'

26. Llapa is a quantifier that can be marked for person agreement and has a restriction imposed by person as shown by the contrast between first person plural with an inclusive meaning and first person plural with an ex:dusive meaning:

87

88


In (77) -chu is affixed to the quantifier llapan. It is the spell out of Q features, but it is also the spell out of focus. 1his focalization introduces the expectation on the part of the speaker that the addressee has not been able to buy everything. The quantifier is focalized and is interpreted in a similar way in which a stressed constituent is interpreted in English: (78) Did you buy EVERYTHING? Given the ordering constraint assumed above, the focus feature in Foe must be valued before the Q feature. The derivation of (77) is: (79)

Sp ActP

~ Sp Act'

~ Sp Act

FocP

~ [+Q]

Foe'

~ TP

The answer to this question predictably has -chu as negative concord on the verb and the quantified direct object is marked as a topic:

(i)

napa-yku. All-1 PL EXCL "All of us" (with exclusion of the addressee)

(ii) Llapa-nchik.

All- 1 PL INCL 1\ll. of us' (including the addressee) It differs from tukuy that means also 'all' in that tukuy cannot be marked for person and therefore is not restricted. The negation of tukuy suggests that the speaker is expressing some form of

exhaustivity.

Chapter 4. Agree, morphological syncretism, and peripheral constituents 89 (80) Mana-m

llapan-ta-qa ranti-rqa-ni-chu.

NEG-FOC/EVID all-ACC-TOP buy-PAST-1 S- INT

'Not EVERYTHING' In (80) -chu is the spell out of Neg features (a negative concord marker) and is also the spell out of focus with scope over the whole sentence. Topic features are checked on the direct object and evidentiality features, checked last, are spelled out on the negative head mana as -m: (81)

EvidP ~ Evid' ~ Evid FocP

~ Foe' ~ Foe TopP ~ [+FOC] Top' ~ Top NegP

~ Neg' ~ Neg TP

Mana-m~ llapa-n-ta-qa mnti-mu-rqa-nki-chu

A division of labor can be observed in the distribution of the morphemes in (80): -m appears on mana only as the spell out of the evidential feature while -chu is the spell out of Neg and Foe.

90


Finally. while checking of Neg and Q on the Neg head is possible in a polar question, as shown in (82), the marker -chu is incompatible with other potentially negative markers such as -raq 'yet' in (83), but it is compatible with the focus/evidential marker as shown in (84): (82) Mana-chu miku-nki. NEG-INT eat-2 S 'Did (you) not eat?' (83) *Mana-raq-chuP NEG-CONTIN-NEG

'Not yet' (84) Mana-raq-mi. NEG-CONTIN-FO C/EVID

'Not yet' Cusihuaman (1976/2001: 244-245) classifies -raq as a specificational enclitic. Specificational enclitics appear before focus and topic enclitics and they specify the frequency of the action or the agent of the action. Sentence (83) is ungrammatical not because -raq appears before -chu given that they are not in complementary distribution. Their incompatibility stems from the fact that -1·aq is also marked for Neg features that cannot be checked twice. I take this to show that the syncretic nature of Southern Quechua morphology does not allow for the same feature to have two spell out forms in the same derivation. To summarize, in this sub-section I have shown that while Agree between some C-related heads such as Speech Act and Evaluative Mood and TP-internal constituents may be blocked by negation, the availability of syncretic morphology that can be affixed onto different constituents makes Agree with the head of NegP possible as a strategy to override blocking effects.

4·3 Morphology and the right periphery

In Chapter 3, I introduced two types of right-edge elements in Southern Quechua: morphologically marked topics and unmarked de-accented constituents. In order 27. This is ungrammatical with the negative interpretation but it is possible with the interrogative interpretation of -chu. Vidal Carbajal (p.c.) informs me that this is possible in some regions of .Apurimac, Peru as in (i). I would have to say that in these varieties -raq is not marked as inherently negative and has only an adverbial interpretation related to duration. (i)

Ma11a-raq-su. NEG-CONT-NEG

'Not yet"

Chapter 4. Agree, morphological syncretism, and peripheral constituents to account for morphologically marked topics on the right margin of the sentence, I sketched a proposal that follows Belleti's (2005) analysis of clitic-doubled DPs in Italian, according to which morphologically marked topics agree with a Topic head located between TP and VP. I also argued that not all constituents in the right margin are morphologically marked but rather exhibit peculiar PF properties such as breathy vowels, which indicates a more active role for phonological properties in the right peripheral area than in the left one. In this subsection, I present that proposal in more detail. First, I focus on the syncretic nature of a topic marker such as -qa as a marker of GIVENness, a term proposed by Schwarzschild (1999: 151), and saliency. Later, I discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a VP remnant analysis versus a right adjunction analysis of morphologically marked right material in Southern Quechua, and I adopt the right adjunction analysis. Finally. I suggest that non-salient given material are extra-clausal and do not enter Agree relations with the lower Topic head posited between TP and VP. Their right dislocation correlates with specific phonological properties that might be indicative of their extra clausal nature. 4.3.1 Are topic particles syncretic?

While the syncretic nature of morphemes such as -mi and -chu is apparent from their different interpretations and their distribution, it is not clear that the marker -qa belongs to the class of syncretic morphemes that are the spell out of multiple C-related categories. Wolck (1976: 3) proposes treating -qa as a focus marker based on the notion of saliency. He proposes that in examples such as (85) both -mi and -qa are interpreted as focalizing particles although he admits that the sentence is, as he puts it, "forced":

qu-n-mi wasi-ta-qa churi-n-man. (85) Tayta-n-qa Father-3 s-TOP give-3 s-Foc/EVID house-Ace-TOP son-3 s-DAT 'The father GAVE the house to his son' (first hand information) (Walck 1976: 4) The exact specification of -qa is of relevance in order to understand what the relationship is between the abstract feature [Topic] posited as the feature borne by the Topic head on the left periphery and its actual phonological counterpart. If -qa is multiply specified for topic understood as old information and for features that indicate a shift of topic in discourse, its availability as a substitute for -mi in contexts where evidentiality does not play a role and a shift in topic discourse is introduced would be an alternative to the evidentiality/focus syncretism exhibited by -mi. It would also account for Walck's (1976) intuition that -qa involves some saliency.

91

92

Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua In order to determine whether -qa is multiply specified for topic as old information and as a shift topic in discourse (not new information) and not for focus, it seems relevant to observe the restrictions imposed on -qa. Unlike the morpheme -mi, -qa is restricted only to DPs and adverbs, and it cannot be suffixed onto a verb, as shown in:

papa-ta-m Huwan. (86) *Ranti-rqa-n-qa Buy-PAST-3 s-TOP potato-Ace Huwan 'As for buying, it was potatoes that Huwan bought' The impossibility of attaching -qa to a conjugated verb is consistent with the impossibility of having inflected verbs in topicalized positions, which many languages exhibit. The following examples from Yiddish (Davis & Prince 1986: 1) illustrate this incompatibility: (87) a. Ikh red mame-loshn. I speak mama-language 'I speak Yiddish:

b. Redn!*red

red ikh mame-loshn. Speak/*speak speak I mama-language 'As for speaking, I speak Yiddish.'

(Davis & Prince 1986: 1)

Sentence (87b.) shows that it is not possible for a topicalized verb in Yiddish to appear in its conjugated form. Similarly, in languages such as Spanish, a fronted topicalized verb appears in infinitival form but not in conjugated form: (88) Bail-ar, no bail-a mucho. Dance-INF NEG dance-3 s much 'As for dancing, (s/he) doesn't dance much' (89) *Bail-a, no baila mucho. Dance-3 s, NEG dance-3 s much 'As for dancing, (s/he) doesn't dance much' As in Yiddish, the topicalized verb in (88) is an infinitive. In Southern Quechua, topicalized verbs are nominalizations: (90) Qilqa-y-ta-qa, mana-n muna-n-chu, pay-qa. Write-INF-ACC-TOP, NEG-FOC/EVID want-3 s-NEG, s/he-TOP 'As for writing s/he does not want to' What seems crucial for the grammaticality of (90) is the fact that the topicalized verb is outside the scope ofT which is lower than negation. One possible way of looking at these facts is to view the incompatibility between conjugated verbs and

Chapter 4. Agree, morphological syncretism, and peripheral constituents topic features as stemming from the need for a scopal relationship between an event operator in T and the conjugated verb. The event operator is compatible with focus features, that is, with information whose veridicality or lack thereof is asserted in the sentence but not with topic features that convey old information or a shift of topic in discourse. I will discuss the nature of the event operator in Chapter 6 and -qa as the morphological spell out of a shift in topic in Chapter 8. The distribution of -qa is in sharp contrast to the possibility of Agree between the Focus head and a conjugated verb inside TP discussed above. These facts indicate that -qa is marked for topic features and is not marked for focus. What then are the feature specifications of -qa? Constituents marked with -qa express saliency among given elements. They correspond to given information as defined by Schwarzschild (1999: 155): (91) GIVENness If a constituent is not F marked, it must be GIVEN. If one assumes that this constraint operates universally across languages, then in a sentence such as (85) in which the verb is interpreted as focused, only the verb is marked for focus features and the other constituents are given. However, not all of them are morphologically marked in Southern Quechua; the indirect object churin-man 'to his son' is not. For this reason, I would also like to propose that morphologically marked topics in Southern Quechua provide an indication of the degree of saliency of a given constituent and that Givenness is a feature associated to a Topic projection. Since more than one element in discourse can be both given and salient, multiple markings of more than one constituent with -qa are possible, although they are heavily restricted by the context. In this account, -qa is a marker of topic but it also indicates saliency. In a sentence such as (85), -qa marks given constituents that are salient. As we will see in Chapter 8, the marking of saliency is relevant when there are shifts in discourse topics. 4.3.2 Topic particles to the right There is, however, one important aspect in which focalized elements marked with the suffix -mi and topicalized constituents marked with -qa differ crucially and that is the fact that, unlike their focalized counterparts, topicalized constituents may appear in the right margins of the sentence, as the following contrast illustrates: (92)

*Mariya Xwana-man qu-n

lib1·u-ta-n. Mariya Xwana-DAT give-3 s book-Acc-Foc/EVID 'It is the book that Mariya gives to Xwana' (Muysken 1995: 383)

93

94


(93) Mariya-m Xwana-man qun libruta-qa. Mariya-Foc/EVID Xwana-DAT give-3 s book-Ace-TOP 'As for the book, Mariya gives to Xwana' There are two related factors that block constituents marked with focus and evidentiality features from sentence-final position. The first one is the fact that sentence-final constituents are the result of right-adjunction to vP. Right-adjunction obeys the Right Roof Constraint as formulated by Sabbagh (2007: 350) (based on previous proposals from Ross (1967: 5), Johnson (1986: 84), and McCloskey (1999: 207) among others). Under such a constraint, rightward adjunction is restricted to the cyclic node or phase to which a constituent is merged. I will assume that in the vP cycle in Southern Quechua, the configuration created by right adjunction creates a domain in which the vP is extended but no features of the higher C-domain are projected. The second factor is related to the syncretic nature of focus/evidential morphemes. Focus/evidential morphemes in Southern Quechua are the spell out of an Agree relation between an evidential operator in the C-domain and a constituent. Of great importance is that while focus can be spelled out by other multiply specified morphemes, evidentiality features can only be spelled out by -mi and -si morphemes. Once evidentiality features are checked they cannot be checked again. This makes the spell out of multiple foci by focus/evidential suffixes not a viable option. If in the lower domain created by right adjunction there is no evidential projection, no checking of focus/evidential features in the vP cycle is expected. It follows that right adjunction to vP is an operation that creates a checking domain for discourse related features inside TP. I would like to point out that the data in Southern Quechua is consistent with multiple topic phrases in a sentence, but they also indicate that only one Evidential Phrase is projected. For that reason, I would like to propose that the discourse related projection that mediates between TP and vP in Southern Quechua is TopP, a position previously proposed by Cecchetto (1999: 58) and Belletti (2005: 9) to account for the right dislocated constituents in right dislocation structures in Romance. This domain does not have a complex articulation such as the one in C. It lacks projections of categories such as Speech Act, Evaluative Mood, and Evidentiality. I will now present evidence against leftward VP-remnant movement that leaves the dislocated constituent to the right and in favor of a right adjunction analysis of morphologically marked right edge material in Southern Quechua. I will also present evidence in favor of the proposal that rightward adjunction creates a checking domain that is different from the higher C-level domain.

