ON AGREE AND MERGE Susi Wurmbrand University of Connecticut

Transcription

Revised course notes from Problems in Syntax (Spring 2011)
This is work in progress which is constantly evolving.
Feel free to e-mail me if you have questions and/or comments.
June 2011
ON AGREE AND MERGE
Susi Wurmbrand
University of Connecticut
1. INTRODUCTION
Main goals
•
•
Theory of syntactic licensing/dependency relations
Working hypothesis: There is a single syntactic licensing relation, Reverse Agree, which allows the creation of a syntactic dependency between two (or more) elements.
Empirical domain used as a starting point: feature composition of the verbal domain
•
•
•
•
•
Verb morphology
English VP-ellipsis
Parasitic morphology (Wurmbrand 2010)
Germanic verb clusters (Wurmbrand 2011a)
Infinitivus pro participio (IPP; Wurmbrand 2010)
Extensions: Reverse Agree in other domains
•
•
•
•
•
Case assignment
Polarity licensing, negative concord
Obligatory control
Anaphor binding
Phasehood of infinitives
Reverse Agree as a condition on Merge
•
•
•
•
•
The Merge Condition
Clausal complementation in English and German
A new approach to embedded root clauses
Anaphor agreement effect
QR from infinitives
1
2. THEORIES OF AGREE
2.1 Agree à la Chomsky (2000, 2001)
(1)
(2)
P(robe) Agrees with G(oal) iff:
[Domain ignored]
a.
b.
c.
d.
P c-commands G
Both P and G are active
P matches a feature of G
A feature is uninterpretable iff it is unvalued.
a.
X
uF
Y
iF
uX
b.
*X
uF
Y
uF
c.
*X
iF
Y
uF
d.
*X
iF
Y
iF
Questions/issues
•
•
•
Activation condition (Bošković 2007)
“Reflex” checking (essentially a case of Reverse Agree)
Biconditional valuation/interpretability (see Pesetsky and Torrego 2007, Bošković To appear
for separating the notion of interpretability [iF/uF] from the notion of valuation and for Agree
being valuation-driven).
2.2 Feature sharing (Pesetsky and Torrego 2007)
[5]
Agree (Feature sharing version)
(i)
An unvalued feature F (a probe) on a head H at syntactic location α (Fα) scans its ccommand domain for another instance of F (a goal) at location β (Fβ) with which to
agree.
Replace Fα with Fβ, so that the same feature is present in both locations.
(ii)
[p. 268]
2.3 Other Agree approaches
(3)
Zeijlstra (2010: 14)
[130] Agree is a relation between a probe α and a goal β, such that (i) α and β are in a
proper local domain; (ii) α has some uninterpretable feature [uF]; (iii) β has a
matching interpretable feature [iF]; (iv) α is c-commanded by β; and (v) there is
no matching goal carrying [iF] in between α and β.
iF [goal]
(4)
»
uF [probe
Haegeman and Lohndal (2010: 196)
[22] α Agrees with β if α c-commands β, α and β both have a feature F, and there is no γ
with the feature F such that α c-commands γ and γ c-commands β.
2
(5)
Merchant (2011: 407)
[35] DEFINITION: AGREE(X,Y;F)
[Footnotes omitted]
For any syntactic objects X and Y, where X bears a feature F with value Val(F) and Y
bears a matching unvalued:± […] inflectional feature F’, and X c-commands Y […],
let Val(F’) = { Val(F), {Val(F’)} }.
X
F: val
(6)
Y
F’: val/unval [language specific; English only unval; Aleut val possible]
Baker (2008) (also Baker and Willie (2010)
[104]
(7)
»
The Direction of Agreement Parameter
[p. 215]
(i) F agrees with DP/NP only if DP/NP asymmetrically c-commands F, or
(ii) F agrees with DP/NP only if F c-command DP/NP, or
(iii) F agrees with DP/NP only if F c-command DP/NP or vice versa.
Adger (2003: 168)
[65] Agree
An uninterpretable feature F on a syntactic object Y is checked when Y is in a ccommand relation with another syntactic object which bears a matching feature F.
2.4 Reverse Agree
(8)
Reverse Agree (to be argued for here)
A feature F: __ on a head α is valued by a feature F: val on β, iff
i.
ii.
iii.
β c-commands α
There is no γ with a valued interpretable feature F such that γ commands α and is ccommanded by β.
α is accessible to β [roughly within the same phase—see below]
Notation used:
iF
uF
i/uF: __
i/uF: x
i/uF: x
interpretable feature
uninterpretable feature
unvalued feature
valued feature (feature value x)
unvalued feature that has been valued with value x
3
3. VERBAL MORPHOLOGY
3.1 The issue
(9)
a.
“Standard” Agree
b.
Reverse Agree
3
T
…
iT: __
3
V
uT: val
3
T
…
iT: val
3
V
uT: __
Which element is valued? Pesetsky and Torrego (2007):
(10) “[…] reason for assuming that the T-feature of Tns is unvalued, though interpretable: the
fact that Tns appears to learn its value in finite clauses from the finite verb.” [p. 277]
Why T from the verb and not the verb from T?
Is this a chicken/egg problem? Maybe not.
Motivation for downward valuation:
o VP-ellipsis
o IPP-construction
o Parasitic morphology
3.2 Basic workings of Reverse Agree
•
•
•
•
•
Functional clausal heads have an iT feature (typically valued) corresponding to its semantic
value (e.g., past, modal, perfect)
All verbal heads have an uT, typically (but not necessarily) unvalued.
Agree: uT __ is valued by the closest i/uF: val.
uTs: not interpretable in semantics; must disappear before reaching LF.
PF: the uT value is what is realized at PF.
uT
English lexical items
uT: past
 -ed
uT: pres
 ∅
uT: mod/irr  infinitive
uT
uT: perf
uT: prog
uT: pass
(11)
ModP
3
MOD
AuxP
iT: mod
3
AUX
PassP
iT: perf
3
uT: mod PASS
VP
iT: pass
@
uT: perf
V
uT: pass
English lexical items
 participle
 -ing
 participle
He must have been left alone.
iT: mod
iT: perf uT: mod
iT: pass uT: perf
uT: pass
4




must
have + INF
be + PART
V + PART
3.3 VP-Ellipsis
3.3.1 Some old facts
•
VP-ellipsis: strict identity between the antecedent and elided VPs not always required (Quirk
et al. 1972, reported by Sag 1976, Warner 1986, among others; all data from Lasnik 1995).
(12) a.
b.
c.
d.
John slept, and Mary will too.
John sleeps (every afternoon), and Mary should too.
John was sleeping, and now Mary will.
John has slept, and Mary will too.
(39)
(41)
(68)
(45)
Chomsky (1995):
•
Lasnik (1995): assuming identity between the two VPs is necessary, it is hard to see how a
lexicalist approach can handle these facts.
(13) a.
*John [VP slept.3SG.PAST ] …. Mary will [VP slept.3SG.PAST ]
Pesetsky and Torrego (2007)
•
It seems the same issue arise for P&T’s feature system
(14) a.
b.
T
iT: __
V
uT: val [past]
*John T [iT: __ ] [VP slept [uT: past] ] …. Mary will [VP slept [uT: past] ]
Relaxing the identity requirement?
•
•
VP-ellipsis sometimes does require strict identity between the antecedent and elided VPs
(Quirk et al. 1972, Sag 1976, Warner 1986, Lasnik 1995, Lasnik 1997, Nunes and Zocca
2005, and others)
VPs with be or auxiliary have must be strictly identical (in form and function) to the antecedent VP.
(15) a.
b.
c.
*John was/is here, and Mary will too.
*John was being obnoxious, and Mary will too.
John will be here, and Mary will too.
(16) a.
*John has left, but Mary shouldn’t have left.
John has left, but Mary shouldn’t leave.
?John should have left, but Mary shouldn’t have left.
*The men have left, but the women shouldn’t have left.
b.
c.

(47), (49)
(55)
(50)
(57)
(56)
(58)
Phonological identity is not enough (16c)—features matter!
(17) a.
T
iT: __
V
uT: val
5
b.
John was sleeping, and now Mary will sleep.
T [iT: __ ]
T [iT: __ ]
c.
was [uT: past]
will [uT: pres]
»
»
Prog [iT: __] »
Inf [iT: __]
»
sleeping [uT: prog]
sleep [uT: inf]
*John was being obnoxious, and Mary will too be obnoxious.
T [iT: __ ]
T [iT: __ ]
•
»
»
»
»
was [uT: past]
will [uT: pres]
»
»
Prog [iT: __] »
Inf [iT: __]
»
being [uT: prog]
be [uT: inf]
Main question: when is identity necessary, when not (see Lasnik 1997 for arguments against
various alternatives trying to save a fully lexicalist approach).
3.3.2 Lasnik (1995) — “Syntactic Structures Meets the Minimalist Program”
(18) a.
b.
c.
English main verbs (whether regular or suppletive) are inserted into the structure in
their bare form and must combine with the corresponding inflectional affix via PF
affix hopping (no movement).
Be and auxiliaries are inserted into the structure fully inflected, including inflectional
features which must be checked against a corresponding head via movement.
Following Sag (1976): verb phrase deletion precedes affix hopping.
(19) a.
b.
c.
d.
InflFEATURE
InflAFFIX
*InflFEATURE
*InflAFFIX
….
….
….
….
VFEATURE
VBARE
VBARE
VFEATURE
Overt V-movement
PF-merger; no movement
*Unchecked features
*Unchecked features (at least at LF)
(20) a.
b.
c.
d.
John AFPAST [sleep] and Mary will [sleep]
John was AFPROG [sleep], and now Mary will [sleep].
*John was PROG [beingPROG obnoxious], and Mary will [*beingPROG obnoxious].
John was PROG [beingPROG obnoxious], and M. was PROG [beingPROG obnoxious].
3.3.3 Nunes and Zocca (2005, 2009)
•
•
•
[9]
Lasnik’s account predicts that VPI must involve total identity whenever there is V-mov’t.
Movement  (strong) Featural Infl  V needs matching features/be fully inflected  no step
where the verb is bare (which is needed to get mismatches).
Brazilian Portuguese: movement, but mismatches are allowed exactly as in English (with
main verbs, but not with auxiliaries).
a.
[9’] a.
[10] a.
Eu já
comi,
mas a Maria
ainda vai
I
already ate.1SG but the Maria still goes
‘I’ve already eaten, but Maria’s still going to eat.’
… comi1SG + Infl1SG
[VP comi1SG ] …. vai
[comer]
[eat.INF]
[VP comi1SG ]
*O João era famoso e
o filho dele
também vai
the João was famous and the son of-his also
goes
‘João was famous and his son will [be famous] too.’
6
Should be *!
[ser famoso]
[be.INF famous]
Solution — a (hybrid) Chomsky 2000/2001 Agree approach
•
•
•
•
T probes for the subject and acquires the subject’s phi-features.
If T is weak (not specified what exactly that means technically in this approach), nothing further happens in syntax; Affix hopping at PF (as in Lasnik’s approach).
If T is strong: V-movement takes place
Crucial difference: main verbs are never inserted inflected/valued (movement is not triggered by feature checking but by some strong feature on T).
[9’’] a.
… com + Infl1SG
[VP com ] …. vai
[VP com]
Elided VP identical to copy
[If spelled out, bare forms need to be realized as infinitives in Portuguese.]
•
Auxiliaries: Similar to Lasnik, N&Z assume that auxiliaries/be are inserted fully inflected
(hence not allowing any mismatches). In their approach, this means:
T iF: val
(21) a.
b.
»
V uF: val (Auxiliaries)/unval (main verbs)
*John was here and Mary will too.
* was3SG.PAST [VP was uF: 3SG.PAST here] …. will [VP was uF: 3SG.PAST here]
Is this really an Agree approach à la Chomsky 2000/2001?
•
•
uF: val/unval need to get valued by an iF to get deleted. Which way does Agree go?
In Portuguese, there is movement, so, we cannot tell in which direction valuation goes;
valuation could be before (Reverse Agree) or after V-movement (standard Agree where uF of
V probes for the iF of T).
(22) a.
b.
•
T iF: val (strong)
T iF: val (strong)
V uF: __
V uF: val
Portuguese
Portuguese
English is more interesting. If English main Vs also involve an uF (as opposed to the earlier
Lasnik-style approach where main Vs are entirely bare), Reverse Agree will be necessary,
since there is no movement in English, and V would have to be unvalued (to allow mismatches in ellipsis).
(23) a.
b.
•
Main verbs:
Auxiliaries:
Main verbs:
Auxiliaries:
T iF: val (weak)
T iF: val (weak)
V uF: __ ????
V uF: val; (strong F)
English
English
N&Z are a bit unclear about what the features of English main verbs are. [Citation from 2005
version.]
[p. 34: “If T does not have a strong feature, Lasnik’s proposal can be adopted in full. That is, V and T
will merge in the phonological component.”
p. 36: “As for be and have in English […], we may adopt Lasnik’s proposal that they are inherently
inflected, slightly adapting it under Chomsky’s (2001) valuation approach to feature checking. More
specifically, we may assume that the relationship between being interpretable and being valued is not
a biconditional (see also Pesetsky & Torrego 2004 for relevant discussion). In other words, whereas
[+interpretable] features will always be valued, as in Chomsky’s (2001) system, [-interpretable] features will be unvalued in the general case, but may be valued in some marked cases (perhaps associ-
7
ated with idiosyncratic morphology). Importantly, these marked cases will also require feature checking against [+interpretable] features so that they can be deleted for LF purposes.”]

If verbs involve the same feature specification in English and Portuguese, which seems to
be the null hypothesis given their identical behavior in ellipsis and the assumption that
whether verbs move or not is encoded on T, Reverse Agree would need to be adopted.
3.3.4 Merchant To appear—A (true) Reverse Agree approach to ellipsis
•
Chung (2006), Merchant (2008): voice mismatches are allowed in English VP-ellipsis, but
not in sluicing, fragment answers, and other larger ellipses (data from Merchant To appear):
[5]
a.
b.
c.
*Someone murdered Joe, but we don’t know who by [Joe was murdered].
*Joe was murdered, but we don’t know who [murdered Joe].
Q: Who is sending you to Iraq? A: *ByBush.
[6]
a.
b.
The janitor must remove the trash whenever it is apparent that it should be [removed]
The system can be used by anyone who wants to [use it].
[8]
a.
This problem was to have been looked into, but obviously nobody did.
Important feature
of this analysis:
verbs do not come
inflected/with values, but receive
them by Agree
with the higher
head.
3.3.5 Reverse Agree (SW)
•
•
•
= Nunes and Zocca (2005, 2009) plus Merchant To appear plus Reverse Agree
V-movement of main verbs in Portuguese (French, Icelandic…) is independent of valuation
(similar to Nunes & Zocca, I take it to be a verbal EPP-like property of T; T has an additional
unvalued T/V-feature in V-movement languages, which will pull up the verb; the same will
be the case for C in V2 languages; see section 7.1).
Valuation can occur after ellipsis (below, I will argue that valuation can occur at any point in
the derivation, as long as it is before Spell-Out).
8
•
•
Main verbs are unvalued; auxiliaries (and be) are inherently valued.
Different from Nunes and Zocca (2005, 2009), but following Pesetsky and Torrego (2007),
Bošković (To appear), I assume that unvalued iFs are possible.
(24) a.
b.
Main verbs:
Main verbs:
Auxiliaries:
Auxiliaries:
•
•
•
T iF: val (+uV)
T iF: val
T iF: __
T iF: val
V uF: __
V uF: __
AUX uF: val
AUX uF: val
Portuguese
English
Portuguese, English
uF: __ on main Vs in both languages will allow mismatches in ellipsis.
Feature valuation under Reverse Agree — no movement necessary to value V’s features.
Auxiliaries: uF: val on AUX prohibits mismatches under ellipsis. For now, I assume that both
options in (24b) are possible (see sections 6.2 and 6.3 for the licensing of valued uFs).
Other cases
•
•
Motivation for such a system comes from Germanic auxiliary-participle constructions.
Specifically, in Wurmbrand (2010), I suggest that languages differ, based on their morphological inventory, regarding which element (AUX/PART) comes valued: generally, AUX comes
valued and values V.PART (downward), but in languages with prexical/circumfixal PARTs,
PART is valued.
3.3.6 Conclusion
•
•
VPE raises questions for accounts that assume that verbs are inserted fully inflected/valued.
Major insights of the above accounts:
o Typically, verbs are inserted without features/values/inflection.
o Certain lexically specified elements are inserted with features/values/inflection.
o Crucially: this difference is reflected in different syntactic behavior, as for instance,
seen in ellipsis or verb-movement.
3.4 Germanic Infinitivus pro participio (IPP) construction
•
•
See also den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997 for a similar point
Modals in AUX – MOD – V constructions do not (or only marginally in German; see Bader
and Schmid 2009) occur in the participle form; instead, an infinitive (IPP) has to be used.
(25) a.
dat
Jan
het boek
heeft
kunnen
that
Jan
the book
has
can.IPP
‘that Jan has been able to read the book’
lezen
read.INF
Dutch
b.
dass Jan
das Buch
hat
lesen
that
Jan
the book
has
read.INF
‘that Jan has been able to read the book’
können
can.IPP
German
c.
dass Jan
das Buch
gelesen
/ *lesen
hat
that
Jan
the book
read.PART / *read.INF has
‘that John has read the book’
9
(26)
AUX
»
a.
iAux: __
iMod: __
uAux: irr
iAux: __
iMod: __
uAux: perf
b.
c.
»
MOD
V
uMod: irr
Upward valuation approach
Wrong valuation for AUX; *iAux: irr
uMod: irr
valuation for AUX, but wrong morphology
b. Plus a special realization rule that changes perf  inf/∅ post-syntactically
•
Question regarding c.: Why would MOD start out with u: perf at all? This seems to show that
the value is in some crucial sense determined by AUX (the probe), and not by the morphological make-up of the goal (MOD). It is certainly not the case then that the higher iF: __
learns its value from the morphological form of the lower verb.
•
A detailed downward valuation (Reverse Agree) approach to the IPP is developed in
Wurmbrand (2010).
3.5 Parasitic morphology
•
•
•
Scandinavian copying constructions (Wiklund 2001, 2005, 2007)
Frisian parasitic participles (den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997)
German “Skandal” [scandal] construction (Vogel 2009)
(27) a.
b.
Jeg
hadde villet
lest
I
had
want.PART read.PART
‘I would have liked to read the book.’
Han
prövade
o
he
try.PAST
o
‘He tried to fry a fish.’
stekte
fry.PAST
boka
book.DEF
en fisk
a fish
Norwegian
have » want
[Wiklund 2001, 2005, 2007]
Swedish
[Wiklund 2005, 2007]
c.
hy
soe
it
dien
he
would it
do. PART
‘he would have liked to do it’
wollen
ha
Frisian
want.PART have.INF
have » want
[den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997]
d.
hy soe
it dien
ha
he would it do.PART have.INF
‘he would like to have it done’
wollen
want.PART
Frisian: “Upward” parasitic
want » have
e.
ohne
es verhindert
haben
zu können
without it prevent.PART have.INF to can.IPP
‘without having been able to prevent it’
German: Skandal
have » can
[Vogel 2009]
Common properties
•
Optional: parasitic participles always alternate with infinitives (all of the above are grammatical with the parasitic form replaced by an infinitive).
•
Parasitic: only possible if there is an appropriate licensing head (parasitic participles only if
there is an [overt or covert] AUX; as the German IPP construction shows, not necessarily a
higher participle).
10
•
Semantically vacuous morphology: parasitic past/participle are not interpreted as a
past/perfective; meaning is identical to the meaning of the infinitival construction. [For a caveat about covert AUX and arguments against an obligatory covert AUX see Wiklund.]
Previous approaches
•
Den Dikken and Hoekstra (1997) (Frisian): Checking approach; AUX checks features on one
or more PART; PART needs to be in Spec-head relation with AUX. This works well for Frisian
(cf. the obligatory 3-2-1 order), but cannot be extended to Scandinavian.
•
Wiklund (2005, 2007) (Swedish/Norwegian): copying relation is “top-down, syntactic, local”; Inverse Agree approach; parasitic forms transmitted top-down; notes inconsistency with
the standard probe – goal approach; no specific account.
(28)
AUX
»
uT: __
PART1
»
iT: perf
uF: ??
PART2
Chomsky (2000, 2001)
iT: perf
uF: ??
•
Empirical problem: wrong semantics!
•
Theoretical issue:
o Activation condition: AUX needs to involve some uF: __
o What are those uF: __ on the participles and why they are obligatory?
o To guarantee that there is a dependency between AUX and both PARTs, both need to
involve some deficiency; if PART2 lacks uF: __, it couldn’t be a goal, and no Agree
could be established; this would incorrectly generate participles in cases where there
is no higher auxiliary (e.g., *He want.PAST read.PART).
o Only way to derive parasitic participles under Agree as in Chomsky (2000, 2001):
obligatory uF: __ on both PARTs; Multiple Agree as in Hiraiwa (2001, 2005).
o Such a system, however, then essentially suggests that it is the uF: __ of the PARTs
that drive Agree, rather than some deficiency of the auxiliary (see Zeijlstra 2010 for a
similar point regarding multiple nominative licensing).
Pesetsky and Torrego (2007) system?
(29)
or
or

AUX
iT: __
iT: __
»
PART1
uT: perf
uT: __
»
PART2
uT: perf
uT: perf
Can one AUX Agree with two uT: val?
PART1»PART2; AUX»PART1
other feature sharing combinations
The second option will make PART1 dependent on PART2, which seems counterintuitive;
also potentially a problem for German, where “PART1” is an infinitive.
A mechanism is needed that:
•
•
•
allows multiple dependencies between one element (e.g., AUX) and different verbs.
doesn’t necessitate movement (Scandinavian; also some of the Frisian constructions)
doesn’t involve interpretable participle features on the parasitic forms.
11
The account in short
•
Main goal of Wurmbrand (2010):
o Unified theory that derives parasitic participles in all of the above constructions.
o Show how independent language-specific differences derive the differences among
these constructions across Germanic.
o Side issues covered: IPP and verb clustering
(30)
Jeg hadde villet
lest
/ lese
boka
I
had
want.PART read.PART / read.INF book.DEF
‘I would have liked to read the book.’
4
b.
4
iT: perf VMOD
3
uT: perf INF
3
iT: inf V
…
uT: inf  INF
*uT: perf
(31) a.
AUX
Norwegian
4
4
iT: perf VMOD
3
uT: perf V
…
uT: perf  PART
AUX
[An alternative to (30a) would be to treat modals as functional heads in the infinitival construction. In that
case, the modal itself carries an iT: mod, which intervenes between the auxiliary and the main verb.]
 Parasitic Participles occur only in restructuring contexts (Wiklund 2005, 2007)—
‘smaller’ (e.g., vP, VP) infinitival complements; here: RIs lack heads with iT: inf).
 Frisian: Same syntax; head-final PF-linearization
•
•
Since participles require valuation by AUX, the dependency of parasitic participles on a
higher AUX follows.
Since only AUX involves an iF: perf (iFs only occur on functional heads), parasitic participles
are not interpreted (only realized) as participles.
“Upward” parasitic participles
(32) a.
b.
hy soe
it dien
ha
wollen
he would it do.PART have.INF want.PART
‘he would like to have it done’
soe