Chapter 4. Agree, morphological syncretism, and peripheral constituents There are at least two possible analyses that can be given for right dislocated material. The first one involves raising the object DP to the specifier of a higher TopP (as proposed by Belleti 2005: 5) and subsequent leftward VP remnant movement. Under such an analysis, the direct object in the right margin of the sentence in (94) moves to spec of TopP, and the remnant VP including the subject, the verb, and the trace of the topicalized direct object moves to a higher specifier, presumably spec ofTP. The corresponding representation is in (94): (94) Pirdu-m ruwa-rqa-n wasi-ta-qa. Pirdu-Foc/EVID build-PAST-3 s house-Ace-TOP 'As for the house, it was Pirdu who built it' (Attested) (95)

CP

~

C' ~

C

TP

~ vP

T'

[Pirdum t1 ruwarqan]J T

TopP

~ DP

Top'

\~

wasita-qa1 Top

vP1

~ In this remnant movement analysis, -qa is the spell out of an Agree relationship between the Topic head and the moved topicalized constituent. The motivation for movement of the direct object to the specifier of the lower TopP is not clear in this case, since there is no evidence of blocking effects by any category. In this analysis, the remnant vP moves to either Spec ofTP or spec of CP (one of the multiple layers). Neither is desirable given that the subject occupies the spec ofTP in order to satisfy EPP features and that the multiple specifiers of CP in Southern Quechua agree with functional heads specified for discourse-related features. An argument against this type of account for topicalized right constituents in Southern Quechua is that the remnant vP would have an unbound trace that is the result of scrambling of vP to spec of TP. There is significant evidence from

95

96


Germanic languages (Miiller 1996: 360-361, Miiller 1999: 361-362) that VP remnant movement takes place onlywhen topicalization of the remnant VP is involved and not when there is scrambling of the VP as shown by the following contrast: Topicalization

(96) [yp Dem Peter tj gegebenh hat die Claudia. einen Kuf3j tk Art PeterDAT tJ given has art ClaudiaNOM a kissAce tk 'Claudia gave Peter a kiss' (Miiller 1996: 361) Scrambling (97)

*daf3 [VP dem Peter

ti gegebenh die Claudia einen Kuf3i tk hat. That art PeterDAT ~ given art Claudia a kissAce tk has 'That Claudia gave Peter a kiss' (MUller 1996: 362)

In sentence (94), remnant movement of the VP would be a case of scrambling and not of topicalization to the left. As we saw before, a conjugated verb would not be allowed as a topicalized element and we also know that topicalized elements in the left margin are morphologically marked. On the other hand, support in favor of the VP-remnant movement analysis comes from the grammaticality of a bound interpretation for a topicalized expression, as shown in (98):

(98) [Sapankamama] 1 qhawa-nku [wawa-n-ta-qa] 1 [Each mother] see-3 PL [child-3-Acc-roP] 'Each mother(s) saw her child' Notice that when the quantified subject is fronted, and possibly merged in the higher TopP, a post verbal object can be also bound. (99) [Sapankamama-qa] 1 riku-rqa-nku [wawa-n-ta] 1 [Each mother-TOP] see-PAST-3 PL [child-3-ACC] 'All/each mother(s) saw her child'

As previously introduced in Chapter 3, another analysis, one in which the topicalized material is right adjoined, is possible. In the right adjunction analysis, the topic adjoins to the vP and agrees with the TP-internal Topic head, as shown in (100). 28 This analysis does not run into the same difficulties as the remnant VP movement analysis. The subject raises to spec of TP to check EPP features and there are no unbound traces. This analysis also accounts for the binding facts mentioned above.

28. See also Cardinaletti's (2002) analysis of right dislocation in Italian.


(100)

CP

~

C' ~

C

TP

~ DP T' Pirdum

T

TopP

~ Top'

~ Top vP

K

v

wasita-qa.1

/'--.. VP

v

/'--.. V' ~ V DP

t1

rikurqanku

t1

Having shown that a right adjunction analysis for morphologically marked topicalized constituents on the right margin of the sentence is more adequate than the VP-remnant analysis, I return now to the impossibility of a right dislocated focalized constituent. As mentioned before, right adjunction to vP generates a new domain dominated by TopP. That domain is opaque to Agree relationships between the higher evidential and focus heads in the C-domain and TP-internal material. Therefore, right dislocated focalized constituents are impossible because Agree cannot take place between the focalized constituent and the Focus head.

97

98


4·3·3 Other PF strategies: Breathy voice

If the proposal presented up to now is correct and the right periphery contains topicalized elements that are given and salient in discourse, then what happens to material that is given but not salient in discourse? We do not expect such constituents to be morphologically marked. They must be differentiated from the actual given and salient material. One possible strategy to do that would be to have them as extra-clausal right edge material. In fact, as we saw in Chapter 3, constituents on the right-edge of ditransitive sentences with non-canonical word orders have special PF properties. This is illustrated by sentence (31) in Chapter 3 (repeated here as in 101 for convenience) in which right-edge material does not receive primary stress and appears not to be part of the main intonational contour. (101) Hinaspa wasi-n-man apa-pu-sqa Then, house-3 S-DAT carry-REG-PAST

chay bieha-cha chay pichingu-cha. that old woman-DIM that little bird-DIM 'Then the old woman took the little bird to her house' This sentence has a ditransitive verb with an overt subject and an overt object right dislocated. The post verbal subject and the object in (101) are produced in a low register and with breathy voice vowels (see Chapter 3). I take this to indicate that in Southern Quechua narrative discourse, PF strategies are employed to convey the given nature of certain constituents that are not salient and therefore are not morphologically marked. I will return to a more detailed analysis of morphologically unmarked right detached material in discourse in the last chapter of the book. To summarize, in this chapter I have proposed that in Southern Quechua there is a highly structured left periphery that hosts a variety of discourse-related functional heads that enter into Agree relations with TP-internal constituents. Some of these Agree relations are blocked by negation. Alternative strategies such as Agree between the C-related functional heads and the head ofNegP allow the checking of C-related features. Material on the right periphery either agrees with a TP-internal Topic head, or is extra clausal and may have special PF properties.

CHAPTER

5

Clausal analyses and the left and right peripheries of DPs

In this chapter, I explore the consequences of extending the analysis proposed for the clausal left periphery to Determiner Phrases (DPs) in Southern Quechua. 1 In Chapter 4, I laid out a proposal that accounts for the distribution of focalized constituents in situ and in the left periphery based on Agree relations between C-related functional heads and TP-internal constituents. The Agree operation allows for the checking of left-peripheral features and syncretic morphology is the spell out evidence of these Agree relationships. In order to extend the clause-level proposal to the DR I present evidence of a D-related periphery in Southern Quechua and overt morphology indicative of Agree relationships between D-related elements and NP-internal constituents from wh-extractions out of DPs and nominalizations and from obligatory agreement between left peripheral constituents such as possessors and quantifiers and nouns. Since the original proposal by Chomsky (1970: 211) and the subsequent proposal by Szabolcsi (1983/4: 92), it has been assumed that possessor phrases are NP-internal subjects. This fact has highlighted the parallelism between Noun Phrases and clauses and two lines of research on such parallelism have emerged: one that focuses on the similarity in the properties of the lexical categories N and V and another one that is centered in the similarity in the properties of functional categories above N and V. In the first line of research, parallelisms have been found in the parametrization of noun movement modeled after verb movement, available in Romance languages but not in Germanic ones (Giorgi & Longobardi 1991, Longobardi 1994, Bernstein 1993). They have also been found in the availability of NP ellipsis modeled after VP ellipsis (Llombart-Huesca 2002, L6pez 2000, Lobeck 1995). A third one, that I adopt, is the idea that there are NP shells (Gutierrez-Rexach & Mallen 1999: 108, Sanchez 1996: 101) that are similar to the larsonian VP-shell (Larson 1988: 342). Despite analyses that have focused on parallelisms, a crucial distinction between Nand V remains. Only verbs or nouns with complex event structures select arguments (Grimshaw 1989: 5). While all main verbs with lexical content select at least an argument if they are intransitive verbs, nouns do not select arguments 1.

For a similar attempt regarding focus positions in Italian see Samek-Ludovici (2006).

100


obligatorily. This basic distinction has resulted in the second line of analysis that seeks similarities not in the properties of N and V as lexical categories but in the functional categories that are associated with the NP and VP projections. This new perspective was fostered by the minimalist idea that feature checking is one of the basic operations available to the computational system (Chomsky 1995: 229). This view contributed to move proposals in favor of a parallelism between NPs and VPs away from properties of the lexical heads and into the area of functional features and agreement (Carstens 2000: 320). One of the initial proposals that looked outside the realm of lexical categories was Szabolcs1s (1983/4: 92) original insight of a parallelism between clausal-level subjects and possessors as NP internal subjects. Szabolcsi's (1983/4: 92) proposal served as the basis of the DP hypothesis developed by Abney (1987: 286) which in turn open the field for proposals such as Gavruseva's (2000: 757) and Haegeman's (2004: 228) idea that the parallelism between NPs and VPs lies in the availability of A and A-positions as specifiers ofD, the highest functional projection in NPs. They propose that the complex structure of the D domain resembles that of C, the highest functional projection in the clause. The assumption that D heads noun phrases in a similar way as C heads sentences allowed Gavruseva (2000) to propose an extension of Rizzi's (1997: 237) proposal of an articulated C-domain to D. In an articulated D-domain, A-positions and A-positions in the left periphery might differ in their properties in the same way in which the properties of C and the articulation of C might differ cross-linguistically. Evidence in favor of this view comes from extraction facts in languages such as Hungarian in which the possessor is extracted out of DP. This fact contrasts with facts from Germanic languages in which possessors cannot be extracted. The following examples illustrate the contrast:

Extraction ofpossessor in Hungarian (1) [Ki-nek]k ismer-te-tek a [tk vendeg-e-0-t]? who-DAT knoW-PAST-2 PL the guest-POSS-3S-ACC 'Whose guest did you know?' (Szabolcsi 1983/4: 92)

Unavailability ofextra.ction in Germanic (2) ""Wessenk hast du [DP tk Buehl gelessen? Whose have you book read

(Gavruseva 2000: 745)

Gavruseva's (2000) account of this cross-linguistic difference is based on the availability of strong Q features in the D/ Agr domain in languages such as Hungarian thatallowovertmovementofthepossessor through the specifier ofDP. In Germanictype languages, Q features are weak and do not trigger overt movement 2 2.

See below for a more detailed presentation of Gavruseva's (2000) proposal

Chapter 5. Clausal analyses and the left and rlght peripheries ofDPs

In this chapter, I will further explore of the parallelism between Determiner Phrases and clauses in Southern Quechua in terms of their similarities and differences with respect to A positions in the C-domain. One of the main reasons for this exploration is the existence of certain similarities between DPs and clauses in Southern Quechua. The first one is the availability of possessor extraction out of nominalizations in Southern Quechua that indicates movement through the specifier of a high functional projection in NP/DP structures:3 Extraction out of nominalizations (3) Pi-qpa-ta1 muna-nki [t1platanu ranti-na-n-ta]? Who-GEN-ACC want- 2 s [t1 banana exchange-NOM-3 s-Acc 'Who do you want to buy bananas?' (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988) While the type of extraction cited by Lefebvre & Muysken (1988) is not accepted by all speakers of Southern Quechua in some varieties extraction of the object from inside a nominalization is allowed (Hipolito Peralta Ccama p.c.). That the object has been extracted out of the norninalization is evidenced by the fact that the genitive wh-word is marked with the accusative marker -ta and the focalizing suffix -n:

(4) Pi-qpa-ta-n platanu-ni-n ranti-na-n-ta muna-nki? Who-GEN-ACC-FOC/EVID banana-EUPH-3S buy-NOM-3 S-ACCwant-2s 'Whose bananas do you want him to buy? Another piece of evidence that supports the exploration of the parallelism in the marginal positions ofDP and CP in Southern Quechua is the fact that person features have a special role in the triggering of agreement between anN and a constituent in the left peripheryofDP. Some semantic relations such as possessor-possessed, part-whole and kinship structures require agreement in person features between a left peripheral possessor, the whole or the 'ego' of a kinship relationship, and N:

Possession (5) Mariya-p wasi-n. 4 Mariya-GEN house-3s 'Mary's house'

3· Southern Quechua lacks overt determiners and although I will later propose that D projects in Southern Quechua despite its phonologically null status, I will provisionally refer to NP/DPs in Southern Quechua. 4· Following normalization efforts we use -p for the genitive suffix that has been transcribed in the past as -q.

101

102.