4
Base structure
4
MOD.PART
4
wollen
AUX
4

ha
V.PART

dien

12
Frisian
•
Two important facts about this apparent “upward” parasitism:
o restricted to head-final languages (also in the Stellingwerf dialect; Bloemhoff 1979,
Zwart 1995); impossible in the Scandinavian languages
o only possible when the modal selecting want moves to C (no such restriction is in effect in the regular downward parasitic participle construction).
(33) a.
*omdat hy it dien
ha
kinnen
soe
because he it do.PART have.INF can.PART would
‘because he would be able to have done it’
*Mod final
OK if Mod.INF
b.
omdat hy it dien
wollen
ha
soe
because he it do. PART want.PART have.INF would
‘because he would have liked to do it’
Downward parasitic
[E. Hoekstra, p.c.]
Account
•
•
•
Valuation can occur at any time during the derivation, before Spell-Out (cf. Abels 2003)
Structure is built cyclically and merge operations must extend the structure, but feature
valuation is not subject to the Extension Condition.
Head-final orders: PF-linearization of sister nodes or syntactic movement (3-2-1 could involve syntactic movement, but 1-2-3 doesn’t)
(34) a.
4
4
soe
MOD
4

wollen
AUX
4

ha
V.PART

dien

MOD
•
•
•
•
•
•
b.
4
4
iT: perf MOD
4
@ soe
MOD
tAuxP

wollen

uT: perf
AUXP
Movement of the auxiliary or auxiliary phrase above the cluster.
Features of a head are also present on the projection of that head, AuxP can value an unvalued feature of a verb it c-commands (valuators can be XPs; Bošković 2007)
Valuation could happen at stage (34a): want = infinitive
Valuation could also be postponed until after movement of AuxP
Frisian only allows fully descending orders: movement must target the top of the cluster.
Agree AuxP»want can only be established if the highest verb (soe) gets out of the way—i.e.,
it moves to C.  V2 restriction is result of locality of Agree.
13
4. OTHER REVERSE AGREE PHENOMENA
4.1 Case assignment
Downward probing, but upward licensing (checking, valuation)
(35)

4
T
vP
uϕ: __
3
(EPP)
DP
…
iϕ:val
uK
Agree à la Chomsky (2000, 2001)
uF: __; iF: val; *all others
Both probe and goal must be active
Reflex checking of Case
Movement: EPP
•
•
•
•
Reflex checking: essentially shows that DP’s Case is licensed by T under Agree.
Dispensing with Activation and Reflex checking
(36)

(37)

4
T
vP
iT: __
3
(EPP)
DP
v’
uT:__
3
v+V
…
uT: val
Pesetsky and Torrego (2007):
•
•
•
•
u/iF: __; u/iF: val
Case is uT on NP
Agree T»DP; T»v+V  feature sharing
Movement: EPP
DP’s Case is licensed by T under Agree.
4
DP
T’
iϕ:val
3
uCase
T
vP
uϕ: __
3
DP
…
iϕ:val
uCase
Bošković (2007):
•
•
•
u/iF: __; u/iF: val
uF must act as a probe
Movement: valuation driven
Question: Case licensing in languages where subject movement does not (or not obligatorily occur; e.g., German; see Wurmbrand 2006)
Downward valuation — Reverse Agree
(38)
4
T
vP
iT: val
3
(uϕ: __)
DP
v’
uT: __
…
iϕ: val
•
•
•
Case: uT on NP (but not crucial)
Feature sharing can be dispensed with
Movement: valuation driven (‘need’ of T)
14
4.2 Polarity licensing
•
Polarity mismatches under ellipsis (Sag 1976, Bresnan 1971, Ladusaw 1980, Hardt 1993,
Fiengo and May 1994, Giannakidou 1998, Johnson 2001, Merchant To appear; the examples
below and trees are from Merchant To appear)
(39) a.
•
•
John didn’t see anyone, but Mary did.
b.
John saw someone, but Mary didn’t.
i. ... but Mary did see someone.
ii. *... but Mary did see anyone.
iii. ∃x.see (Mary, x)
i.
ii.
iii.
Merchant (15)
(16)
≠... but Mary didn’t see someone.
... but Mary didn’t see anyone.
¬∃x.see (Mary, x)
Lower elements (indefinites) are unvalued in some respect; valued under Reverse Agree.
Different insertion rules for positive (some, a) or negative (any) indefinites.
4.3 Negative Concord
Zeijlstra (2010), Haegeman and Lohndal (2010)
(40) a.
b.
c.
•
K’(en)-een nooit niets
I (en)-have never nothing
‘I have never seen anything.’
niet
vele
geen
not
many
no
‘not many books’
niet
not
gezien.
seen
boeken
books
West Flemish (1)
(18); *(niet)
Cannot mean: *no books; *many books
Ier en-leest
er
nooit niemand [DP niet vele geen boeken].
here en-reads there never no.one
not many no
books
‘No one ever reads many books around here.’
(19)
DP-internal NC: geen is dependent on niet; niet must be uNeg, since it enters a NC relation
with sentential NEG; if uNegs would need to move above iNeg (standard Agree approach)
DP-internal n-words may be problematic.
15
•
Although the authors above disagree on some technical details, they do agree that the licensing relation in NC contexts is as follows:
o n-words involve a uNeg feature (since they do not contribute semantic negation)
o an interpretable NEG head, overt or abstact iNeg, must license all uNegs under ccommand.
o  Reverse Agree
4.4 Anaphor binding
Phases as binding domains
•
Binding domains can be reduced to phases: anaphors must be bound and pronouns free
within vPs, CPs, and in some accounts (non-selected) PPs and DPs (Canac-Marquis 2005,
Heinat 2006, Hicks 2006, 2009, Lee-Schoenfeld 2008, Quicoli 2008, Despić 2010).
•
Condition A: syntactic licensing condition requiring anaphors to enter an Agree relation with
an element (antecedent or a head associated with antecedent) supplying the missing values
(Reuland 2001, 2005, 2011, Fischer 2004, 2006, Heinat 2006, Chomsky 2008, Hicks 2009,
among others).
How does Agree work?
•
The deficient element is clearly the anaphor; anaphors are deficient, underspecified for certain feature values (Richards 1996, 1997, Reuland 2001, 2005, 2011, Heinat 2006, Hicks
2006, 2009, Johnsen 2008, To appear, among many others).
•
Disagreement: is anaphor licensed/valued by the antecedent directly (Hicks 2006, 2009,
Schäfer 2008) or by a functional head Agreeing with the antecedent (Reuland 2001, 2005,
Heinat 2006, Chomsky 2008, Kratzer 2009)?
Mediated Agree?
•
•
The motivation for anaphor binding being mediated by a functional head (SUBJECT » v; v »
OBJECT) is most theory internal: Following standard Agree, the subject cannot bind the anaphor directly, since the subject is not active (it is not deficient).
Empirical? Reuland (2005: 512, (10)):
(41) a.
b.

Det
it
Thad
There
ble
became
introdusert
introduced
kom maðuri
came a.man
en manni
a man
for segi selv / *hami selv
to SE SELF / *him SELF
með börnin síni / *hansi
with children SE / *him
Norwegian
Icelandic
Claim: T c-commands the anaphor, but the nominative doesn’t:
EXPL [ T [VP [ V DP.NOM ] [P REFL] ] ]
BUT:
•
•
Right branching VP structure (Pesetsky 1995)
Multiple subject positions in Icelandic (Bobaljik 1995, 2002, Bobaljik and Jonas 1996,
Bobaljik and Thráinsson 1998).
16
Against mediated Agree
•
•
If object is valued through some feature sharing SUBJECT » v; v » OBJECT, it would be predicted that v should also share the features of the DPs. Anaphor agreement effect (Rizzi 1990,
Woolford 1999, Tucker 2010) shows exactly the opposite — an anaphor must not agree with
v, if object, with T if subject.
Binding of possessors: v Agrees with DP containing the possessor (for Case) not with the
possessor.
(42) a.
b.
Honumi
líkar bíllinn
he.DAT
like
car.the.NOM
‘He likes his own car.’
sinni
Hanni
fílar
bílinn
he. NOM
likes car.the.ACC
‘He likes his car (very much).’
sinni
SE
SE
/
/
*hansi
*his
/
/
*hansi
*his
(í tætlur)
(into shreds)
Gísli Rúnar Harðarson, p.c.
If valuation is directly by the antecedent, Reverse Agree is necessary.
4
NP
4
iϕ: val
4
Anaphor
4
iϕ: __
Anaphor
iϕ: __
John talked to himself about himself
4.5 Obligatory control
4.5.1 Landau (2000 et. seq.)
•
Chomsky (2000/2001) style Agree: probe: uF; goal iF which is active.
•
Control:
o probe: matrix functional head (T if subject control, v if object control), specifically
the uϕ of that head
o goal: PRO or infinitival Agr
o Assumption: PRO and infinitival Agr are anaphoric (not clear what exactly this
means), which makes them active for Agree. PRO comes valued.
o Matrix F-head enters two Agree relations (controller and PRO/Agr): “This is made
possible by delaying feature-erasure to the end of the superordinate phase” [p. 65]
•
PC: John decided to leave.
o
o
o
o
•
T+Agr Agrees with PRO in Spec,vP
PRO moves to Spec,TP
T+Agr moves to C
Matrix F Agrees with T+Agr (in C) [will allow certain feature mismatches]
EC: John tried to leave.
o T+Agr Agrees with PRO in Spec,vP
17
o
o
o
o
PRO moves to Spec, TP
No TC (since [-tense])
Matrix F Agrees directly with PRO [controller and PRO must match in all features]
Crucially: F cannot Agree with Agr here (PIC).
Some issues
•
Locality of Agree: F can Agree with PRO, but not T+Agr in EC cases; a revised version of
the PIC is given that basically stipulates this.
(43) Modified PIC
[Landau 2000: p. 69]
In a structure [ … X … [YP … Z … ], where YP is the only phase boundary between X and
Z, Z is accessible to X:
i) Only at the head or edge of YP, if Z is uninterpretable.
ii) Anywhere in the YP phase, if Z is interpretable.
•
•
Both AgrINF & matrix F Agree twice; this is possible by the assumption that checked features
remain accessible (both as probes [F] and to activate a goal [Agr]) until the next phase up.
Since it’s assumed that PRO comes valued, the assumption of it being anaphoric is necessary
to make it an active goal for Agree.
4.5.2 Basic Reverse Agree account
•
•
Reverse Agree eliminates the need for several unmotivated assumptions.
Here’s the main idea of OC:
o PRO (like anaphors) has iϕ: __, hence needs to get valued
o DP iϕ: val (controller) can directly Agree with PRO and value its phi-features
o Locality of Agree: see below
•
•
•
NOC: pro (valued ϕ-features); compatible with (in some cases necessarily) CPs.
EC vs. PC? Either PC is not OC (Barrie, Hornstein etc.); or perhaps, PRO has a valued (semantic) plural features, and only inherits the other ϕ-features from the controller.
Further evidence: QR (see section 10)
4.5.3 Infinitives lack CP — Slovenian
4.5.3.1 Marušič (2005)
Slovenian feel like construction
(44) a.
b.
Gabru
se
pleše
Gaber.DAT SE
dance.3SG.PRES
‘Gaber feels like dancing.’
[Marušič 2005: 66, (21)]
Lini
se še ne bo
šlo
ven
Lina.DAT SE still neg aux.3SG.FUT come.NEUT.SG out
‘Lina still won’t feel like coming out.’
Not: Lina still doesn’t feel like coming out in the future.’
[Marušič 2005: 70, (28)]
18
p. 70: “[…] tense inflection on the
lower verb in the FEEL-LIKE construction modifies the time of the FEELLIKE disposition, not the time of the
overt verb’s event. Thus, future morphology in (28) actually signifies a
future disposition, not a present disposition towards a future event.”
[p. 72]
•
The transmission of T-morphology is exactly as expected under Reverse Agree and the definition of phases given here.
Control infinitives
Slovenian OC-infinitives do not involve a CP
•
Scrambling (based on Bošković 1997 for Serbo-Croatian): scrambling out of finite clauses
yields WCO effects; scrambling out of infinitives doesn't (same for all types of infinitives). If
CP  A’-movement (WCO); if no CP  A-movement.
(45) a.
Janezai je
njegovj/*i oče reku, da se boji __
John.GEN AUX hisj/*i
father said that SE fear
‘John, his father said he fears.’
[Marušič 2005: 109, (4)]
b.
Kogai
je
njegovj/*i oče reku, da se boji __
whom
AUX hisj/*i
father said that SE fear
‘Whom did his father say that he fears?’
[Marušič 2005: 109, (4)]
c.
Janezai je
njegovi oče
sklenil poslat v semenišče [Marušič 2005: 110, (6)]
John.GEN AUX hisi
father decided send to seminary
‘His father decided to send John to the theological seminary.’
•
Inverse scope: scrambling out of finite clauses does not change scope relations (obligatory
reconstruction); scrambling out of infinitives does.
(46) a.
b.
Nekdo
je rekel, da so vse punce vredne greha
*∀»∃
somebody AUX said
that AUX all girls
worthy sin
‘Somebody said that all girls are worthy of sin.’
[Marušič 2005: 111, (12)]
Vse punce, je
rekel nekdo,
da so
vredne
all girls
AUX said somebody that AUX worthy
19
greha
sin
*∀»∃
(47) a.
b.
Vse punce se je
nekdo
odločil poklicati
all girls
SE AUX somebody decided call.INF
‘Someone decided to all call girls.’
po telefonu
∀»∃
on phone
[Marušič 2005: 111, (13a)]
Nekdo
se je
odločil
poklicati po telefonu vse punce
∀»∃
somebody SE AUX decided
call.INF on phone all girls
‘Somebody said that all girls are worthy of sin.’
[Marušič 2005: 111, (13b)]
p. 111: “The interpretation of the non-scrambled sentence (13b) is not entirely clear. It seems
that the universal quantifier can have a wide scope interpretation (at least with some degree of
focus (and appropriate intonation))…”
•
•
•
Climbing of pronominal clitics: possible out of (certain) infinitives
Partial wh-movement: possible in finite clauses, but not in infinitives (requires CP)
Multiple wh-movement: no multiple long distance wh-movement out of finite clauses (Rudin
1988 only the first wh moves to Spec,CP, hence further); multiple wh-movement is possible
out of infinitives.
(48) a.
Kaj je
{*komu} rekel Vid {*komu} da je
Peter dal *{komu}?
what AUX whom
said Vid whom
that AUX Peter give whom
‘What did Vid say that Peter gave whom?’
[Marušič 2005: 115, (23)]
b.
Komu
si
kay
pozabil dati?
Whom
AUX
what forgot
give
‘Whom did you forget to give what?’
[Marušič 2005: 116, (24)]
c.
Komu
si
koga sklenil
predstaviti?
Whom
AUX
who
decide
introduce
‘Who did you decide to introduce to whom?’
[Marušič 2005: 116, (24)]
OC vs. NOC
•
•
OC: entails lack of CP
NOC: CP possible, but not necessary (many NOC/PC verbs also show transparency effects)
convince
•
•
PC; does not allow clitic climbing; no genitive of negation (fn. 104, p. 127)
But lacks WCO, prohibits partial wh-movement, allows multiple wh-movement
(49) [Marušič 2005: 127, (53)]
a.
*Zvone
ji
je
Micko
prepričal dati __ darilo
Zvone
her AUX Micka.ACC convinced give
gift
‘Zvone convinced Micka to give her a gift.’
b.
*Metko
sem mu
prepričal
predstaviti
Metka.ACC AUX him.DAT convinced
introduce
‘I convinced Metka to introduce Slavc to him.’
20
Slavca
Slavc.ACC
c.
*Metko
sem ga
prepričal
predstaviti
Metka.ACC AUX him.ACC convinced
introduce
‘I convinced Metka to introduce him to Peter.’
Petru
Peter.DAT
(50) [Marušič 2005: 127, (54)-(56)]
a.
Slavkai
je
Petro
njegovi oče
prepričal brcniti __
Slavko.ACC AUX Peter.ACC his
father convinced kick
‘His father convinced her to kick Slavko in his fibula’
v piščal
in fibular
b.
Kaj
je
Jože Zdenko
prepričal
komu
what AUX Jože Zdenka
convinced
whom
‘Whom did Jože convince Zdenka to give Fiat 600.’
fičota?
Fiat.600
c.
Komu je
kaj
Marko prepričal
Meto
dati za rojstni dan
what AUX what Marko convinced Meta.ACC give for birth day
‘Whom did Marko convince Meta to give what for birthday?’
date
give
4.5.3.2 Reverse Agree
Account here: Some similar conclusions
•
•
•
OC-PRO: vP and TP not phases; Spell-Out postponed and infinitive is fully accessible for
Move & Agree (until the next phase is complete)
CP always strong phase; blocks Move/Agree across it (forces intermediate A’-stopover).
Marušič (2005): OC  no CP; this follows nicely, since OC-PRO (but not NOC pro) needs
to get valued by the controller, which would be impossible across a strong phase.
Agree into infinitives — Genitive of negation
•
Neg in matrix licenses embedded genitive of negation in infinitives but not in finite clauses.
(51) [Marušič 2005: 119, (35)-(36)]
a.
Meta ni
vedela, da ji je Vili kupil bicikel / * bicikla
Meta AUX.NEG knew that her AUX Vili bought bike.ACC / *bike.GEN
‘Meta didn’t know that Vili bought her a bike.’
b.
Stane
še
ni
sklenil
kupiti
Stane
yet
Aux.NEG decide
buy
‘Stane hasn’t decided yet to buy a house.’
c.
Petra Meti
ni
zapovedala kupiti avtomobila
Stane Meta.DAT Aux.NEG order
buy car.GEN
‘Petra didn’t order Meta to buy a car.’
hiše
house.GEN
“
Marušič (2005): “[…] the fact that the effect of negation is blocked in embedded clauses is most naturally
correlated with the CP projection and the phase that it creates. CP being a phase blocks AGREE and without
this long distance relation, genitive can not be licensed inside the embedded clause.”
21
•
Left open: how Agree work (given that iNeg licenses a presumably uF: __ on the object);
status other phases, e.g., vP.
•
Reverse Agree plus definition of phase-hood: this follows; iNeg » uNeg: __ [GEN]; further
things to consider:
o ni in/below v (Neg that originates higher should not license embedded genitive).
o LD-genitive should only be possible with OC (unless there is movement of the embedded object, which would get it out of the embedded VP if a Spell-Out domain);
Marušič (2005) notes that genitive of negation is impossible with convince, a NOC
verb (but there could be a different reason for this restriction).
o Intervening heads (infinitival T, v) must not block Agree (different features?).
Agree into infinitives —Depictive secondary predicates
•
Controller and PRO must Agree with embedded predicate.
(52) a.
b.
•
Janez je
prepričal obe punci
ostati pri njemu pijani
J.NOM Aux convinced both girls.ACC.DU stay at him drunk.ACC/NOM.DU
‘Janez convinced the two girls to stay at his place, when they were drunk.’
Janez je
prepričal Meto
ostati pri njemu *pijano
/ ??pijana
J.NOM Aux convinced M.ACC stay
at him *drunk.ACC / ??drunk.NOM
‘Janez convinced Meta to stay at his place, when she was drunk.’
Depictive structure à la Marušič et al. (2003)
(53)
VP
3
DP
iϕ: 3SG
uT: ACC
V’
3
V
TP
convince
3
PRO
T’
uT: __
3
iϕ: __ T
vP
iT: irr
3
PrP
v’
#
PRO
uT: __
iϕ: __
•
•
•
•
•
2
drunk v
uT: __
i/uϕ: __
VP
iT: ∅/irr values NPs as NOM (like finite T; Landau 2004)
drunk gets valued NOM by infinitival T; cannot get Case-valued by PRO [after PRO is valued
by the controller] or anything in the matrix clause, since infinitival T is closer  *ACC.
PRO gets valued ACC (valuation after movement) or NOM (no movement or valuation before
movement); since PRO is non-overt, the Case is not realized.
Derivation where drunk gets valued NOM converges; cf. the speaker variation Marušič notes.
If *NOM: Late PF-effect (?) — Depictive predicate only possible if the realized cases of all
Agreeing elements match: case of DP and predicate must match.
22
•
Under this structure of depictives, postponed Spell-Out would not be necessary to establish
Agree between the matrix object and the depictive, since the latter is at the edge of the lower
vP, This may then predict that depictives should be possible with both OC & NOC (cf. the
example with convince).
Non-simultaneous Spell-Out?
•
•
•
Marušič’s (2005): infinitives are not PF-phases (various intonation tests), but LF-phases
CP is a PF & LF phase; infinitive (vP or TP) is an LF phase, but not a PF-phase.
Main reason: quantifiers can be interpreted within an infinitive (infinitive is semantically a
proposition, hence, according to Marušič, an LF-phase).
•
Reverse Agree and postponed Spell-Out provides an alternative account .
PF-phase vs. LF-phase? Some thoughts…
•
•
•
Merging the matrix DP (controller) completes both the matrix and the embedded phases; but
since at that point the matrix vP has already been built, the embedded VP (in fact, the whole
infinitive) is spelled-out together (simultaneously) with the matrix VP. This may then yield
the effect that the infinitive is not a separate PF-phase, but part of the matrix VP Spell-Out
domain.
What about LF?
Suppose that QR applies, targeting infinitival vP (or TP if unaccusative). Due to PRO, SpellOut (both LF and PF) is postponed and the derivation continues. After the matrix vP is complete, matrix VP is sent to Spell-Out. For LF, this means that the structure needs to be interpreted. To do so, what’s required is that quantifiers are merged with appropriate sisters —
constituents of type <t>. It seems that in this scenario, this would clearly be met, even if at
some earlier stage of the derivation, vP/TP was not a phase and that portion of the derivation
has not been sent to Spell-Out separately. Note also that QR within the infinitive is not
obligatory; QR can also target the matrix predicate, which seems to indicate that the infinitive is not an inaccessible/inescapable Spell-Out domain.
5. SUMMARY REVERSE AGREE
•
•
Agree is valuation driven (Pesetsky and Torrego 2007, Bošković 2009, To appear).
No activation condition, reflex checking (Bošković 2007, Pesetsky and Torrego 2007).
Reverse Agree
•
•
•
•
Eliminates the need for feature sharing and allows direct Agree relations without (often
stipulated) intermediaries.
Since the deficiency is in the lower element, multiple dependencies can be established between one valuator and several ‘needy’ elements.
Multiple Agree(ment) relations (e.g., NPIs, NC, SOT; see Zeijlstra 2010): typically are topdown dependencies; e.g. NPI licensing, if established syntactically, one licensor can licenses
several dependent NPIs (He’s not having any problems with any of his clients anymore).
One syntactic dependency that unites: Case, selection of verb morphology, anaphor binding,
polarity licensing, negative concord, obligatory control…
23
6. THE MERGE CONDITION
6.1 Main issues addressed
Deletion of uninterpretable valued features
Conditions on Merge (and Move)
Clausal complementation options in English and German (that-omission, V/T–to–C, features in wh-contexts…)
The beginning of a syntactic account of selection.
•
•
•
•
Theoretical context
Reverse Agree
Bošković (2007), Pesetsky and Torrego (2007): no activation condition, reflex checking,
defectivity
Pesetsky and Torrego (2007), Bošković (2009, To appear): i/uF: val; i/uF: __; Agree is
valuation-driven
•
•
•
Deletion of uF
•
•
•
Uninterpretable features must delete (at least before reaching LF)
How do uF: val delete?
Freely or only if in a relation (e.g., Agree) with a corresponding iF?
6.2 The Thesis or Radical Interpretability (Pesetsky and Torrego 2007)
[15] Thesis of Radical Interpretability (Brody 1997)
Each feature must receive a semantic interpretation in some syntactic location.
6.2.1 Verbal morphology and selection
(54)
*John has walks
iT [ ]
iT [3]
has iT pres [ ]
has iT pres [3]
V uT pres [ ]
V uT pres [ ]
p. 272: “It is not sufficient to answer this question with reference to the selectional properties of higher
verbs, since such an answer would beg the question of why the selectional properties are not otherwise.”