Part-whole (6) Runtu-p yuraq-ni-n. Egg-GEN white-EUPH-3s 'The/An egg's white'

Kinship (7) Huwan-pa mama-n. Huwan-GEN mother-3s 'Huwan's mother'

Spatial (8) Huwan-pa qhipa-n. Huwan-GEN behind-3s 'Behind Juan'

(sanchez 1996: 159)

This need for agreement in person is also found in nominalizations in the relationship between the agent of the nominalization and the nominalized verb (sanchez 1996: 46): (9)

[Mariya-p

papa-(ta)

ranti-na-n-ta-n]

muna-ni.5

[Mariya-GEN potato-(ACC) buy-NOM-3S-ACC-FOC/EVID] want-1s 'I want Mariya to buy the potato' A third interesting parallelism between the C and the D domain in Southern Quechua is that like C, D does not have overt morphological expression in most varieties of Southern Quechua. An expression such as (10) could be interpreted as having a definite or indefinite subject and/or object: (10) Warmi-kuna-n papa-kuna-ta miku-rqa-nku. Woman-PL-Foc/EVID potato-PL-Ace eat-PAST-3 PL '(The/some) women ate (a/the) potatoes' Unlike determiners, demonstratives are overt: (11) Chay warmi-kuna-n papa-kuna-ta miku-rqa-nku. That woman-PL-FOC/EVID potato-PL-ACC eat-PAST-3S 'Those women ate (a/the) potatoes' The lack of overt Ds is parallel to the lack of complementizers in nominalizations:

yacha-ni. (12) Hamu-na-n-ta. Come NOM-3S-ACC know-1s 'I know that he is to come' 5·

(Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 58)

Some speakers reject the accusative marker -ta on the object of the nominali.zation.

Chapter 5. Clausal analyses and the left and rlght peripheries ofDPs 103

It has been argued by Lefebvre & Muysken (1988: 58) and noted in grammars that go as far back as the XVII century such as Gonzales Holguin's (1842/1607: 288) that in some cases an overt C is possible in some varieties of Southern Quechua: (13) Hamu-nqa chay-ta yacha-ni. Come-3FUT that-Ace know 1s 'I know that he will come'

(Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 58)

Examples (10)-(13) show that while D and C are usually absent in nominalizations and DPs, the same morpheme is used for a demonstrative determiner and a potential candidate for an overt C. However, this sentence is not accepted by all speakers as a grammatical one (Hip6lito Peralta Ccama). Despite differences across speakers, the existence of these three characteristics in some speakers grants a closer observation of the articulation of the D domain. Nevertheless, if one is to assume a parallelism in Southern Quechua between DPs and CPs of the type proposed by Gavruseva (2000: 744) and Haegeman (2004: 228), it is also crucial to determine its limits. There are important differences between the C and D domains that need to be explained in order to propose a principled account of how the syntax of the left periphery in CP and DP works. One of those differences is the unavailability of a set of discourse-related functional features that are projected or active in the left periphery of DP. Whereas nothing prevents peripheral positions in the left and right margins of DP from being available in the syntax, it is at least worth questioning the extent to which DPs contain grammatically valued speech and discourse-oriented features such as Speech Act, Evaluative Mood, Evidential Mood, and Epistemic Mood proposed by Cinque (1999: 71-76) in his hierarchy of CP-related features. Another important issue is to determine whether it is possible for focalized elements such as the ones proposed by Rizzi (1997: 237) to be placed at the margins of DP. Most of the morphemes that express those values in Southern Que chua are not interpreted at the DP-level but at the clausal level and they are barred from appearing inside nominalizations. With respect to the question of whether discourse-related features such as speech act or evidentiality could be projected inside DP, it is possible to argue that the difference between the D-domain and the C-domain stems from differences in their propositional content: CPs refer to propositions while DPs do not. The facts are a bit more complex because nominalizations in Southern Quechua have an intermediate status between expressions with some propositional content and DPs. They are closer to gerund constructions in English with respect to the fact that they have a categorically mixed status. As noted by Abney (1987: 15) and Grimshaw (2005: 30), gerunds in English have the external distribution ofDPs but they have the internal structure of VPs:

104


(14) I resent Marys eating cookies in front of me.

(Grimshaw 2005: 30)

In sentence (14) the gerund expression is a direct object but internally it has an object, a subject and even a prepositional phrase. This intermediate categorical status led Lefebvre & Muysken (1988) to label nominalizations in Southern Que chua 'mixed categories' because, despite their nominal nature, they exhibit properties that make them resemble main clauses. As introduced in Chapter 2, nominalizations like main clauses have tense specifications and subjects and like DPs they are marked for case. In sentence (9) repeated here as (15) we see that the nominalized verb ranti-sqa-n-ta 'buy-NOM PAST-3S-ACC' has a direct object complement and a subject internal to the nominalization and at the same time is marked for accusative case as it would correspond to any direct object DP: ranti-na-n-ta-n] muna-ni. (15) [Mariya-p papa-(ta) [Mariya-GEN potato-(ACC) buy-NOM-3 8-ACC-FOC/EVID] want-1S 'I want Mariya to buy the potato' The parallelism with VPs is not complete. As I discuss below, although nominalizations in Southern Quechua are marked for tense, the interpretation of tense in them is always relative to the tense of the main clause and can never be construed as independent (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988). Additionally; the subjects of nominalizations are marked with genitive and not with nominative case. These facts indicate that tense in nominalizations is defective. I will argue below that it is the defective nature of tense in nominalizations that is responsible for the fact that, although an articulateD-domain is available in Southern Quechua, speech -oriented features such as speech act or evidentiality that are predicated of an independent event cannot be checked in nominalizations. While a defective tense specification in nominalizations precludes the projection of extended projections (Grimshaw 2005: 2) related to an independent event such as Speech Act Phrase, Evidential Phrase and others, it is still possible for DPinternal constituents to be specified for other features such as wh-features, focus, or topic features. Since these features are projected at the C-level, a complex articulation of the C-domain and the D-domains is required for their interpretation. I will propose that the complex articulation of the D-domain in Southern Quechua allows movement through the specifier of DP/AgrP to check Q, topic and focus features residing in the C domain. In the proposal presented here, strong person features in D/ Agr and the projection of a Nominalizer Phrase (NomP) internal to the DP that mediates between a VP and DP/AgrP generate multiple specifier positions from which wh-words and focalized NPs move to the left edges ofDP/AgrP. This makes wh-expressions and focalized constituents accessible for feature checking of wh-, topic or focus


features in the main clause either through Agree between a probe in the C-domain and a constituent in the periphery of DP or through further movement of a constituent through spec ofDP/ AgrP to the left periphery of the main clause. Relative tense features, on the other hand, are responsible for the licensing and interpretation of null subjects inside nominali:zations and for some differences in case assignment with respect to constituents extracted out of the NomP. The chapter is organized as follows. In the first section, I present the distribution of strong agreement inside DP and a proposal for an analysis of thematic relationships of the possessor-possessed type that relates the projection of a syncretic D/Agr category to NomP and the VP internal to NomP. Then, I present evidence from quantified phrases, NP ellipsis and the licensing of genitive and null subjects for an Agree relationship between constituents in the specifier of NPs or NomP and a higher D/Agr head. In the second section, I present data from wh-extraction, focalization, topicalization and discontinuous DP that support the view that the activation of the left-peripheryofDP is crucial for checking ofC-level features when Agree is blocked. The last section deals with wh-extraction from NomP and with the impossibility of checking discourse-oriented features internally to the nominalized clause.

5.1 Strong person agreement in NP

In this section, I introduce some of the main properties of Southern Quechua DP/ NPs related to the activation of the left periphery in DP. The first one is the availability of strong person agreement features inside Southern Quechua DPs. These are morphologically expressed on the noun or the nominali:zation when it has a specifier with which it has a thematic relation. These specifiers differ from adjuncts that are not thematically related to the noun, as shown by the different relationship that they bear with the noun: (16) Hatun wasilkikin-cha-sqa. 6 Big house/self-FACT-NOM 'A/the big house/picture'

6. While in Sanchez (1996: 148) I used the Spanish loan ritratu, in this book an effort ls made to use expressions that are closer to the normalized forms. Rather than using a Spanish loan. actual nominalizations are used. In the case of (18) and (20) the nominalization ls formed on the basis of the root kikin 'self' to which the verbalizer -cha and the norolnallzing suffix -sqa are affixed. In the case of (19) the nominalization ls formed by the root llimp'i 'paint' and the nominalizing suffix -sqa. This suffix ls

105

106


[Maduna-p]

kikin-cha-sqa-n.

[Maduna-GEN] self- FACT-NOM-3 S 'Madona's picture' In (16) there is no agreement in person features between the noun or the nominalization and the adjective, presumably an adjunct, while in (17) there is agreement in person and number between the theme Maduna and the nominalization kikinchasqan 'her picture'. Additionally, the theme is marked with genitive case- In this particular example, -sqa is the nominalizing suffix used. There are three other nominalizers in Southern Quechua:-na, -y and -q (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 208-210, Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 65). In this paradigm, -sqa is the nominalizer that has a relative tense that is anterior to that of a main verb if the nominalization is a subordinate clause, -na has a posterior relative tense, -y is the infinitive marker and -q the agentive (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 209, Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 65). Themes, agents, possessors (18)-(20) and other elements in part-whole, kinship and spatial relationships (see (6)-(8) above) are thematically related to anN or to the v in a nominalization and require agreement in person with N or Nom:

kikin-cha-sqa -n. (theme) (18) [Maduna-p] [Maduna-GEN] self-FACT-NOM-3 S 'Madona's picture' llimp'i-sqa-n. (agent) (19) [Marcela-p] [Marcela-GEN] paint-NOM-3 S 'Marcela's picture' (20)

[Mariya-p]

kikin-cha-sqa -n. (possessor)

[Mariya-GEN] self-FACT-NOM -3S 'Mariya's picture'

(sanchez 1996: 148)

In all these examples, themes, agents, and possessors bear genitive case expressed by the suffix -p (pronounced q) or its allomorphs -pa, -qpa. The nominalizations in these DPs are obligatorily marked with a person/number morpheme (the lack of person marking results in ungrammaticality):

kikin-cha-sqa. (theme, agent or possessor) (21) *[Maduna-p] [Maduna-GEN] self-FACT-NOM 'Madona's picture' Agreement with first singular and first plural (inclusive and exclusive), second singular an plural and third plural is also possible indicating a complete and robust paradigm of morphological markers of agreement:

Chapter 5. Clausal analyses and the left and rlght peripheries ofDPs (22) Nuqa-p kikin-cha-sqa-y. I-GEN self-FACT-NOM-1 s '(Of me) my picture' (23) Nuqa-nchik-pa kikin-cha-sqa-nchik. We-1 INCL-GEN self-FACT-NOM-1 INCL '(Of us) our picture' (including the hearer) (24) Nuqa-yku-pa kikin-cha-sqa -yku. We-1 EXCL-GEN self-FACT-NOM-1 EXCL '(Of us) our picture' (excluding the hearer) (25)

Qam-pa kikin-cha-sqa -yki. You-GEN self-FACT-NOM-2 s '(Of you) your picture'

Another characteristic of these DPs is that a strict ordering of arguments must be maintained. The agent precedes the theme, as shown in examples (27)-(29) which are the object in sentence (26): (26)

Qayna Punchay .... -ta riku-rqa-ni. Yesterday... -Acc see-PAST-1s 'Yesterday I saw

(27) Maduna-p llimp'i-sqa-n. ('!heme) Maduna-GEN paint-NOM-3S 'Madonna's picture' (28) Marcela-p Maduna-ta llimp'i-sqa -n (Agent, Theme) Marcela-GEN Madona-Acc paint-NOM-3 s 'Marcela's picture of Madona' (29) *Maduna-ta Marcela-p llimp'i-sqa -n. (Theme, Agent) Madona-Acc Marcela-GEN paint-NOM-3 s 'Marcela's picture of Madona' Given the nature of the nominalization, only one subject is allowed, the agent. Adding a possessor results in ungrammaticality: (30) *Luchu-qpa Marcela-p Maduna-ta llimp'i-sqa -n. (Possessor) Luchu-GEN Marcela-GEN Maduna-Acc paint-NOM-3 s 'Luis' picture of Madona by Marcela' Right dislocation of the theme or the agent is not possible either:

107

108


(31)

*[Ma~ila-p

llimp'i-sqa-n Maduna-ta] riku-ni. Marsila-GEN paint-NOM-3 s Maduna-Acc see-1 s 'I see a picture of Madona by Marcela'