In a Reverse Agree approach, this problem does not arise.
6.2.2 Subject CPs — feature sharing (P&T 2007 version)
(55) a.
b.
•
•

That Mary likes chess annoyed Bill.
That Mary likes musicals seemed to annoy Tom.
Problem: CP, T(s), and V(s) all share a (single) T-feature.
Different T value of CP and the rest: requires reference to Thesis of Radical Interpretability.
This problem arises only due to the specific feature sharing view pursued there.
24
6.2.3 wh-features
•
•
Embedded interrogatives, relatives, free relatives share an overall syntax
Restrictions on different wh-elements
(56) a.
b.
c.
(57) a.
b.
c.
d.
I wonder what/who Mary saw.
the person who Mary saw…
*the book what Mary saw…
interrogative
relative
*relative
I wonder when/why Mary left.
the reason why Mary left…
the exact time when Mary left…
John left when/*why Mary left.
interrogative
relative
relative
free relative restricted
p. 271: “If the matching of clause-type to wh-type is a variety of agreement, then C in these constructions
must contain an unvalued feature that is valued when it probes and finds an appropriate wh-expression
containing its goal.”
(58) a.
b.
c.
d.
iQ: __
uQ: __
iQ: val
uQ: val
interrogative C
declarative, non-interrogative C (successive cyclic movement)
if
wh-XP
Movement: EPP-feature
(59)
•
*Mary bought which book [uQ: wh]
(*meaning: Mary bought this/a book)
If uF: val could freely be deleted, this may be a problem (at least in some languages/constructions)
Some issues
(60) a.
b.
c.
d.
•
•
*I wonder (that) John bought what?
I wonder what John bought.
*Who does Mary wonder (that) John met __?
What does Mary think that John bought __?
Embedded C
iQ: __EPP
iQ: __EPP
iQ: __EPP
uQ: __EPP
(60a,b): obligatory EPP of iQ.
(60c,d): one single uQ: wh can value several uQ: __, but only one iQ.
25
wh-XP
uQ: wh
uQ: wh
uQ: wh
uQ: wh
(61) Revised Thesis of Radical Interpretability?
Each feature must receive a semantic interpretation in exactly one syntactic location.
•
•
But this then again raises questions for the analysis of raising and CP-subject sentences (That
Mary likes chess annoyed Bill.), where there are two T-values (though, per assumption a single feature) shared by the embedded T and the matrix T.
Feature checking in intermediate positions (Bošković 2007)
Bošković (2007)
(62) a.
b.
c.
d.
•
•
•
I wonder what John bought.
What does Mary think that John bought __?
Embedded C
uF
uF
uF
——
wh-XP
(uF)
uF
uF
uF
Movement of uF wh-XPs is obligatory (uF must become a probe); (62a) excluded since no
movement (uF), or no goal for C (if no uF on wh-XP)
(62c): single uF can only probe once.
(62d): successive cyclic movement, triggered by wh-XP’s need to become probe; no feature
checking in phase edge positions.
Selection
(63) a.
b.
c.
Who knows what John bought __?
*Who thinks what (that) John bought __?
Who wondered what John bought __?
iQ: __/uF
*iQ: __/*uF
iQ: __/uF
(64) a.
b.
c.
Who knew that John bought what?
Who thinks that John bought what?
*Who wondered (that) John bought what?
?/ ——
?/——
*no iQ/*no uF
wonder:
think:
know:
obligatory interrogative complement
obligatory declarative complement
interrogative or declarative complement
•
•
How do we know we need an interrogative C? This is only known when higher V is merged.
Is there a connection (other than simply stating that a particular verb takes a particular type
complement) between the features of C(P) and the selecting verb? If so, how can this be expressed in a feature driven model?
6.2.4 Gender features
•
•
•
Grammatical GENDER features challenge the Thesis of Radical Interpretability.
Best candidate for a uF: val that never appears in any relation with an interpretable counterpart of that feature.
Bošković (2009, To appear) assumes uF: val can freely delete.
26
(65) a.
b.
•
Juče
su uništena
sva sela
i
sve
yesterday are desroyed.PL.NEUT all villages.NEUT and all
‘All villages and all towns were destroyed yesterday’
Sva sela
i
sve varošice
all villages.NEUT and all towns.fem
su
are
varošice
towns.fem
(juče)
uništene
yesterday desroyed.PL.FEM
Account of the distribution of first/last conjunct agreement builds crucially on the assumption that uF: val (gender) deletes without ever undergoing Agree (either after Match during
the derivation or at Transfer).
6.2.5 Where I’ll be going
•
•
•
Somewhere in the middle…
Give up the specific version of the Thesis of Radical Interpretability
But maintain that uninterpretable features (unvalued as well as valued ones) need to be in
particular configurations defined to allow them to be marked for deletion.
6.3 The Merge Condition
(66) a.
C’
3
C
iQ: __
•
•
•
•
•
b.
TP
@
Q: val
T’
3
T
uϕ: __
vP
@
ϕ: val
Movement occurs when the higher element has an unvalued F; to yield a convergent derivation, an appropriate valued F needs to Merge above F: __.
Reverse Agree raises the question of how movement (of the licensor) is motivated (assuming
no EPP). [Note that in this model, F: __ does not probe for a goal, instead the F:__ says that
it has to be a goal.]
The solution I propose is to locate the motivation for movement not in what triggers movement, but rather in what can/must Merge with a particular feature constellation at each point.
This will lead to a highly local model: At each point in the derivation, Merge (internal and
external) has to meet Last Resort.
My version of Last Resort is inspired by Abels (2003):
[92] Last Resort
Abels (2003)
A constituent may only be merged, i.e. base-merged or re-merged, if that leads to the immediate satisfaction of a previously unsatisfiable feature.
Proposal: Each instance of Merge is subject to Last Resort as follows.
(67) Merge Condition [Working hypothesis]
Merge α and β if i. or ii.
i.
ii.
α can value (a sub-feature of) the head of β.
Every iF of α matches a corresponding [uF: val] on β.
27
[Valuation]
[Complementation]
(68) Deletion of uF: val
A uF valued or matched under Merge is marked for deletion.
(69) At the completion of a phase, features marked for deletion within that phase are deleted.
[To be rephrased.]
(70)
•
•
i.
X’
4
X
YP
F: val
3
Y
…
uF: __
ii.
XP
4
X
YP
uF: val
iF
uG: val
iG
Type i. covers internal Merge (e.g, subject movement to Spec,TP; wh-XP to interrogative
Spec,CP), as well as external Merge of heads valuing their complements (e.g., verbal elements of the clause).
Type ii. will be the main tool to implement selection (complementation) where no feature
valuation takes place (cf. Pesetsky and Torrego’s 2006 Vehicle Requirement on Merge).
More generally…
•
•
•
I borrow from P&T (2006) the idea that (in the typical case) Merge is restricted to certain
feature combinations. In contrast to their approach, however, I do not consider this is an
Agree relation (given the obligatory absence of valuation in these contexts).
Merge is driven by uFs; uF must be eliminated before reaching LF; deletion is not free (not
even for uF: val), but only possible if a feature is marked for deletion under Merge.
A full reduction of Move to Merge may be possible if Move is eliminated altogether in favor
of multiple external Merge of the same element (which then requires a mechanism for chain
formation and copy identification). See below for a suggestion along these lines.
6.4 Deletion of uF: Gender — a new observation
Disclaimer
•
The account below only covers gender features on nouns/NPs so far; an account of gender
agreement is still under construction (as are other instances of morphological agreement).
Gender on Nouns — basic idea
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Let’s assume that there is a single set of ϕ features: [u/iϕ: PERSON, NUMBER, GENDER]
Number on nouns is valued via Agree by D or some NUMBER head.
Gender, unless semantic and hence interpretable, comes valued on the noun (uF: gender)
D/Num Agrees with N and values NUMBER.
After that, the entire uϕ of N is valued and marked for deletion.
Crucial assumption is that uϕ: [NUM, GEN, …] counts as a single feature for deletion.
That is, (67i.) allows deletion of uϕ: val, as long as some part of that ϕ-bundle is valued by a
higher feature.
28
(71)
NP/DP
3
D/Num
iϕ: sg/pl
NP
#
N
uϕ: [ __NUM, FEM, …]
•
This predicts that there should be no language that has (uninterpretable) gender on nouns, but
no instantiation of number in the NP.
WALS summary
Languages with no plural but
gender:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Khmu’ (2)
Maybrat (2)
Tidore (3)
Nicobarese (3)
Paumarí (4)
Pirahã (4)
Oromo (2)
[semantic]
[semantic]
[semantic]
[semantic]
[semantic]
[semantic]
[semantic or
formal]
The crucial property at stake here is that gender is uninterpretable (if it is interpretable, then
there is no issue for deletion, since iF: GEN wouldn’t need to ever delete).
That is, we only need to look at languages where gender cannot correspond to a particular
semantic property.
Systems of gender assignments (WALS):
•
•
•
Combining number with different types
of gender assignments, reduces the 7
above to 1!
No gender
Semantic
Semantic and formal
29
Oromo (Owens 1985)
•
•
The above suggests that plural does exist in this language, but, for some reason, isn’t used.
If it can be justified that the existence of plural as stated above is sufficient justification for
assuming that Oromo does have number in syntax, the only counter-example disappears.
Conclusion:
•
GENDER on N may not delete freely; the cross-linguistic correlation above could be taken to
indicate that GENDER is dependent on N being valued by D/Num for NUMBER.
•
For the P&T system, GENDER remains a problem: in languages/constructions where gender is
uninterpretable (i.e., determined by formal rather than semantic properties), the Thesis of
Radical Interpretability would not allow uϕ: GENDER, since these features are never connected to a corresponding iF.
30
6.5 Basic Illustration of the Merge Condition
•
•
A few things need to be said about how clausal categories meet the Merge Condition.
I assume that verbs (V) can include the following three types of features:
o uT: __ (verbal morphology)
o uϕ: val, uQ: wh (complement)
o uV: Agent/Become/Cause/?Goal (VP-shells)
•
At first sight this may look like an arbitrary complication. But what this does is to build argument structure and complementation into the syntax, and hence makes the syntactic computation more deterministic (rather than letting syntax do whatever it wants and then put the
burden on semantics, filtering out certain structures, or on lexical subcategorization rules).
(72) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
John left (the house).
John wore *(a hat).
John melted the ice. The ice melted.
John kicked the ice. *The ice kicked.
John arrived (*an airplane)
(uϕ: val), uV: Agent
uϕ: val, uV: Agent
uϕ: val, (uV: Agent)
uϕ: val, uV: Agent
uϕ: val
iV: Agent:
•
•
•
•
•
uV: Agent: requires that the main V(P) Merges with a verb (v) that is specified as iV: Agent
(to mark uV: Agent for deletion under Merge).
This has the (welcome) effect that whether a subject is required or not with a particular verb
is now information locally available on each verb in the syntax.
But, following standard assumptions, the Agent itself is not “selected” by the verb, but introduced by the usual v head (with Kratzer’s Agent semantics, hence iV: Agent).
Thus, standard lexical subcategorization, which is not visible in syntax and often comes in
somewhat magically can be dispensed with.
A further advantage: ACC assignment; tying ACC to v with iV: Agent directly reflects the
common effect that ACC is dependent on a Case competitor (the NOM, typically the Agent).
How is the subject Merged?
•
•
v: uϕ: __ (same for T in languages with the EPP phenomenon; but there is no actual EPP.)
And yes, I will at some point work out morphological agreement, but not now.
Mod, Aux etc.
•
•
“Selecting” head has iT: val
Every verbal head (also) has uT: __, which requires valuation by the higher head (which licenses Merge).
How far do I want to go with this?
•
•
I do not intend to get rid of s-selection altogether. Certain semantic properties/incompatibilities/anomalies will be left to the semantics: e.g., He speaks two languages/#two waffles vs. He ate two waffles/#two languages/#a table.