(32) *[Maduna-ta llimp'i-sqa-n Marsila-p] Maduna-Acc paint-NOM-3 s Marsila-GEN 'I see a picture of Madona by Marcela'

riku-ni. see-1 s

These examples show that the hierarchy in the canonical word order of thematic arguments in nominalizations cannot be broken by right dislocation. The hierarchy and the requirement that the nouns and the nominalizations in these expressions receive overt person agreement marking can be explained by positing that two factors coincide in the grammar of Southern Quechua to make this distribution possible. In the case of agents and themes, the main factor is the availability of NomP that provides a structural configuration in which thematic relationships of the type involved in these constructions can be established inside a lower VP and then the subject of the lower DP can raise to the specifier ofNomP. The other factor is the parametric selection of strong person agreement features in Southern Quechua. While one could argue that NomP could be available in most languages that exhibit a similar hierarchical expression of thematic relations, what makes Southern Quechua di:trerent is the fact that these relationships require an additional step: an Agree relationship must be established between an Agr head and thematically-related DP-internal constituents. In the next sub-section, I introduce a proposal to explain the consequences of assuming a NomP projection and strong person agreement features inside DPs for Southern Quechua. 5.1.1

NomP and AgrP/DP

Gavruseva's (2000) split DP analysis is based on Szabolcsi's (1983/4: 90), according to which there is an INFL or AGR projection internal to DP. Previous work on Southern Quechua (Lefebvre & Muysk.en 1988: 157 and Sanchez 1996: 176) has proposed a similar analysis. Gavruseva (2000: 757) labels this projection Agr/D and in her analysis D dominates it. The possessor NP occupies the specifier of AgrP/DP and possessor extraction is possible through the specifier of the higher DP. My proposal differs from Gavruseva's (2000: 757) in that I argue that strong person features in Southern Quechua are assigned to the head of this maximal projection and act as a probe for which the same feature specification inN or Nom is a goal. In Southern Quechua the higher D proposed by Gavruseva (2000: 757) is unmarked for person features and in Southern Quechua as well as in most varieties of Quechua it is phonologically null. The projection of NomP allows the


projection of different specifiers for themes and agents. The assignment of genitive case to the agent takes place under Agree with the head of AgrP/DP (the higher DP level is omitted): (33)

Agr/DP

~ Agent1 Agr' /D'

\~ Agr/D

NomP

[+Person] t 1

Nom' ~ Nom vP

[+ N]

~ Theme v' ~ v

The strong N features in the Nom head act as a probe and check the [+N] features in the verb root that license the nominalization. Once the strong features of Nom have been checked, the strong person features in Agr are checked by Agree between the Agr head and the nominalized verb. Both features are spelled out in the morphology. The agent in the specifier of NomP raises to spec of AgrP/DP and is in the checking domain of Agr/D. It checks genitive case features by Agree with Agr/D. In the case of possessor DPs, the possessor is generated in the spec of AgrP/DP:

109

uo Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua (34)

Agr/DP

~ DP

Agr'/D'

\

~

Possesor

Agr/D

NomP/NP

~ [+Person]

Nom'IN'

~ Nom/N

vP

~ [+ N]

Theme

v'

~

In this analysis, the ungrammaticalityof sentences with both a possessor and an agent DP (seen in example (30)) is accounted for by the fact that both would have to occupy the spec of AgrP/DP and both value their case features by Agree with Agr/D. When person features are not part of the numeration, DPs in Southern Quechua have a simple representation in which adjectives precede nouns but exhibit no agreement (in person, gender or number): 7 (35)

[Hathun wasi-ta]

ruwa-rqa-yku.

[Big house-Ace] mak.e-PAST-1 EXCL '(We) built a big house' On the basis of these data, I propose that it is only when person features are part of the numeration that thematic relations are licensed in Southern Quechua. The syntactic projection that allows the thematic relations to be expressed is AgrP/DP. In Southern Quechua AgrP/DP is the extended functional projection that licenses thematic relations inside NP or NomP in the same fashion as TP is the extended functional projection that licenses some thematic relations inside VP.

7· Although nouns may be marked for plurality, agreement in number with adjectives is not grammatical: (i) *Puka-kuna wasi-kuna. Red-PL

house-PL

'Red houses'


5.1.2 Floated quantifiers

Another source of evidence in favor of positing a complex D-articulation related to strong person features in Southern Quechua is the class of subject-oriented quantifiers that are inflected for person features and trigger obligatory subject agreement on the verb (Muysken 1994: 191-192). The following examples from sanchez (1996: 229) illustrate the pattern: (36) Kiki-n-mi punku-ta kicha-n. Self-3 s-Foc/EVID door-Ace open-3 s '(She/he) opens the door (by him/her)-self' (attested)

punku-ta-qa kicha-nku. (37) Kiki-nku-n Self-3PL-FOC/EVID door-Ace-TOP open-3 PL '(They) open the door (by them)-selves' (38) Sapa-lla-n-mi punku-ta-qa kicha-n. Alone-LIM-3s-Foc/EVID door-Ace-TOP open-3 s '(She/he) opens the door alone'

punku-ta-qa kicha-nku. (39) Sapa-lla-nku-n Alone-LIM-3PL-FOC/EVID door-Ace-TOP open-3 PL '(They) open the door alone' Although not discussed by Muysken (1994), the quantifier kuska 'together' belongs to the class of obligatory inflected quantifiers: (40) Kuska-ni-nka-n punku-ta kicha-nku. 8 Together-EUPH-3 PL-FOC/EVID door-Ace open-3PL '(They) open the door together:

In most varieties of Southern Quechua, these quantifiers must agree in person and number features with the verb, as shown by the ungrammaticality of the following sentences:9

8. In some varieties of Southern Quechua (Apurimac) person agreement with kuska is not allowed.

(i)

(Paykuna) kuska

punku-ta kicha-nku.

(They) together door-Ace open-3 PL "They opened the door together" (Vidal Carbajal pc.) 9· Vidal Carbajal (p.c.) points out that it has become common nowadays among Southern Quechua speakers who are bilingual in Southern Quechua and Spanish to not have obligatory agreement in number between the quantifier and the noun.

111

112


(41) *Kiki-n punku-ta kicha-nku. Self-3 s door-Ace open-3 PL '(Pro) open the door (by him/her)-self'

punku-ta kicha-nku. (42) *Kuska-n Together-LIM-3 s door-Ace open-3 PL '(Pro) open the door together' punku-ta kicha-nku. (43) *Sapa-lla-n Alone-LIM-3 s door-Ace open-3PL '(Pro) opens the door alone' Muysken (1994: 198) notices that Person Agreement in this case is not the type of person agreement triggered by a genitive as in the case of: (44)

[Nuqa-nchik-pa mama-nchik] hamu-n. [l-1 INCL-GEN mother-liNCL] come-3PL 'Our (incl.) mother comes'

In (44), agreement on the verb is triggered by the fact that the noun mama-nchik 'our mother' is interpreted as a third person plural. This means that in (36)-(40) the quantifier agrees in person and number features with the verb. A non-quantificational DP is not marked by such agreement as shown by: (45) Hu·wan-(*ni-n) hamu-n. Huwan-EUPH-3s come-3 s 'Huwan comes' The structure proposed in (46) accounts for the obligatory nature of person and number morphology on the quantifier and for the agreement between the quantifier and the verb, as well as for the licensing of the null DP subject in (36)-(40). If the quantifiers are in the specifier of AgrP/DP and Agr/D is a probe that checks strong person and number features in Q, then agreement between the quantifier and Agr/D follows. The strong person features in Agr/D are also responsible for the licensing of the null NP under c-command. This is shown in: (46)

Agr/DP

~ QP

Agr'/D'

\~ Agr/D

NP

\____,t


In addition to being marked for person and number features and licensing null NPs, these quantifiers can modify a proper noun (presumably a DP following Longobardi's 1994 proposal) or a pronoun: (47) Mariya-n sapa-lla-n punku-ta. kicha-n. Mariya-FOC/EVID alone-LIM-3 8 door-ACC open-3 S 'Mariya opens the door on her own (48) Pay kiki-n-mi punku-ta kicha-n. He self-3 8-Foc/EVID door-Ace close-3 8 'He himself opened the door' The post-nominal position of the quantifier is significant evidence of the non-adjectival nature of the quantifier given that adjectives are always pre-nominal in Southern Quechua as shown by the ungrammaticality of (SO) when compared to (49): (49) Hathun wasi. Big house 'Big house'

(SO) *Wasi hathun. House big 'Big house' In fact, unlike adjectives and determiners, these quantifiers are not possible in prenominal position: (51) *Sapa-lla-n Mariya punku-ta kicha-n. Alone-LIM-38 Mariya door-Ace open-3 8 'Mariya alone opens the door' The quantifier may precede the noun but only if it has been fran ted for focalization purposes: (52) Sapa-lla-n-mi Mariya-qa punku-ta kicha-n. Alone-LIM-38-FOC/EVID Mariya-TOP door-Ace open-3 8 'It was alone that Mariya opens the door' (attested) In addition to not showing the distribution of adjectives, these quantifiers have another characteristic that is compatible with the idea that they are floated (Muysken 1994: 196, Sanchez 1996: 229): they are marked for focus/evidentiality markers shown in examples (48) and (52). As noted by Muysken (1995: 380) and mentioned in Chapter 3, morphological markers of focus/evidentiality are not possible on determiners or on adjectives or any sub-part of a DP constituent, as shown in:

114 Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua

(53) *Chay-mi wasi-ta. That-FOC/EVID house 'That house' (based on an example from Muysken 1995: 380) Another important aspect of the distribution of these quantifiers that supports the idea that they are floated is the fact that they behave as floated quantifers in English with respect to the verb 'to be' as proposed by BoSkovic (2004: 694). BoSkoviC's (2004: 690) analysis of floated quantifiers follows earlier proposals (Sportiche 1988, Deprez 1989, Giusti 1990, Shlonsky 1991, Benmamoun 1999, among others) according to which floated quantifiers are left-adjoined to DPs and involve stranding. In Boskovies (2004) analysis floated quantifiers cannot be adjoined to DPs in theta positions. So they must be adjoined acyclically to the subject once it has been raised out of the Spec ofVP. This is shown by the contrast between (54) and (55): (54) ""They are being all noisy. (55) The students could be all failing the exam. Boskovic (2004: 694) proposes that in sentence (54) the "floated" quantifier is in the specifier ofVP, in a theta-marked position, and for that reason it is blocked. In sentence (55) the structure is more complex than in (54) and be takes as its complement a VP projection whose specifier is occupied by the subject as in: (56) The students1could be [VP [all~] t1[VP ~ Vailing the exam]]

In BoskoviC's (2004) analysis there is short movement of the verb from the lower VP to the higher VP. Adjunction of the quantifier takes place in the specifier of the highest VP (a non-theta position). Later raising of the subject to the specifier ofiP leaves the quantifier stranded. A parallel distribution can be found with quantifiers that agree in person with the DP in Southern Quechua. 10 While the quantifier is not allowed with a predicative phrase or with stative verbs it is allowed with other verbs, as shown in the following pairs of contrasting sentences.

sumaq-mi. (57) ""Sapa-lla-n Alone-LIM-3 s beautiful-Foc/EVID '(Pro) is beautiful alone'

In Sanchez (1996: 14), I attributed this distribution to sensitivity to the stative versus nonstative nature of the verb. Some speakers accept the quantifier in (57) if it is a topic as in:

10.

(i)

Sapa-lla-n-qa sumaq-mi. Alone-LIM- 3S-TOP beautiful- FOC/E VID 1\.lone, it is beautiful'


(58) Sapa-lla-n-mi punku-ta kicha-n. Alone-LIM-3 s-Foc/EVID door-Ace open 3 s '(Pro) opens the door alone' (59)

*Kiki-lla-n-mi

tiya-n. Self-LIM-3 s-Foc/EVID stay-3 s '(Pro) stays himself'

(60) Kiki-lla-n-mi rima-n. Self-LIM-3 s-Foc/EVID speak-3 s '(Pro) speaks himself' Sentence (57) illustrates a sentence with an elided verb kay 'to be' and (59) an example with a stative verb. 11 If we assume that in (57) there is a structure in which the quantifier is in the spec of the VP headed by a null verb kay 'to be, then according to Boskovic's analysis the quantifier is banned because it is in a theta position. The quantifier is allowed when there is more structure as in:

ka.-spa-qa sumaq-mi. (61) Mariya sapa-lla-n Mariya alone-LIM-3 s be-ss-TOP beautiful-Foc/EVID 'Mariya is beautiful when she is alone' I take this to indicate that in the case of non-stative verbs there is more structure, presumably an Aspectual Phrase in whose specifier the quantifier can be licensed and where it is left stranded. The quantifier lacks a viable interpretation if the VP is stative and acquires an adverbial interpretation if it is non-stative. Further support for the distribution of these quantifiers correlates with the distribution of different types of coordination in Southern Quechua (Sanchez 1996: 279-281, Camacho & sanchez 1996: 31-35). There are three coordination suffixes in Southern Quechua -wan, -nti, and -pas and its allomorph -pis (Cusihuaman 1976/2001: 237-240). They differ in interpretation as shown in the following examples (modeled after Calvo Perez 1993: 192):

u. In Southern Quechua the verb ka-y 'to be' ls not phonologically overt in predicative sentences in the third person but it is overt in other persons: (i) *Mariya sumaq ka-n. Mariya beautiful be-3 s 'Mariya is beautiful' (ii)

Nuqa sumaq I beautiful 'I am beautiful'

ka-111. be-l s

116


Warmi-kuna-n

qhari-kuna-wan llaqta-man puri-rqa-nku.