In addition, it will be necessary to keep certain broad semantic requirements of predicates
(such as s-selection of a proposition).
31
Some complementation examples
(73) a.
b.
c.
•
John ate <something>
John told us <something>
John asked <something, a question>
For ϕ-features on verbs, I assume that the value is some default value compatible with any ϕ
feature: He likes me, you, her, him, them….
(74) a.
VP
3
V
XP: iϕ
[s-selection: eatable thing]
eat
DP: 
uϕ: val
CP: ? [maybe free relatives; but controversial whether there
is also a DP on top of CP]
b.
c.
•
•
uϕ: val
an apple
uϕ: val, (uQ: val) a story, that/when she left
uϕ: val, uQ: val
a question, where Mary is
VP
3
V
XP: iϕ, (iQ)
told us
DP: 
uϕ: val
CP: 
[s-selection: proposition, answer]
VP
3
V
XP: iϕ, iQ
[s-selection: question]
ask
DP:  [Concealed questions]
uϕ: val, uQ: wh
CP:  [see below for the internal structure of embedded Qs]
CSR/subcategorization/c-selection will be reduced to feature deletion under Merge.
Structures where syntax imposes no restrictions are subject to semantic compositionality.
7. CLAUSAL COMPLEMENTATION IN ENGLISH AND GERMAN
Summary
Type of clause
Matrix declarative
Selected?
not selected
Matrix interrogative
not selected
Embedded interrogative selected
Embedded declarative
not selected
selected
Top value
iT
iT, iQ
iQ, (iϕ); *iT
iT
iϕ
32
English
TP
German
CP (V2)
V/T–to–C
CP (wh ) V/T–to–C
CP (wh) *V/T–to–C
TP
CP (V2); V/T–to–C
CP (that)
CP (that)
Generalization:
•
•
•
•
Syntactically not selected clauses must be marked iT on their top projection.
I’ll argue that there are two ways of achieving this: bare TP or CP with V/T–to–C.
Syntactically selected clauses are either iϕ, iQ, or both — never iT.
I won’t be able to fully derive the iT restriction for non-selected clauses, but the following
considerations play a role:
o A verb comes with uT:__, which encodes the morphological value coming from a
higher head—the one that ‘selects’ the verb). To combine with an iT complement, a
verb would have to be uT: val (which would mean the upward dependency is lost).
o There are semantic restrictions on the distribution of non-selected clauses (e.g., German embedded V2 clauses [which I’ll argue are non-selected and iT] are only possible in contexts of assertions); iT restriction could be tied to semantic requirements.
•
•
For now: A clause that is marked iT (on top) indicates that it is not selected.
For embedded declaratives, this will be an interesting consequence that I come back to later.
Merge of C and TP and (a somewhat clumsy) V/T–to–C movement
•
•
•
•
•
•
that (iϕ: val) can combine with TP since uϕ: val of TP, though marked for deletion, is still
present when C merges.
iT tense features: tense (PRES, PAST), finiteness
As a default, tense features are bundled together (on T), but they can also be split over T and
C, if there is a reason.
One scenario where splitting is necessary is when C is required (e.g., when C has iQ), which
will not allow Merge of C and TP. In this case, iT: fin is placed on C (and a ‘placeholder’ uT:
__ on T).
Since all iT features also come with a uT: __, C would include both iT: val (fin) and uT:__
when the tense features are split. This will have the desired effect, that C can combine with
TP (Merge per Agree), and movement of T–to–C takes place to value the uT: __ of C.
This is a bit clumsy, but the idea is that sometimes features need to spread over two heads,
but eventually they need to get together again.
(75) a.
C’ [iϕ]
3
C
TP
iϕ: val
@
T
uϕ: val, iT: [FIN, PRES]
C’ [iT]
4
C
iT: fin
uT: __
TP
@
T
uϕ: val, iT: [PRES], uT: __
7.1 Matrix declaratives
(76) a.
b.
John has seen Peter.
Den Peter
hat
der Hans
gesehen
the.ACC Peter has
the.NOM John
seen
‘John has seen Peter.’ ‘It was Peter that John has seen.’
33
•
•
b’.
Der Hans
hat
den Peter
gesehen
the.NOM Hans has
the.ACC Peter
seen
c.
*Der Hans
den Peter
gesehen hat
the.NOM Hans the.ACC Peter seen
has
Obligatory V2 in German; simple TP in English.
Matrix declaratives are not selected  iT. In English, this is achieved by a simple TP.
V2:
• German has an additional restriction that non-selected declaratives must have a filled
Spec,CP. I encode this as a property on C (e.g., information structure), given as X below.
• Since it’s not clear which element (C or XP) has the interpretable feature, I leave this open
here (either option will work).
• Merge of i/uXP is possible since it Agrees with X: __ on C.
• To end up with iT on the top projection (and to allow C to Merge with TP), the tense features
need to be split as outlined above, yielding V2.
(77)
CP [?iX, iT]
4
C
C’ [?iX, iT]
XP
3
X: top
T+C
TP
X: __
@
iT: val + uT: __
tT
(78) Assumptions about presence/absence of V2
a.
b.
German: Non-selected declaratives encode IS properties on C.
English: Project only structure that is necessary.
The common properties of English and German matrix declaratives are:
•
•
Matrix declaratives are not selected.
The topmost projection (TP in English, CP in German) is marked iT: val.
7.2 Matrix interrogatives
•
In both English and German, obligatory V/T–to–C takes place (but no do-support in English
subject questions, which I leave aside; see Bobaljik 1994, 2002).
(79) a.
b.
Who did he meet __?
Who (*did) __ met him?
(80) a.
Wer
hat
who.NOM
has
‘Who met him?’
[unless emphatic]
ihn
he.ACC
getroffen?
met
34
a’.
Wen
hat
who.ACC
has
‘Who did he met?’
b.
*Wer
who.NOM
c.
*Wer
who.NOM
(81)
dass
that
er
he.NOM
getroffen?
met
ihn
he.ACC
getroffen
met
hat?
has
ihn
he.ACC
getroffen
met
hat?
has
CP [iQ, iT]
4
C
C’ [iQ, iT]
XP
3
uQ: wh T+C
TP
iQ: __
@
iT: val + uT: __
tT
uQ: wh is Merged with C’ via Agree
uQ: wh is marked for deletion by iQ of C’.
The common properties of English and German matrix interrogatives are:
•
•
Matrix interrogatives are not selected.
The topmost projection (CP, assuming there must be an iQ in C) is marked iT: val.
7.3 Embedded declaratives
(82) a.
b.
John said Mary saw Peter.
John said that Mary saw Peter.
(83) a.
Sie glaubt [CP den Peter
mag [TP niemand
den Peter
mag ]] V2
She thinks
the.ACC Peter likes
nobody.NOM the.ACC Peter likes ]]
‘She thinks nobody likes Peter’
b.
Sie glaubt [CP
dass [TP niemand
den Peter
mag ]] that
She thinks
that
‘She thinks that nobody likes Peter’
c.
*Sie glaubt [CP den Peter
dass [TP niemand
den Peter
mag ]]
She thinks
the.ACC Peter that
‘He thinks that nobody likes Peter’
c’. *Sie glaubt [CP niemand
dass [TP niemand
den Peter
mag ]]
She thinks
nobody.NOM that
d.
•
*Sie glaubt [CP
mag [TP niemand
den Peter
mag ]]
She thinks
likes
nobody. NOM the.ACC Peter likes ]]
The distribution of that and embedded V2 casts doubt on the claim that that is a pronunciation of T in C (P&T). In German, both the finite V and dass are possible in C, however, the
distribution is clearly distinct.
35
Main claim:
•
•
English and German embedded declaratives are alike in that both allow two options: a thatCP or an XP corresponding to a matrix declarative (TP in English, CP in German).
[See Hegarty 1991, Webelhuth 1992, Doherty 1993, 1997, 2000, Bošković 1997, Svenonius
1994, Franks 2005 among others for the claim that that-less clauses are TPs/IPs in English.]
(84) a.
VP
3
V
believe
uϕ: val
•
•
CP
iϕ: val
that-clause
V
believe
VP
???
XP: iT: val
E: TP
G: CP (V2)
In both languages, the that-less version is again of type iT: val (rather than iϕ: val).
This is supported by the impossibility of both that-less versions occurring as subjects (see
section 8.4 for the full picture of restrictions on that-less clauses).
(85) a.
b.
c.
d.
•
b.
[That Sue will buy the book] is obvious/was expected by everyone.
*[Sue will buy the book] is obvious/was expected by everyone.
[CP Dass den Peter
niemand
that
the.ACC Peter nobody.NOM
‘That nobody likes Peter is mean’
mag]
likes]
*[CP Den Peter
mag niemand
]
the.ACC Peter likes nobody.NOM ]
*‘Nobody likes Peter is mean’
ist
is
ist
is
that
*no that
gemein that
mean
gemein
mean
*no that
In the system proposed here, a that-less embedded clause is syntactically not selected—it is
in no syntactic (featural) dependency with any element in the matrix clause. Essentially, it
cannot Merge with the verb. We will return to how these clauses combine with the matrix
clause and show that this leads to a very interesting new account of that-less clauses.
The common properties of English and German that-less embedded declaratives are:
•
•
That-less embedded declaratives are not syntactically selected.
The topmost projection (TP in English, CP in German) is marked iT: val.
German V2 ≈ that-omission
•
•
•
The above summary suggests that a unified account seems desirable.
It is hard to see how that can be achieved in the P&T system.
Furthermore: German V2 does not involve a zero C/affix; a PF-account is hence unlikely to
extend to German.
Question to return to:
•
How do non-selected embedded clauses combine with the matrix clause?
36
7.4 Embedded interrogatives
•
In both English and German, V/T–to–C is excluded in embedded interrogatives.
(86) a.
b.
c.
(87) a.
•
Bill asked what Mary bought.
*Bill asked what did Mary buy.
*Bill asked what that Mary bought.
Er
fragt
sich
wen
He
asks
himself
who.ACC
‘He wonders who John met.’
der Hans
getroffen
the.NOM John met
b. %Er
fragt
sich
wen
dass
He
asks
himself who.ACC that
der Hans
the.NOM John
c.
der Hans
the.NOM John
*Er
fragt
sich
wen
hat
He
asks
himself who.ACC has
hat
has
getroffen hat
met
has
getroffen
met
OK as direct question
Claim: verbs embedding questions are specified for uQ: val and uϕ: val (below for evidence)
(88) a.
VP
4
V
CP [iϕ, iQ]
ask
3
uϕ: val, uQ: wh wh-XP
C’ [iQ, iϕ]
uQ: wh
3
C
…
iϕ: val, iQ: __
•
•
•
Merge of wh-XP is possible due to Agree; C’ marks uQ: wh for deletion; uQ: wh survives
until Transfer, but once the CP is completed (before the structure extends), all uF: val
marked for deletion delete and are hence inaccessible from outside (even if at the edge).
CP successfully Merges with a V with uϕ: val, uQ: wh (and marks those Fs for deletion).
CP could not Merge with a V hat lacks uQ: wh (such as think).
(89) Merge Condition
[Repeated]
Merge α and β if i. or ii.
i.
ii. Every iF of α matches a corresponding [uF: val] on β.
(90) a.
b.
c.
•
Who knows what John bought __?
*Who thinks what (that) John bought __?
[Valuation]
[Complementation]
know: (uQ: wh)
think:
no uQ
wonder:
uQ: wh
think: uQ: wh cannot Merge with C’ if there is no iQ on C; if there is an iQ, the CP cannot
merge with think.  *
37
•
The situation is different for wonder, which requires an interrogative complement, hence
only an iQ CP can Merge with wonder (note that Merge is overt; it hence follows that covert
wh-movement, if possible at all, couldn’t get to C in time to value it).
(91) a.
b.
c.
•
I wonder what John bought __.
C needs iQ; wh must value iQ
“
Who cannot value two iQ, since it is marked for deletion in the embedded clause. When CP is
complete, all uFs are deleted. Further movement and Re-Merge of who in the matrix clause is
excluded.
Why no uT in embedded C?
•
•
•
Recall that V/T–to–C is excluded in embedded interrogatives in both English and German.
Spreading the tense features over T and C would derive V/T–to–C, and the result would be a
CP with iT. This will then exclude Merging the CP with the matrix verb.
Embedded questions are always selected  hence they must not be iT.
Evidence for iϕ: val?
•
•
Optionality of dass in dialects
Ability of embedded interrogatives to occur as subjects, topics etc.
(92) a.
b.
[Which book Mary read yesterday] is not known.
[Which person read the book] is not known.
(93) a.
[CP Dass den Peter
niemand
that
the.ACC Peter nobody.NOM
‘That nobody likes Peter is mean’
b.
c.
*[CP Den Peter
mag niemand
]
the.ACC Peter likes nobody.NOM ]
*‘Nobody likes Peter is mean’
[CP Wen
niemand
mag]
who.ACC nobody.NOM likes]
‘Who no one likes is widely known’
ist
is
mag]
likes]
ist
is
ist
is
gemein
mean
gemein
mean
that
*no that
allgemein bekannt
commonly known
Why no that in English and Standard German? (Definite answer left open)

Note: an optional uϕ: val on the selecting verb will allow that-less embedded questions. But
the question is how that is prevented in contexts where we have reason for assuming that
there is an iϕ on C(P) (embedded interrogatives that occur as subjects).
38
•
•
Option 1: PF deletion of that (Chomsky and Lasnik 1977, Pesetsky 1998)
Option 2: Blocking effect among lexical insertion rules
o iFs on C: [iQ: wh, iT: val, iϕ: val]
o C

iT: val [will, would, did…]

iQ: wh [∅]

iϕ: val [that]
o C [iQ: wh, iT: val]: iT » iQ
o C [iQ: wh, iϕ: val]: iQ » iϕ
•
What did John eat?
I wonder what ∅ John ate.
Option 3: C is not inserted valued (not that), but as iϕ: __, and receives a value from wh-XP
via Agree (together with iQ: __). C valued by wh-XP does not correspond to a particular
lexical item. While this ties the zero C to the presence of a wh-XP, it would raise a question
for how C can Merge with TP in the first place.
7.5 Exclamatives
•
•
•
P&T: obligatory NOM–to–Spec,CP; no T–to–C due to the exclamative stipulation.
Looking at English is somewhat misleading since the linear order does not provide clear
evidence for where the nominative DP is.
German shows that NOM–to–C is not necessary.
(94) a.
b.
What a silly book Mary bought!
P&T: NOM–to–C; no T–to–C
Was für einen Schmarrn hier schon wieder jeder
what for a nonsense
here already again
für modisch
hält!
everyone.nom for fashionable considers
‘What kind of … stuff everyone considers fashionable here again!’
d. %Was für einen Schmarrn dass da
what for a nonsense
schon wieder jeder
für modern
that here already again everyone.nom for modern
haltet!
considers
‘What kind of … stuff everyone considers fashionable here again!’
•
Rather, exclamatives behave like embedded questions.
(95) a.
•
EXCL
4
EXCL OP
CP [iϕ, iQ]
uϕ: val, uQ: wh 3
wh-XP
C’ [iQ]
uQ: wh
3
C
…
iϕ: val, iQ: __
While this works, this is a rather uninteresting suggestion; there is obviously more to understand here (see recent Syntax Square handout by P. Grosz).
39
Excursus: Is there ever NOM–to–Spec,CP?
•
According to P&T, NOM–to–Spec,CP takes place in the following constructions in English.
(96) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
•
•
•
•
Mary thinks [Sue will buy the book].
G: not necessarily (V2); (83a)
What a silly book Mary bought!
G: no; (94)
Who do you think [John will meet__]?
G: no; (134)
Who met him?
G: yes (wh), but also V/T–to–C; *that; (80)
Who do you think [ (*that) __ will read the book]?
G: yes (wh),
but also that or V/T–to–C; (135)
German is obviously different. NOM–to–Spec,CP is only possible, when it can be seen as part
of V2 or wh-movement. In all these cases, it must be accompanied by V/T–to–C or that (but
the choice is not always free).
One could now pursue a line in which German and English differ in that German does not
allow a NOM to check/value the uT: __ of C.
But an equally valid strategy is to pursue the option that in neither language, NOM can
check/value the uT: __ of C, as is done here.
This then leaves two case in English to account for: T–to–C asymmetry in matrix questions
(e.g., Bobaljik 1994, 2002) and the that-trace effect (there are numerous options for that).
8. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
Since I haven’t made up my mind about successive cyclic wh-movement, I postpone discussion
these construction (section 8.5.2).
8.1 Transfer
How does Transfer work?
(97) a.
b.
A completed phase is subject to Transfer.
Transfer consists of the following operations:
1. Copy valuation: Mark uF: __ on X as valued if X is c-commanded by a copy of X.
2. Deletion of uFs marked for deletion; deletion of copies
3. Spell-out: complement of phase head. (uF (val) cancel the derivation.)
•
Let’s look how (97) is intended to work.
(98) John said Mary left.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Build ➀: [Mary left]TP
said: uT: __; uV: Agent; no uϕ
➀ Cannot merge with anything at this point [see below for a clarification]
Leave ➀ in workspace
Build ➁: [John v [said]]vP
Vv movement (for V uT: __ to escape Spell-out; V [uV: Agent] Merges with v [iV:
Agent]; Merge satisfied)
40
g.