Woman-PL-Foc/EVID man-PL-CONJ town-DAT walk-PAST-3 PL 'The women and the men marched to town (in two separate groups)' (63)

Warmi-kuna-n

qhari-kuna-nti-n llaqta-man puri-rqa-nku.

Woman-PL-Foc/EVID man-PL-CONJ-3 s town-DAT walk-PAST-3 PL 'The women and the men marched to town (in a mixed group)' (64)

Warmi-kuna-pas qhari-kuna-pas llaqta-man puri-rqa-nku. Woman-PL-ADD man-PL-ADD-3s town-DAT walk-PAST-3 PL 'The women as well as the men marched to town (in separate groups in separate events)'

In terms of their semantic content -wan behaves as a distributive coordinator, whereas -nti behaves as a collective coordinator and -pas as an additive coordinator in the sense that it groups the referents of two DPs but it does not imply that both DPs share a common theta role in a particular event The distribution of these suffixes is also sensitive to the stative or non-stative nature of the VP. Thus, coordination of statives is grammatical with -wan and marginal with -pas but definitely ungrammatical with -nti as shown in: (65)

Wasi-y

wasi-yki-wan

sumaq

ka-nku.

House-l s house-2 s-CONJbeautiful be-3 PL 'My house and your house are beautiful' (66)

Wasi-y

wasi-yki-pas

sumaq

ka-nku.

House-l s house-2 s-ADD beautiful be-3 PL 'My house and your house are beautiful'

wasi-yki-nti sumaq ka-nku. (67) *Wasi-y House-l shouse-2 s-CONJbeautiful be-3 PL 'My house and your house are beautiful' I take this distribution to show that coordination with -nti as well as quantification is sensitive to the stativity of the VP. That is, both the aspectual quantifier and the collective coordinator are not grammatical when the VP is stative. It is possible to have the aspectual quantifier kuska 'together' associated with a distributive coordination that is the subject of a non-stative VP, but this is not possible when the verb is stative:


(68) Huwan Mariya-wan kuska-nku puri-nku. Huwan Mariya-CONJ together-3 PL walk-3PL 'Huwan and Mariya walk together' (69) ?Wasi-y wasi-yki-wan kuska-nku sumaq ka-nku. House-1s house-2s-cONJ together-3 PL beautiful be-3 PL 'My house and your house are beautiful' This indicates that the quantifier is sensitive to the stativity of the VP. Given its sensitivity to the stative versus non-stative nature of the VP and following a previous proposal in Sanchez (1996: 281), I would like to argue that agreeing quantifiers as well as conjunctions are marked for aspectual features. These aspectual features force them to be licensed only in a non-theta position, the specifier of AspP. Once they are separated from the DP in spec of AspP, they become available to Agree, independently from the subject, in focus/evidentiality features with the highest projections at the dausallevelP The proposal is as follows. The subject DP Sapallan Mariya 'Mariya alone' is generated in spec of VP. The NP Mariya moves from its original position as a complement of Agr/D to the specifier of the higher DP where it checks D features with the D head. I assume that Southern Quechua has a null determiner and that in order for the NP Mariya. to have a referential meaning it must check D features with the null D. From that position, Mariya moves to the specifier ofTP.The quantifier starts out in the specifier of the AgrP /DP projection where it checks its strong person features but its aspectual features cannot be checked by Agree because DP acts as an opaque domain for this checking, thus blocking c-command of the quantifier by the aspectual head. So, it moves to spec of AspP. The subject is the goal of an Agree relation in which the Focus and Evidentiality heads (not shown in the representation) are the probes:

In Sanchez (1996: 17), I proposed that the quantifier is coindexed with a pro in subject position but not adjoined to DP and therefore it is not stranded. I do not follow that line of analysis here.

12.

us


(70)

FocP

~ Foe'

~ Foe [+FOC]

TP

T'

Mariya-n 1

/'-._ T

AspP

QP~ sapa.-lla-ni~

Asp

vP

~ DP

vP

~

-~

t 1 AgrP/DP punkuta

kichan

~ QP1

Agr'/D'

~ Agr/D

NP tl

The class of aspectual quantifiers that are marked for strong agreement in Southern Quechua illustrates how the splitting of the left periphery inside DP allows for a complex interaction between Agree and Move in order to satisfy C-related features such as focus/evidentiality using syncretic morphology and aspectual features. The availability of spec of DP as an escape-hatch for movement out of DP extends in Southern Quechua beyond wh- and possessor extraction. It allows for the extraction of a quantifier which checks aspectual features while the subject checks focus and evidentiality features. 5.1.3 Discontinuous DPs

Additional evidence in favor of the availability of an active left periphery in Southern Quechua DPs is the existence of discontinuous DPs. These discontinuous DPs


are characterized by allowing the separation of a noun and the adjective that modifies it. Whereas it has been claimed that it is possible to have a fronted NP or a fronted modifier such as an AP, the fronting of the modifier is accepted as grammatical by most speakers but the fronting of the NP is not by some speakers (Hip6lito Peralta Ccama p.c.). Example (71) illustrates the case of a continuous DP, while (72) that of a discontinuous DP in which the AdjP is fronted and focalized. Example (73) has been cited in the literature as grammatical but two of the consultants for this book found it ungrammatical (Vidal Carbajal for Apurimac Quechua and Hip6lito Peralta Ccama for Cuzco Quechua), even when the NP was focalized as in example (74) (Hipolito Peralta Ccama p.c.): Continuous DPs

(71) [Hathun runa-ta-n] 1·iqsi-ni. Big man-Acc-Foc/EVID know-1 s 'I know a/the big man' Discontinuous DPs

(72) [Hathun-ta-n] nqst-m [runa-ta-qa]. Big-Acc-Foc/EVID know-1 s man-ACC-TOP 'I know a/the big man' (73) [Runa-ta] riqsi-ni [hathun-ta]. Man-Ace know-1 s big-Ace 'I know a big man' (Hastings 2003: 40, Lefebvre & Muysk.en 1988: 143) (74) *[Runa-ta-n] nqst-m [hathun-ta]. Man-Acc-Foc/EVID know-1 s big-Ace 'I know a big man' In spite of the tact that, in the past, floated quantifiers and discontinuous DPs have received a unified analysis in Southern Quechua (see Hastings 2003), I will approach subject-oriented quantifiers and discontinuous DPs as different phenomena. Following Fanselow & Fery's (2007) work, I propose that there are two sources for discontinuous DPs in Southern Quechua. One involves movement to the left of the sentence and the other involves right-marginalization. One type of discontinuous DP has been classified as simple (when the canonical word order is respected, in this case Adjective-Noun) whereas the other has been labeled inverted (when the canonical word order is altered, in this case Noun-Adjetive) (Fanselow & Fery 2007). According to Fanselow & Fery (2007: 7), one of the properties strongly associated with discontinuous DPs is the fact that one of the sub-constituents of the

120


discontinuous DP is in an A-bar position. That property does not characterize subject-oriented floated quantifiers in Southern Quechua, as we saw in the previous sub-section. The subject and the quantifier start and end in an A-position.B Another important characteristic that distinguishes adjectives in discontinuous DPs from quantifiers in subject position is that, when an adjective modifies a noun in subject position, discontinuity is not possible:

hathun. (75) *Runa hamu-sqa-n Man come-PAST-3 s big 'A big man came' (76)

*Hathun hamu-sqa-n

runa.

Big come-PAST-3 s man 'A big man came'

In fact, most of the examples of discontinuous D Ps in Southern Quechua discussed in the literature are cases involving a noun and a modifier in a direct object position such as those shown in (72) and (73). Another characteristic of discontinuous DPs in Southern Quechua is that, unlike subject-oriented floated quantifiers, adjectives precede the noun in Southern Quechua in the continuous DP as shown in (71). This fact contrasts with the impossibility of having a floating quantifier precede a noun in subject position, as shown in (51). Discontinuous NPs in Southern Quechua have been analyzed previously in the literature on Southern Quechua along with cases of subject-oriented quantifiers (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988, Hastings 2003: 47-48) as involving movement or "floating" of the modifier. A competing analysis was given in sanchez (1996: 130) according to which the modifier is stranded and the noun moves. In the analysis presented here, discontinuous DPs in examples such as (72) involve movement of the adjective to the specifier of DP and then its further movement to the left periphery of the sentence. 0 ne crucial property of discontinuous DPs noted by Hastings ( 2003: 40-41) is that they differ from their continuous counterpart in their interpretation. While continuous DPs are ambiguous as to whether they are interpreted as definite or indefinite, discontinuous DPs are interpreted as definite. This is shown in the following contrast:

riku-rqa-nki-chu? (77) Hathun wasi-ta Big house-Ace see-PAST-2 s-INT 'You saw a/the big house'

13. That does not preclude that further left or right marginalizing of the quantifier could take place but I will argue that that is an independent phenomenon from the actual floating to spec of AspP.

Chapter 5. Clausal analyses and the left and rlght peripheries ofDPs t:n

(78) #Hathun-ta wasi-ta riku-rqa-nki-chu? Big-Ace house-Ace see-PAST-2 s-INT 'Did you see a house?'

(Hastings 2003: 42)

Whereas (77) is appropriate in a context in which speaker and addressee have previously seen a house, (78) is not because its interpretation is that of an indefinite DP. In her analysis, Hastings (2003: 44) follows Diesing's (1992) proposal for definiteness effects as a result of the VP-external position of a DP. In order to be interpreted as definite a DP must escape the VP. 14 Assuming (78) is grammatical for some speakers, I propose an alternative analysis of the discontinuous DP in (78) that makes use of the DP left periphery. The modifier AP hatun 'big: an adjunct to the NP runa 'man: moves to the spec of DP where it is marked for case. I will argue that it is movement of a constituent to spec of the higher DP and out of the NP that is responsible for the definite reading. In spec of DP the moved constituent is interpreted as definite in the same way in which possessors are interpreted as definite. The other cases of discontinuous DPs illustrated in (72) and (73) represent cases of mirror image movements. In (72) the modifier AP is in spec ofDP where it receives case and it remains inside the VP. There is right adjunction of the NP to VP. In (73), for those speakers that consider it grammatical, the NP remains in situ, the modifying AP moves to spec of DP and from there it right adjoins to VP. The following example shows right adjunction of the AP modifier to VP: (79) [0 p t 1 Rumi chakra-ta-n] [yp riku-rqa-ni [hathun-ta]J [ 0 p t1 Stone field-Acc-Foc/EVID] lvP see-PAST-1 s [big-Acc] 1] 'I saw the big stone field' The reason why these constructions are similar to floated quantifiers is the availability of a left peripheral position in DP. This left peripheral position allows further movement. For instance, in the case of some post verbal quantifiers that appear in the right margin of the sentence, right adjunction of the QP to TP is possible after movement of the QP to the spec of AspP:

hamu-sqa-n, sapa-lla-n. (80) Runa-n Man-Foc/EVID come-PAST-3 s, alone-LIM-3s 'A man came alone' (attested) As for the impossibility of discontinuous DPs in subject position with intransitive verbs as in (75) and (76), one possible explanation is that when AspP is not projected the full subject DP raises to spec of TP to satisfy EPP features and adjunction to vP is precluded. 14· Reinholtz (1999: 208) provides a similar analysis for discontinuous NPs in Swampy Cree.

122

Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua Given the distribution of discontinuous DPs and its definite interpretation in Southern Quechua, positing movement of DP-internal constituents to the left periphery of D P seems an appropriate analysis for these facts along with movement of DP-internal constituents to the right margins ofVP.

5.1.4 NP-ellipsis Another important characteristic of Southern Quechua DPs that supports the view that there is an active left periphery in Southern Quechua is that NP-ellipsis is allowed with possessors: (81) Mariya-p wasi-n-ta-pas Huwan-pa-ta-pas riku-rqa-ni. Mariya-GEN house-3 s-ACC-ADD Huwan-GEN-ACC-ADD see-PAST-1 s 'I saw Mariya's house and Juan's (house)' As noted by Calvo Perez (1993: 278), it is also allowed with a possessor and an adjective: (82) Nust'a-kuna-q musuq wasii-n Lady-PL-GEN new housec3 s-

yanapa-q-kuna-q help-AG-PL-GEN

mawk'a-[e] 1-n-pas ra.wra.-ri-pu-n. old-[e]c3 S-ADD burn-INCH-REG-38 'The ladies' new house and the helpers' old (one) burned' (Calvo Perez 1993: 278) Lobeck (1995: 45) notes that in English, NP ellipsis "can only be introduced by certain members of the set of SPEC (N), either a possessive NP, a quantifier other than every, a numeral or a plural demonstrative=' (Lobeck 1995: 45). A similar distribution is found in Southern Quechua. In addition to possessors, quantifiers also license NP- ellipsis, as shown in the following example:

ichaqa llapa-n [e] taki-rqa-nku. (83) Pisi-lla runa-kuna tusu-rqa-nku Few-LIM man-PL dance-PAST-3 PL but all-3 PL [e] sing-PAST-3 PL 'Few men danced but all (of the men) sang' Non-agreeing quantifiers marked for evidentiality also allow NP ellipsis:

ichaqa (84) Pisi-lla. runa.-kuna. tusu-rqa-nku Few-LIM man-PL dance-PAST-3 PL but tukuy-mi

[e] taki-rqa-nku.

all-FOC/EVID [e] sing-PAST-3 PL 'Few men danced but all (men) sang' Numerals marked with the limitative -lla can also license NP ellipsis:

Chapter 5. Clausal analyses and the left and rlght peripheries ofDPs (85) Kimsa runa-kuna lluqsi-cis-mu-rqa-nku. Iskay-lla [e] Three man-PL leave-PAST-3PL. Two-LIM [e]

chaya-mu-1·qa-nku. arrive-CIS-PAST-3PL 'Three men left. Only two of them arrived' It is not possible for some quantifiers such as tukuy 'all' to license null NPs in contexts in which there is a partitive interpretation: (86)

*Kimsa 1·una-kuna lluqsi-mu-rqa-nku.

Tukuy [e] wanu-rqa.n-ku. Three man-PL leave-CIS-PAST-3PL. All-EUPH-3PL [e] die-PAST-3PL 'Three men left. All (of them) died'

Furthermore, restrictive modification does not allow for the modifier of the noun to be null:

(87)

*Rumi1 wasi-ta-pas

pro1 yachaywasi-ta-pas

riku-rqa-ni.

Stone1 house-Ace-ADD pro 1 learnhouse-ACC-ADD see-PAST-ls 'I saw a stone house and a (stone) school' This tact contrasts with the possibility of having a null possessor in: (88)

[Huwa.n-pa] 1 wasi-n-ta-pas

pm1

(Huwan-GEN] 1 house-3 PL-ACC-ADD pro 1

yachaywasi-ta-pas riku-rqa-ni. learnhouse-ACC-ADD see-PAST-1 S 'I saw Juan's house and (Juan's) school' These restrictions can be accounted for, if in order to license null NPs, an XP must be in the spec of AgrP/DP. Possesors and quantifiers (excluding tukuy, probably a head) in spec position enter Agree relations with the Agr head marked for person features. These features allow the partitive interpretation found in agreeing numerals as well as in agreeing quantifiers. This strong agreement head is the one that licenses the null NP. In examples such as (87) AgrP/DP is not projected and the modifier cannot be licensed. 5.1.5 Nominalizations Additional evidence in favor of positing an active left periphery in NPs comes from nominalizationswith internal arguments. There are two main characteristics that nominalizations share with DPs with person agreement features: (a) genitive case on the subject of the nominalization and (b) the licensing of null NPs (Lefebvre

123

124

Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua & Muysken 1988: 118-119, Weber 1996: 341,). Subjects in nominalizations are morphologically marked with a genitive suffix:

(89)

[Mariya-p papa ranti-na-n-ta] muna-ni. [Mariya-GEN potato buy-NOM-3 S-ACC] want-1S 'I want Mariya to buy the potato'

(90) [Mariya-p] kiki-cha-sqa-n (possessor) [Mariya-GEN] self-FACT-NOM-3S 'Maria's picture'

In (89) Mariya-p 'Mariya-GEN: the subject of the nominalization, is marked with the same genitive marker found in possessors in a similar type of nominalization such as (17) repeated here as (90) for convenience. In both structures the noun is marked with a person suffix. In (90) the suffix -n is attached to the nominalized expression kichasqa 'picture' and in (89) it is attached to rantina- a nominalized form of the verb ranti-'to buy: The obligatory nature of genitive marking on the subject corresponds to the obligatory genitive marking on possessors. The licensing of null agents or themes as we saw in (17) and (18) in nominalizations is reminiscent of the licensing of null possesors in DPs such as (88) as well as of pro-drop licensing by obligatory person agreement on the verb at the clausal level: (91) a. Huwan-mi wa..~-ta ranti-rqa-n. Huwan-Foc/EVID house-Ace buy-PAST-3 s 'Huwan bought a house'

b. Pro wasi-ta

ranti-rqa-n. Pro house-Ace buy-PAST-3 s '(He/She) bought a house'

c. *Pro wasi-ta ranti-rqa-0 pro house-Ace buy-PAST-0 'He/she bought a house' In light of these similarities, I propose that nominalizations as well as DPs with possessors have an Agr/D projection. Nominalizations differ from regular DPs in that, as mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, nominalizations have a mixed status. This mixed status can be accounted for by positing a nominal head marked with +N features and at the same time with relative Tense features (Muysk.en & Lefebvre 1988). This nominal head with relative tense features selects a VP as its complement. Maintaining an internal VP structure allows us to explain the full deployment of the argument structure of transitive verbs in nominalizations with agents and themes. Nominalizing suffixes such as -na are the spell out of the N feature but also of relative T features that in the case of -na indicate that

Chapter 5. Clausal analyses and the left and rlght peripheries ofDPs 125 the event referred to by the nominalization is posterior to that of the main verb. Nominalizations with -sqa are interpreted as involving an event prior to that of the main verb in a sentence. These relative T features are checked by Agree between the head Nom and the verb. The head Nom is also the probe that checks the person features of the verb. Genitive case assignment to the subject of the norninalization is also done by Agree between the head of AgrP and the subject of the nominalization that moves to spec of AgrP/DP. This is shown in (92): (92)

DP

~

D' ~ D

Agr/DP

~ Mariya-p; Agr' /D'

-~ Agr/D NomP

~ t1

Nom'

~ Nom vP [+N,T..1] ~ t1

v'

v

~ VP

--------

V'

papa

~

v

To summarize, I have presented a series of arguments in favor of adopting a clausal analysis for a subset of DPs in Southern Quechua involving person agreement

12.6


features. These DPs differ from other DPs in a series of properties such the projection of arguments, the assignment of genitive case to possessors and subjects of nominalizations as well as in some cases the licensing of null NPs. This analysis makes it possible to consider the specifiers of AgrP/DP and a higher DP projection as a left-peripherallanding space for NP-internal constituents. In the next section, I will discuss how the availability of an active DP-internalleft periphery also allows for the articulation of the D and C domains in Southern Quechua.

5.2 Articulating the C and D-domains: Movement

from the D-periphery to the C-periphery There is an additional strong argument in favor of the parallelism between DPs and CPs in Southern Quechua in terms of active left peripheries: the articulation ofDP and CP peripheries. Evidence for this articulation comes from two phenomena: one is wh-extraction from inside DP to the left periphery of the clause and the other is the availability of extraction of DP-internal constituents in focalization and topicalization structures. 5.2.1

Wh-extraction

In Southern Quechua, it is possible to extract the agent of a nominalization in a wh-question: (93)

[Pi-qpa-ta1]

muna-nki [t1 platanu ranti-na-n-ta]?l 5

Who-GEN-ACC want-2 S [t1 banana exchange-NOM-3 S-ACC 'Who do you want to buy bananas?' (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 161) Direct objects can also be extracted: (94)

[Ima-ta] 1

muna-nki [Juan t 1 ranti-na-n-ta]?

What-Ace want-2 s Juan ~ exchange-NOM-3 s-Acc 'What do you want for Juan to buy?' This is also the case with oblique objects:

15. Apurimac and Cuzcovarieties preferpied-pip!ngwit:h subjects (Vidal Carbajal and Hlp6lito Peralta Ccama p.c.) (i)

Pi-qpa-ta

tura-n-ta

Who-GBN-ACC brother-3 S-ACC 'Whose brother do you know?'

riqsi-nki? know-2 S


(95)

[May-pi-taq] 1

muna-waq

Uuan t 1 platanu

[Where-Loc-coNT] want-2 s coNn [Juan~ banana

mnti-na-n-ta.]? exchange-NOM-3 S-ACC 'Where would you want for Juan to buy bananas?' (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 161) However, multiple extractions out of a nominalized clause are not possible as shown in: (96)

*Pi-qpa-ta

ima-ta

muna-nki ranti-na-n-ta?

Who-GEN-ACC what-ACCWant-2 S exchange-NOM-3S-ACC 'Who do you want to buy what?' (97)

*Ima.-ta

pi-qpa-ta

muna-nki mnti-na-n-ta.?

What-ACC who-GEN-ACC want-2 S exchange-NOM-3S-ACC 'What do you want who to buy?' (98)

*Maypi-taq

pi-qpa.-ta.

muna.-nki platanu-ta

Where-caNT who-GEN-Acc want-2 s banana-Ace

ranti-na-n-ta? exchange-NOM-3 S- ACC 'Where do you want who to buy bananas?' (99)

*Maypi-taq

ima-ta muna-nki Huwan mnti-na-n-ta? 16 Where-CONT what-Ace want-2 s Huwan exchange-NOM-3S-ACC 'Where do you want to buy bananas?'

The impossibility of multiple extractions can be accounted for by an analysis in which only one specifier position is available for extraction. Once this position is occupied no other constituents can be extracted. That position is the specifier of the higher DP as shown by the fact that extraction of a wh- word in DPs with no person agreement is possible: (100) Ima.-ta-n puka-ta muna-waq? What-Acc-Foc/EVID red-Ace want-2 s coNn 'What do you want red?' The proposal put forth is very similar to Lefebvre & Muysken's (1988: 149) proposal for a COMP-CASE position that acts as an escape-hatch in Southern 16. For multiple wh-the right periphery is available: (i)

Maypi-taq

mu11a-nki Huwan ranti-na-n-ta,

ima-ta?

Where-coNT want-2 s Huwan buy-NoM-3s-Acc what-Ace 'Where do you want Juan to buy what?'

128


Quechua nominalizations. The difference between their proposal and this one is that the accusative case marker on the extracted element is the spell-out of an Agree relationship between D and the extracted element, while in their proposal accusative case is assigned in the spec of C. 5.2.2 Focalization out of nominalizations

Another piece of evidence that supports the view that there is an articulated D-domain in DPs related to the C-domain, comes from the extraction of the genitive subject in possessor-possessed and nominalization structures for focalization. In sentence (101), the possessor is extracted out of the DP and fronted to the left periphery of the main clause: ( 101)

[cp[Hintil-pa.-m ]1

haqay q'asa.-kuna-pi

[cp[Ancestor-GEN-Foc/EVID ]1 those mountain pass-PL-LOC [ 0 p t 1 kurral-ni-nku]

ka-chka-n].

[0 p t1 corral-EUPH-3 PL] be-PROG-38]

'The ancestors' corrals are in those mountain passes' The extracted constituent is marked with the focalization/evidentiality marker -m. In sentence (102), the subject of the nominalization is also extracted, fronted and marked with -m: (102)

[cp[Runa-p-ta-m] 1

yacha-ni

[ep[Man-GEN-ACC-FOC/EVID] 1know-1 S [0 p ~

ri-pu-sqa-n-ta].

[DP t 1 go-REG-NOM-PAST-3

S-ACC]

'I know the man went' (Based on an example by Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 153) This shows that in extractions from nominalizations, the extracted element is available for focalization. As we saw in Chapter 3, focalization of elements inside a nominalization is not allowed. It is only through extraction that focalization becomes grammatical:

muna-n (103) Mariya-cha [Xwancha-q-ta-n] 1 Mariya-DIM [Juan-GEN-ACC-FOC/Evm] 1 want-3 s [e1 plata.nu ra.nti-mu-na-n-ta.] P [e 1 banana exchange- CIS-NOM-3-Acc] 'Mariya wants Juan to buy bananas' (Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 152) 17. This is not accepted in some varieties of Southern Quechua, such as the one spoken in Apurimac and not by speakers of Cuzco Quechua.


In the analysis I propose, this extraction is possible because the extracted element moves through the Spec of AgrP/DP where it is marked for accusative case. From there it moves to spec of DP and is in the domain of the evidential and focus heads in the CP-layer. (104)

EvidP

~ Evid' ~ Evid FP ~ [+ATT] F ~ F TP ~ T' ~ vP ~ v' ~ v VP ~ V' ~ Huwancha-q-ta-n 1 D' V ~ munan D

Agr/DP ~

~ Agr'/D' ~ Agr/D NomP

[t1 platanuta rantimunanta]

In order to account for the postverbal position of the NomP there are several possibilities. One would involve subject raising to spec ofTP and verb movement to T. However, as I have argued before in previous chapters, there is no evidence that in Southern Que chua the verb moves toT and there is no evidence of subject-raising

130


since there are no passives in Southern Quechua. Another possibility would be for the verb to raise to v, but there is no evidence to support this option. A third possibility is to posit right adjunction of the NomP to the vP as a form of right dislocation. This form of rightward dislocation would happen only in cases in which an element from the nominalized clause is moved outside the NomP for focus purposes, then the remnant is moved to a topic position where it is defocalized. This is shown by the ungrammaticality of the bound reading of the NP wawanta 'their child' when the remnant of the NomP is right dislocated: (105) *Ma1iya. [sapanka. mama-p-ta-n] 1 Mariya [each mother-GEN-ACC-Foc/EVID] 1

muna-n [t1 wawa-n-ta1 muna-ku-na-n-ta]l 8 want 3 S [t1 child-38-AC133 Information structure 1, 3, 4> 6, 7,30, 39,42, 43, 'J'., 131, 16S, 177. 182, 195 Interrogative sentence 32, 33, 35, 36,47, So, 84, 85, 90,135, 136, 155· 172 Intonational patterns 5, 33,35, 36, so. 155. lj6, 218,2.::11,222,225

242 Syntax of Topic and Focus in Quechua

Italian 2--6, 12, 22-26, 41, 46, 91, 135,175-178,181

Null subjects 12, 21-27, 67, 105, 175· 177, 186, 187, 195

0

L Lakiimper & WWiderlich 1S, 21,182 Last Resort Condition 40 Lefebvre & Muysken 16-18,45, 69, 71, 72· 101-104. 106,108, 119, 120, 123, 126-128, 131,136, 153· 157· 158, 160, 163-165 Left periphery 1--3, 5, 7, 39, 41, 42, so, 51, 55-5S, 70, 72, So, 100, 101, 103, uS, 153,154. 175-177,182, 194, 202, 203

M Marginalization 119, 178,181 Merge 7, 40.47, 50, 56, 66,72 -mi 8, 30, 47, 49, 51,53-5 5, 59. 63, 64, 72, 75, 77, 83, 91-94, 204-206,209,210,214,220, 221, 223, 224 Move 40, 41, 44, so, 56, 68,11S, 229 Muysken 2,J0,32,36,J7,43-45• 48-51, 53-55. 59· 60, 62, 68, 76, 77· 111-114, 119

N Negation 6, S,42, 56, 57, 59. 61, 73. 75-77. 79"-85. 88,133,136, 137. 143. 14S, 149,163 Negative concord 75-77, S1, S8, 89,144.149 Negative sentence 75, 85, 140, 143,185 NegP 77, 79, SJ, 84, 90,98 Nominalization 11, 16, 17, 26, 49, 6S-71, 101, 102, 104-107,109, 123-126, u8, 131, 136,147,157, 158, 164,16j,187 Nonveridicality 81,133,147,148, 151, 15J, 157· 161, 164,167,173 NP-ellipsis 122 Nuclear Stress Rule 181 Null arguments 22, 24. 26, 67, 175· 177· 181,182, 186, 187, 194, 203, 205, 212, 217, 218 Null objects 22, 23, 26, 27, 67, 177, 182, 1S6,189,195

Object-Subject Constraint 21, 182 O'Rourke 33-36, 73, 219, 220, 224

p Polarity sensitive items 133, 1J4,1J6, 139· 141, 143.145· 146, 150,151 Polar questions 64, 74, So, 82,87 Possessor extraction 101, 108, 118 Possesors 123, 124 Post-verbal subjects 25, 196 Pro-drop 25, 124, 135

Q -qa 7, 18,20,30,43• 45, 71,91-93, 95,153. 176,177, 179. 180,191, 203, 211, 213, 214, 217, 222, 225 Quantifiers 88,99,111-115, ll]'-123,1J3,154o 156,158, 162, 180,181

Speech Act 2, 53, 61, 73, 75, 77, 80, 81, 8J, 85, 90, 94. 103, 104. 144. 145.148. 153> 156, 160, 162, 165,169 Strong agreement 23, 105. 118, 123 Strong Crossover 26 Switch reference morphemes 203, 205, 206, 209 Syncretic morphology 57, 82, SJ, 90, 99,118, 130, 133,151, 15J Syncretism 8, 53, 55, 56, 91, 153

T Tense 2, 54, 55, 104-106, 124. 131, 164.205 Themes 106, 1oS,109, 124 Topic 1, 2, 4. 24, 31, 37, 41-43, 46, 51, 57. 59. 72· 92-96, 98. 130, 153, 16o, 175-178, 181,182, 186-198,200-203,205-209, 211-218, 221-223 See also Familiar Topic Topicalization 1, 37, 44, 45, 59. 71, 72, 96, 105, u6 Transitive verbs 12,13, 30,124, 136,170, 177

u R Relative clauses 16,17, 26,45, 71, 135,1JS, 140,143,165,166 Remnantmovement 4,46, 94-96,187 Right periphery 3, 8,37,39, 42, 51, 57· 90, 98. 175· 186, 187, 196, 219,229 Rightward adjunction 94 Rizzi 2, 4o 5, 22, 23, 41, 46, 49, 57, 80,100,103, 176

s Scrambling 3, 95. 96,154,156 Southern QU£chua 7, 9,12, 21-27, 29, 55· 9Q-92, 98, 99· 101, 102, 104. 111, 113, 118, 120, 122, 125-141,146, 148, 15J, 156-158, 16o-163,165-173, 175-182, 184. 186,189, 195, 203, 219,220 See also Apurimac Quechua See also Cuzco Quechua SOV 3, 12,13, 30,37o46,1S1, 186, 187,221

Unbound traces 95, 96 Universal Ordering Constraint 55, 61

v VP-ellipsis 189

w Weber 16, 30, 32, 35, 43-45, so. 69,71,124 Wh-extraction 99, 10 5, 126, 132, 135· 157· 16J, 165, 171 Wh-fronting 16, 25,148,153-159, 161-163, 165,167,168,171 Wh-movement 1, S, 153-158, 163,165, 167, 168, 171 Word order 5, 7,11-13,15. 21, 29, 30,J6,37,47• 50,64,108,170, 178, 179, 181, 186,187, 218, 221

z Zubizarreta 2, 4o 7, 43, 46, 47, 62,82,181

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers' website. www.benjamins.wm 174 LOMASHVIU,Leila: Complex Predicates. The syntax-morphology interfac.e. Expected March 2011 173 SAPP, Christopher D.: The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modem Gem1an x. 230 pp. + index. Expected February 2011 172

JUN G, Hakyung: The Syntax of the BE-Possessive. Parametric variation and surface diversities. ca. 275 pp. Expected March 2011

171 SLEEMAN, Petra and Harry PERRIDON (eds.): The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic. Structure, variation, and change. vii, 280 pp. + inde.L Expected February 2011 170 HUNTER, Tim: Syntactic Effects of Conjunctivist Semantics. Unifying movement and adjunction. ca. 200 pp. Expected February 2011 169 SANCHEZ, Liliana: The Morphology and Syntax of Topic and Focus. Minimalist inquiries in the Quechua periphery. 2010. .xiii, 242 pp. 168 FELDHAUSBN, logo: Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan .xiii, 285 pp. Expected November 2010

167 MERCADO,Raphaei.,EricPOTSDAM and Lisa deMena TRAVIS (eds.): Austronesian and Theoretical Linguistics. vii, 374 pp. +index. Expected November 2o1o 166 BRANDT, Patrick and Marco GARdA GARdA (eds.): Transitivity. Fol111, Meaning, Acquisition, and Proc.essing. 2010. vii, 308 pp. 165 BREUL,Canten and Edward GOBBEL (eds.): Comparative and Contrastive Studies oflnf0m1ation Structure. 2010 . .xii, 306 pp. 164 ZWART, Jan-Wonter and Mark de VRIES (eds. ): Structure Preserved. Studies in syntax for Jan Koste& 201 o. n:iii, 395 pp. 163 KIZIAK, Tanja: Extraction Asynlmetries. Experimental evidence from Gem1an. 2010. xvi, 27 3 pp. 162 BOTT,Oliver: The Processing of Events. 201o.xvii, 383 pp. 161 HAAN, Germen J. de: Studies in West Frisian Grammar. Edited by Jarich Hoekstra. Willem Visser and Golfe Jensma. 2010. x. 384 pp. 160 MAVROGIORGOS, Marios: Clitics in Greek Am inimalist account of proclisis and enclisis. 2010. X. 294 pp. 159 BREITBARm, Anne, Christopher LUCAS, Sheila WATTS and David WILLIS (eds.): Continuity and Change in Gramma& 2010. viii, 359 pp. 158 DUGUINE, Mala, Susana HUIDOBRO and Nerea MADARIAGA (eds. ): Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations. A cross-linguistic perspective. 2010. vi, 348 pp. 157 FISCHER, Susann: Word-Order Change as a Source of Grantmaticalisation. 2010. ix. 200 pp. 156 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria and Virginia HILL (eds.): Edges, Heads, and Projections. Interf'&:e properties. 2010. vii, 265 pp. 155 SATO, Yosuke: Minimalist Interfaces. Evidenc.e from Indonesian and Javanese. 2010 . .xiii, 159 pp. 154 HORNSTEIN, Norbert and Maria POLINSKY (eds.): Movement Theory of Control. 2010. vii, 330 pp. 153 CABREDO HOFHERR,Patricia and Ora MATUSHANSKY (eds.): Adjectives. Formal analyses in syntax and semantics. 2010. vii. 335 pp. 152 GALLEGO, Angel J.: Phase Theory. 2010. .xii, 365 pp. 151 SUDHOFF, Stefan: Focus Particles in German. Syntax. prosody. and information structure. 2010. xiii, 335 pp. 150 EVERAERT, Martin, Tom LENTZ, Hannah de MULDER, 0ystein NILSEN and Arjen ZONDERVAN (eds.): The Linguistics Enterprise. From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics. 2010. ix, 379 pp. 149 AELBRECHT,Lobb: The Syntactic Licensing of Ellipsis. 2010. .xii, 2 30 pp. 148 HOGEWEG, Lotte,IW.en de HOOP and Andrej MALCIRJKOV (eds.): Cross-linguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect. and Modality. 2009. vii, 406 pp. 147 GHOMESHI, Jila,Deana PAUL and Martina WILTSCHKO (eds.): Detem1iners. Universals and variation. 2009. vii, 247 pp. 146 GEIDEREN,Fllyvan (eel.): Cyclical Change. 2009. viii, 329 pp. 145 WESTERGAARD, Marit: The Acquisition ofWord Orde& Micro-cues, infom1ation structure, and economy. 2009• .xii. 245 pp.

144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 110

PUTNAM, Michael T. (ed.): Towards a Derivational Syntax. Survive-minimalism. 2009. x. 269 pp. ROTHMAYR,Antonia: The Structure of Stative Verbs. 2009. xv, 216 pp. NUNES, Jairo (ed.): Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax. 2009. vi, 243 pp. ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Jorge HANKAMER, Thomas Md1ADDEN, Justia NUGER a ad Florian SCHAFER (eds.): Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax. 2009. xv, 395 pp. ROEHRS, Dorian: Demonstratives and Definite Articles as Nominal Auxiliaries. 2009. Iii. 196 pp. lllCKS, Glyn: The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations. 2009. xi~ 309 pp. SIDDIQI, Daniel.: Syntax within the Word. Economy. allomorphy. and argument selection in Distributed Morphology. 2009. xii, 138 pp. PFAU, Roland: Grammar as Processor. A Distributed Morphology account of spontaneous speech errors. 2009. xiii, 372 pp. KANDYBOWICZ, Jason: The Grammar of Repetition. Nupe grammar at the syntax-phonology interface. 2oo8. xiii, 168 pp. LEWIS, William D., Simin KARIMI,Heidi HARLEY and Scott 0. FARRAR (eds.): Time and Again. Theoretical perspectives on formal linguistics. In honor of D. Terence Langendoen. 2009. xiv, 265 pp. ARMON-LOTEM, Sharon, Gabi DANON aad Susaa D. ROmSTBIN (eds.): Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics. 2008. vii, 39 3 pp. MACDONALD, Jonathan E.: The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect A minimalist perspective. 2008. XV, 241 PP· BIBERAUER, Theresa (ed.): The Limits of Syntactic Variation. 2008. vii, 521 pp. DE CAT,CklleandKalherineDEMUTH (eds.): The Bantu-Romance Connection. A comparative investigation of verbal agreement. DPs, and information structure. 2008. xi.x, 355 pp. KALLULII, Dalina and Llliane TASMOWSKI (eds.): Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. 2008. ix. 442 PP· STURGEON, Anne: The Left Periphery. The interaction of syntax. pragmatics and prosody in Czech. 2008. X~ 143 pp. TALEGHANI, AzitalL: Modality, Aspect and Negation in Persian. 2008. ix. 183 pp. DURRLEMAN-TAME,Stepbanie: The Syntax ofJamaican Creole. A cartographic perspective. 2008. xii, 190 pp. SCHAFER, Florian: The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. External arguments in change-of-state contexts. 2008. xi, 324 pp. ROTHSTEIN,Bjllrn: The Perfect Time Span. On lhe present perfect in German, Swedish and English. 2008. xi, 171 pp. ffiSANE, Tabea: The Layered DP. Form and meaning of French indefinites. 2008. ix. 260 pp. STOYANOVA, Marina: Unique Focus. Languages without multiple wh-questions. 2008. xi, 184 pp. OOSTERHOF, Albert M.: The Semantics of Generics in Dukh and Related Languages. 2008. xviii, 286 pp. TUNGSETH, Mai Ellin: Verbal Prepositions and Argument Structure. Path, plac.e and possession in Norwegian. 2008. ix. 187 pp. ASBURy; Anna, Jakub DOTLACn.,Berit GEHRKE and Rick NOUWEN (eds.): Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P. 2008. vi, 416 pp. FORTUNy; Jordi: The Emergence of Order in Syntax. 2008. viii, 211 pp. JAGER, Agnes: History of German Negation. 2008. ix, 350 pp. HAUGEN, Jason D.: Morphology at lhe Interfaces. Reduplication and Noun Incorporation in Uto-Aztecan. 2oo8.xv. 257 pp. ENDO, Yosbio: Locality and Information Structure. A cartographic approach to Japanese. 2007. x, 235 pp. PUTNAM, Michael T.: Scrambling and lhe Survive Principle. 2007. x. 216 pp. LEE-SCHOENFELD, Vera: Beyond Coherence. The syntax of opacity in German. 2007. viii, 206 pp. EYTH6RSSON, 'Ih6rballur (ed.): Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Rosendal papers. 2008. v~ 441 pp. AXEL, Katrin: Studies on Old High German Syntax. Left sentence periphery, vetb placement and verbsecond 2007. xii, 364 pp. EGUREN, Luis and Olga FERNANDEZ-sORIANO (eds.): Coreference, Modality, and Focus. Studies on the syntax-semantics interface. 2007. xii, 239 pp. ROTHSTEIN, Susan D. (ed.): Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect 2008. viii, 453 pp.

1 09 CHOCANO, Gema: Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form. Scrambling in the Germanic languages. 2007. X. 333 pp. 1 o8 REULAND, Eric, Tanmoy BHATTACHARYA and Giorgos SPATHAS (eels.): Argument Structure. 2007. xviii, 243 pp. 107 CORVER, Norbert and Jaim NUNES (eels.): The Copy Theory of Movement 2007. vi, 388 pp. 106 DEiffi,Nicole andYordanka KAVALOVA (eels.): Parenthetical& 2007. xii, 314 pp. 105 HAUMANN,Dagmar: Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. 2007. ix, 438 pp. 104 JEONG, Youngmi: Applicatives. Structure and interpretation from a mininlalisl perspective. 2007.

vii, 144 pp. 103 WURFF, Wim van der (ed.): Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar. Studies in honour of Frits Beukema. 2007. viii, 352 pp. 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, Simla, Vida SAMIIAN a ad Wendy K. WILKINS (eds.): Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Synt.a.."1ic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. 2007. vi, 424 pp. 1 oo SCHWABE, Kentin and Susanne WINKLER (eds.): On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Generalizations aaoss languages. 2007. vii, 570 pp.

83

MARTiNEZ-GIL, Fernando and Sonia COUNA (eds.): Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. 2007. viii, 564 pp. PIRES,Acrisio: The Mininlalist Syntax of Defective Domains. Gerunds and infinitives. 2006. xiv, 188 pp. HARTMANN, Jutta M. and Lmlo MOLNARFI (eels.): Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. From Afrikaans to Zurich German. 2006. vi, 332 pp. LYNGFELT,Benjamin and Thrgrim SOLSTAD (eds.): Demoting the Agenl Passive, middle and other voice phenomena. 2006. x. 333 pp. VOGELEER, Svetlaaa aad Liliane TASMOWSKI (eels.): Non-definiteness and Plurality. 2006. vi, 358 pp. ARCHB, Marla J.: Individuals in Time. Tense, aspect and the individuaVstage distinction. 2006. xiv, 281 pp. PROGOVAC,Ljljana,KatePAESANI,Eugenia CASIELLES andFJienBARTON (eels.): The Syntax of Nonsententials. Multidisciplinary perspectives. 2006. x. 372 pp. BOECKX, Cedric (ed.): Agreement Systems. 2006. ix, 346 pp. BOECKX, Cedric (ed.): Minimalist Essays. 2006. xvi. 399 pp. DALMI, GNte: The Role of Agreement in Non-Finite Predication. 2005. xvi, 222 pp. VELDE, John R. te: Deriving Coordinate Symmetries. A phase-based approacl! integrating Select. Merge, Copy and Match. 2oo6. x, 385 pp. MOHR, Sabiae: Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions. Impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages. 2005. viii, 207 pp. JUUEN, Marit: Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. 2005. xvi, 348 pp. COSTA, Joio and Maria Cristina FIGUEIREDO SILVA (eels.): Studies on Agreement. 2006. vi, 285 pp. MIKKELSEN, Line: CopularCiauses. Specification, predication and equation. 2005. viii, 210 pp. PAFEL, Jtlrgen: Quantifier Scope in German. 2006. xvi, 312 pp. SCHWEIKERT, Walter: The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. 2005.

82

xii, 338 PP· QUINN, Heidi: The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. 2005. xii, 409 pp.

99 98 97 96

95 94 93 92

91 90

89 88 87 86 85 84

81 8o

79 78 77

76 75

FUSS, Eric: The Rise of Agreement A formal approacl! to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. 200 5· xii, 336 pp. BURKHARDT SCHUMACHER, Petra: The Syntax-Discourse Interfac.e. Representing and interpreting dependency. 2005. xii, 259 pp. SCHMID, Tanja: Infinitival Syntax. Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. 2005. xiv, 2 51 pp. DIKKEN,Marcel den and O!ristina TORTORA (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. 200 5· vii. 292 pp. OZTCRK, Ballaz: Case. Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x, 268 pp. STAVROU, Melita and Arbon to TERZI (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 366 pp. DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and romputation. 2005. xviii, 398 pp.

74 HEGGIE,Lorie aod Francisco ORD6fffiz (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. 200 5· .xiv, 434 pp. 72 FUSS, Eric and Carola TRIPS (eds. ): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004 viii, 228 pp. 71 GEIDEREN,EIIy van: Grammaticalization as Ec.onomy. 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 E. 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 MI~SKA TOMIC, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004 xvi, 499 pp. 66 GROHMANN, Kleaothes K.: Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. XV~ 372 pp. 65 MANNINEN, Satu JW.eoa: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. .xii, 275 pp. 64 BOECKX, Cedric and Kleantbes K. GROHMANN (eds.): Multiple Wb-Fronting. 200 3. x. 292 pp. 63 BOECKX, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. .xii, 224 pp. 62 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and Mary Ann WILUE (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in Grammm:; In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp. 61 SCHWABE, Kentin and Susanne WINKLER (eds.): The Interfac.es. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. vi, 40 3 pp. 6o TRIPS, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. .xiv, 359 pp. 59 DEiffi, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp. 58 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (eel.): Asymmetry in Grammm:; Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, w:.quisition. 2003. vi, 309 pp. 57 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (eel.): Asymmetry in Grammm:; Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp. 56 COENE, Martioe and Yves DliULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession i noun phrases. 2003. x. 295 pp. 55 COENE, Martioe and Yles DliULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp. 54 BAPTISTA, Madyse: The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003. xxii, 294 pp. (incl. CD-rom). 53 ZWART, Jan-Woater and Werner ABRAHAM (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proc.eedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax ( Groningen, May 26-27, 2ooo). 2002. .xiv, 407 pp. 52 SIMON, Horst J. aod Helke WIESE (eds.): Pronouns -Grammar and Representation. 2002 . .xii, 294 pp. 51 GERLACH, Birgit Clitics between Syntax and Le.xicon. 2002. .xii, 282 pp. 5o 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,Eleoa ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, SjefBARBIERS aod Hans-Martin GARTNER (eds.): Dimensions of Movement From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp. 47 BARBIERS, Sjef, Frits BEUKEMA a ad Wim vao der WURFF (eds.): Modality and its Intera..i:ion with the Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp. 46 PANAGIOTIDIS,E. Pboevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. 'Pronominality' and licensing in synta.L 2oo2.x, 214 pp. 45 ABRAHAM, Werner and Jan-Woater ZWART (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002. xviii, 336 pp. 44 TAYLAN,Eser Ergavanh (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii. 267 pp. 43 FEATHERSTON, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp. 42 ALEXIADOU,Artlemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x. 233 pp. 41 ZELLER, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. .xii. 325 pp.

The Morphology and Syntax of Topic and Focus: Minimalist inquiries in the Quechua periphery

Minimalist Inquiries

Maricopa Morphology and Syntax

Minimalist Syntax

Minimalist Syntax

Minimalist Syntax

Locality in minimalist syntax

Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction

Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction

The Minimalist Syntax of Defective Domains: Gerunds and Infinitives

Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction

Maricopa Morphology and Syntax (University of California Publications in Linguistics)

Topic and Focus: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation

Computational approaches to morphology and syntax

Processing Syntax and Morphology: A Neurocognitive Perspective

The Left Periphery: The Interaction of Syntax, Pragmatics and Prosody in Czech

Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program

Syntax of Imperatives in English and Geramic: Word Order Variation in the Minimalist Framework

Grammatical Relations (Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology)

Grammatical Relations (Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology)

Reconnecting language: morphology and syntax in functional perspectives

Constituent Structure (Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology)

Language universals and linguistic typology: syntax and morphology

The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Bridge Street Accent

The Topic Of The Imaginary

XO: A Theory of the Morphology-Syntax Interface

Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach (Core Linguistics)

Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology

Inquiries and Opinions

Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax

XO: A Theory of the Morphology-Syntax Interface

The Morphology and Syntax of Topic and Focus: Minimalist inquiries in the Quechua periphery

Minimalist Inquiries

Maricopa Morphology and Syntax

Minimalist Syntax

Minimalist Syntax

Minimalist Syntax

Locality in minimalist syntax

Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction

Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction

The Minimalist Syntax of Defective Domains: Gerunds and Infinitives

Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction

Maricopa Morphology and Syntax (University of California Publications in Linguistics)

Topic and Focus: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation

Computational approaches to morphology and syntax

Processing Syntax and Morphology: A Neurocognitive Perspective

The Left Periphery: The Interaction of Syntax, Pragmatics and Prosody in Czech

Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program

Syntax of Imperatives in English and Geramic: Word Order Variation in the Minimalist Framework

Grammatical Relations (Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology)

Grammatical Relations (Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology)

Reconnecting language: morphology and syntax in functional perspectives

Constituent Structure (Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology)

Language universals and linguistic typology: syntax and morphology

The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Bridge Street Accent

The Topic Of The Imaginary

XO: A Theory of the Morphology-Syntax Interface

Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach (Core Linguistics)

Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology

Inquiries and Opinions

Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax

XO: A Theory of the Morphology-Syntax Interface

Recommend Documents