•
•
•
Transfer vP
1. Lower copy of V is marked valued: uT: val
! Merge ➀ and ➁; at this point (uT: val & iT: val)
2. Copy choice and deletion of lower copy of V
3. Spell-Out of VP (now including the embedded TP).
The crucial part of this derivation is that Merge of ➀ and ➁ is part of Transfer. This is enforced since the lower copy of the V counts as uT: val only once Transfer has started.
The effect of this, which I will show below is a very welcome outcome, is that TPs merged as
part of Transfer, are frozen. No syntactic movement of these TPs is possible anymore (see
below for (apparent) movement out of these TPs). Merge at Transfer also goes well with the
claim made by Reis (1997) that embedded V2 clauses in German are “syntactically relatively
non-integrated embedded clauses” [my translation].
If the TP is not merged (at all), nothing will go wrong in the syntactic derivation: V will be
valued, since it’s a copy, and the uT: val of V will be deleted as party of copy deletion. But:
the structure would not be interpretable correctly, since V s-selects a proposition, and at the
point of interpretation, no complement would be present (*John said).
The relevance of Merge
•
•
•
•
Merge establishes a relation between the two ‘mergees’. I assume that (the history of) this
relation is retained throughout the derivation (even after uF: val is deleted), and translated, in
case of objects, into functional application configurations at LF (the way predicates combine
with their arguments).
If Merge occurs in syntax, syntactic movement of elements part of a Merge configuration is
possible (e.g., wh-movement, topicalization, extraposition etc.); the history of the Merge relation is kept.
If proper Merge (Merge satisfying the Merge Condition) occurs during transfer, the same
semantic configuration can be established, but no syntactic movement is possible anymore
(but certain PF-linearization options could change the word order, but never the syntactic
structure; see below for one example involving relative clauses).
There is one other option: Merge could occur during transfer and not meet the Merge Condition. This will entail that there is neither syntactic nor semantic selection, and that the structure, if interpretable, will not involve functional application. Modifiers are such a case.
Modifiers
•
•
•
•
•
•
Modifiers are not selected, neither syntactically nor semantically.
I therefore assume that modifier attachment is not subject to syntactic restrictions, but only to
semantic compositionality (yielding predicate modification).
Working hypothesis: modifiers are merged at Transfer in the position they are interpreted.
Islandhood of adjuncts follows.
This also provides an account for the well-known late insertion option of modifiers (Lebeaux
1991, 1995, 2009, Fox and Nissenbaum 1999, Fox 2000).
This is very reminiscent of Lasnik and Saito’s (1984) assumption that arguments and adjuncts are licensed at different levels—arguments at SS, adjuncts at LF (to account for the
different behavior of subjects and adjuncts regarding the that-trace effect)
41
Syntactic selection
Features of V
uϕ: val, uQ: val
No syntactic selection, but s-selection
No selection
—
(iT complement)
—
Timing
before Transfer: syntactic mov’t
during Transfer:  frozen
during Transfer:  frozen
Semantics
functional application
during Transfer?
predicate modification
functional application
8.2 Relative clauses
•
Structure of relative clauses is controversial: operator structure and/or head-raising structure.
From: Lechner, Winfried, 2008. Lecture notes (Linearization, Multiple Dominance and Cyclic
Spellout). Full handout available at: http://users.uoa.gr/~wlechner//MD2008%2003.pdf
Some head-raising diagnostics (Brame 1968, Schachter 1973, Vergnaud 1974, Bhatt 2002)
(99) a.
b.
•
John was satisfied by the amount of headway (that) Mary made.
Mary liked the picture of himself (that) John sent.
Empirically most adequate account: both options exist (Summary from Lechner)
42
That-less relative clauses
•
•
•
Doherty (1997): TP-structure (assuming A’-chain formation without movement)
The account here provides another way to achieve the same result.
That-less relatives are head-raising configurations, once a copy relation is established.
(100)
•
•
•
•
•
NP/DP the book and the TP Sam wanted to read the book are created separately.
At Transfer they combine.
Copy identification (chain formation) of the two occurrences of the book; lower copy deleted
(exactly as in the movement structure; presumably some lambda-abstraction at LF)
The only successful Merge position (which will allow copy reduction and yield the right interpretation) will hence be with NP/DP.
Movement constraints (islands, WCO) need to be seen as constraints on chain formation.
(101) a.
b.
•
•
NP/DP
3
NP/DP
TP
the book %
Sam wanted to read the book
that-relative clause:
that-less relative clause:
matching or head raising
head raising
The matching structure of relative clauses involves an operator, hence obligatorily a CP.
Since that drop is not obligatory, I assume that there are two possible structures for headraising relative clauses.
Some evidence
•
Doherty (1997): that-less relatives cannot be stacked
43
(102) a.
b.
•
•
•
the man [Mary met] [who John likes]
*the man [(that) Mary met] [John likes]
For copy identification, the NP/DP needs to be sister to TP; only the first relative clause can
be in such position.
The second relative clause involves an operator structure, which could be identified by the
larger NP (the NP + that-less relative clause).
Similarly: that-less relative clauses cannot be stacked after a head raising relative clause (cf.
the idioms). [I haven’t worked through all possible derivations]
(103) a.
b.
c.
the headway [that John made] [that we talked about]
*the headway [that John made] [we talked about]
*the headway [John made] [we talked about]
that-less relatives must be interpreted in situ
(104) a.
b.
c.
•
•
•
•
I showed himi [the book] yesterday [that Sami wanted to read].
*I showed himi [the book] yesterday [Sami wanted to read].
?I showed Bill [the book] yesterday [Sam wanted to read].
The contrast between (104a) and (104b) clearly shows that that-less relatives are must be interpreted in situ. Note that some speakers allow ‘extraposition’ of that-less relatives (see section 8.4.3). (104c) is possible (though marked), which shows that the problem in (104b) is
binding.
Under the account here, relative clauses are Merged at Transfer in the position they are interpreted in, and no syntactic movement is possible afterwards (though PF-linearization options
could change the word order).
This places the that-clause in (104a) above the VP, hence in a position where Sam would not
be c-commanded by him (I assume binding applies at LF).
For a that-less relative the situation is different: it cannot be merged in a position other than
sister to NP, since that-less relative clauses require copy identification, which is subject to ccommand. Thus the only derivation for (104c) would be:
c’. I showed Bill [NP [NP the book] [TP Sam wanted to read the book ]] yesterday
c’’. I showed Bill [NP [NP the book] [TP Sam wanted to read [the book] ]] yesterday
c’’’. I showed Bill [NP [NP the book] — ] yesterday [TP Sam wanted to read [the book] ] PF
•
•
Extraposition cannot be syntactic, but only a PF-linearization choice (which is restricted).
Same derivation is possible for (104b), but: unavoidable Condition C violation.
[The situation is somewhat more complex, as there also needs to be covert movement of the book
in (104a). I set covert movement aside here.]
Further evidence
(105) a.
b.
c.
*I showed himi [the book (that) Sami wanted to read] yesterday.
I showed himi [the book ?(that) Samk wanted to read] yesterday.
*I showed himi yesterday [the book (that) Sami wanted to read]. OK if no coreference
44
•
•
•
(105a): CP/TP merged in surface position; *Condition C
(105b): CP/TP merged in surface position; Condition C
(105c): i) PF-extraposition  *Condition C (if coreference)
ii) Merge in surface position is excluded for NP objects (NP needs to mark uϕ:val of
V for deletion)  *
iii) NP in object position » syntactic extraposition » Relative clause merged: syntactic
extraposition impossible (*I showed him yesterday the book.); the only option is
HNPS, which I assume is a PF-phenomenon.
Comparison with Fox and Nissenbaum (1999)
•
•
•
F&N: High position of relative clause triggers high scope of the object.
Relative clauses: early or late merger
Choice of copy at PF & LF
(106) a.
b.
(105) c.
*I looked [for anything] very intensely [that would help me with my thesis].
I looked very intensely [for anything that would help me with my thesis].
*I showed himi yesterday [the book (that) Sami wanted to read].
(106a):
o F&N: QR of NP; relative clause inserted after QR; PF low QP copy; LF high QP
copy (must be together with relative clause)  *NPI/free choice licensing.
o SW: Relative clause merged in surface position; QR of NP  Relative clause OP
identified, but *NPI; no QR of NP  *Relative clause OP not identified
(106b):
o F&N: early insertion of relative clause; QR of [NP+CP]; PF high copy; LF low copy.
o SW: Relative clause merged with object in base position; PF-extraposition; no effect
on NPI licensing
(105c):
o F&N should allow the following derivation: QR of (just) NP; followed by late insertion of the relative clause; PF and LF high. This should obviate Condition C.
o SW: No late merger of NP+CP; no syntactic (overt) movement of NP.
8.3 Movement out of TP-clauses (a bit unorthodox)
•
The account given for relative clauses, in particular, the assumption of copy identification of
two identical externally merged items, now gives us a way to deal with “extraction” from
that-less clauses.
(107) a.
b.
•
Since the embedded clause lacks that, it would be a TP, which has to Merge during Transfer.
(108) a.
b.
c.
•
What did John say Mary bought?
Who did John say left?
[vP what John [say]] + [TP Mary [vP what [bought]]]
[vP what John [VP say [TP Mary [vP what [bought]]]]]
[vP what John [VP say [TP Mary [vP what [bought]]]]]
…
45
two parts built separately
Merge
Copy identification, deletion
8.4 That-omission in more detail
8.4.1 Summary of main accounts
?: Not discussed (account may be available)
Construction
Doherty
John said Mary left
IP
that-omission licensing
—
B&L
CP
PF-affix
P&T
CP
NOM-to-C
John said that Mary left
CP
CP
John gloated that he had
been fired
John gloated *(that) he
had been fired
*He liked linguistics was
widely believed
*John likes Mary Jane
didn’t believe
I hope *(that) this book
you will read
I heard about the fact
*(that) Mary did it.
It seems to me (that)
John likes Mary.
It seemed at that time #
*(that) he had left.
CP
CP
CP
(T–to–C)
CP
Franks
TP
T (features) must
incorporate
TP
(PF that-insertion)
CP
CP (adjunct) 
that
IP must be complement of X0
*adjunction to
argument
CP (adjunct) 
that
IP
? [could assume
CP=adjunct; *PF]
*PF-affixation
?
CP  that
*CP w/o iT
attracted by T
?
*T-feature mov’t
*NOM-to-C
(TP is closer)
N requires iT
CP
NOM–to–C or
T–to–C
?
*adjunction to
argument
?
NOM–to–C
TP
John convinced me (that) IP
he wasn’t the traitor.
*PF-affixation
?
Null C must attach to
[+V]
Null C can attach to
any category
Prosodic phrase
boundary blocks PFaffixation
IP [CP when that is
present?]
or
TP; PF-that
no extraposition?
CP  that
extraposition
T–to–C
8.4.2 My account
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
That-less clauses cannot undergo any syntactic movement.
This covers subject clauses, topicalization, (syntactic) extraposition.
Cases of apparent extraposition, which could be analyzed as involving V-movement are also
readily accounted for (e.g., It seems to me John likes Mary).
The distribution of extraposition is very mixed (see 8.4.3 for a summary); a preliminary suggestion is that the variation is due to the option of PF-extraposition, which is subject to prosodic factors not taken into account.
The data on RNR are rather controversial; I have not found any way to tease apart conflicting
judgments.
Non-bridge verbs: uϕ: val obligatory (this is an oversimplification; in German, there are also
clear semantic effects involved in embedded V2, which need to still be incorporated into the
analysis).
That-less complements to nouns: I believe this restriction is not entirely correct. That-less
complements to nouns are possible in German, and have been documented for English as
well (see section 8.4.5). There are certainly cases that are impossible, but what is also clear is
46
•
that a categorical exclusion of that-less complements of nouns is not adequate. What is still
missing is an account that differentiates the possible from the impossible cases.
Prohibition against that-less clauses with initial topics in English (in German embedded V2
can occur with topics): I hope *(that) this book you will read. (cf. This book, you will read.).
I do not have a good answer, but one option would be to assume that topics project a head,
even in English, which has the effect that the topmost projection is not iT anymore. An alternative may be that topics block the semantic association of the verb with the TP.
8.4.3 Extraposition — sometimes possible, sometimes not
Doherty (1997: 210), citing Aoun et.a. (1987: 374-375)
(109) a.
b.
I believe sincerely *(that) Kay will be elected.
It was believed by everybody *(that) Kay was a fool.
=(37)
(110) a.
b.
c.
I think in general people tend to like him.
They said last year (that) the economy would be better by now.
I believe myself (that) she is a good person.
=(39)
(111) a.
b.
It seems to me (that) she’s on the right track.
I said to Mary (that) he was in error.
=(40)
(112)
I thought just now *(that) I saw Karen
Franks (2005)
Bošković and Lasnik (2003)
(113) a.
It seemed at that time *(that) David had left.
=(3/4a)
(114) a. ??What did they believe at that time [that Peter fixed what]?
b. *How did they believe at that time [that Peter fixed the car how]?
c.
At that time, what did they believe [that Peter fixed what]?
d. At that time, howi did they believe [that Peter fixed the car how]?
(115) a.
b.
?Who do you believe sincerely [who likes Natasha]?
*What do you believe sincerely [Natasha likes what]?
=(7)
=(15)
=(16)
Corpus Data (accepted by a speaker)
(116) a.
b.
United management wrote a letter to the Board stating they believed at that time they
should be considered a single carrier. ...
Search: “did they believe at that time”:
[“hard to parse, but unobjectionable”]
Did they believe at that time we should sit at nights from 7 o'clock to 11?
Did they believe at that time an electronic image of a redacted document posted on
the campaign website of a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President at
the behest of the Communications Director of the candidate’s campaign, which image
is only accessible with the aid of a computer screen; is tantamount to evidence that
the nominee wannabe is Constitutionally qualified for the job?
47
Two types of extraposition — syntactic and PF-linearization
Current account:
•
•
•
that-less clauses are Merged at Transfer and have hence missed their chance to undergo syntactic movement.
Extraposition may occur as part of PF-linearization, and if so, it will be subject to prosodic
constraints (e.g., Truckenbrodt’s 1995 locality constraint, according to which a extraposition
must place XP right outside the prosodic phrase it originates in — no further, no closer).
Variation could then be located in different prosodic structures. For instance:
(117) a.
b.
*It [seemed TP]π [at that time]π *[David had left].
PF: expraposition too far  *
Syntax: no TP to move  *
It [seemed TP at that time]π [David had left].
PF: expraposition OK
•
This should then correlate with whether a speaker gets extraction effects in the corresponding
that-clauses: Speakers of type (117b) should have no extraction problems (since PFextraposition doesn’t create an island); whereas speakers of type (117a) should only allow
syntactic extraposition of that-clauses, which creates islands.
•
I have found two cases supporting this so far: Bošković and Lasnik (2003) give the extraction
data below and (117a); another speaker accepts (117b) and also the extraction cases below.
(118) a. ??What did they believe at that time [that Peter fixed what]?
b. *How did they believe at that time [that Peter fixed the car how]?
c.
At that time, what did they believe [that Peter fixed what]?
d. At that time, howi did they believe [that Peter fixed the car how]?
•
=(7)
What would obviously be necessary is to investigate whether the prosodic parses are different for different speakers.
8.4.4 Right Node Raising
Data not clear — some OK, some * with RNR
(119) Bošković and Lasnik (2003)
They suspected and we believed *(that) Peter would visit the hospital.
=(3b)
(120) Doherty (1997: 210)
a.
b.
c.
I really think but Mary doubts the referendum will pass.
The Unionists doubt but most Nationalists strongly believe the peace talks will begin
before Christmas.
The Serbs think and the Muslims openly claim he is dishonest.
48
8.4.5 That-omission in complements to nouns
•
•
•
Below is a summary of some of the data from the literature and a very preliminary corpus
search.
It seems clear that that-less complements of N are possible, and in some cases even frequent.
There are restrictions on when that-omission is possible (which may be similar to the restrictions on embedded V2 in German), and a careful investigation of these restrictions is still
outstanding.
Impossible
(121) Pesetsky and Torrego (2004, 2006)
a.
b.
c.
d.
(122) a.
b.
We proved Mary could not have committed the crime.
We demonstrated John was insane.
your proof *(that) Mary could not have committed the crime
the demonstration *(that) John was insane
I heard about the fact that Mary did it.
*I heard about the fact Mary did it.
Bošković and Lasnik (2003)
The fact he left caused a storm.
The reason he stayed wasn’t apparent.
Doherty (1997: 49)
Possible
(123) a.
b.
(124) Huddleston and Pullum (2002)
p. 954: “In […] it is complement to a noun; omission [of that, SW] is not impossible in
this construction, but it is unlikely with a morphologically complex noun like
insinuation (compare
The fact it was illegal didn’t seem to worry him”
Proof isn’t proof
(125) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Then when you have seen enough proof he loves you, confess your love!
then you have proof he loves you
that's proof he loves you
U.S. officials have received proof he is alive
“proof he loves you”: 99,100 hits
“proof she cheated”: 41.800 hits
“proof she is a man”: 1,010,000 hits
“received proof he is”: 12,000 hits
(126) a.
b.
The lawyer had proof Mary was innocent.
proof = confirmation
The lawyer presented a proof *(that) Mary was innocent.
proof = step by step process, set of logical arguments
c.
They received proof (that) Mary could not have committed the crime
49
JDB, Corina
Suggestion
(127) a.
In a Boston courtroom, Judge Maria Lopez, reacting to a prosecutor's suggestion the
sentence she handed down to an admitted sex offender was too light.
[not a complete sentence: it's a parenthetical to introduce a quote]
b.
Ralph Brown, the institute's attorney, praises Salah and rejects the suggestion the
center's money found its way “to any kind of improper activity, let alone terrorist
activity.”
Evidence
(128)
First up, the week began with [...] more evidence the president is losing the power of
the center that got him elected.
Belief
(129) a.
b.
c.
d.
Drafting Tebow might be even less plausible (Jags don't have a second-round pick)
despite pleas from fans and [owner Wayne Weaver's belief the Florida star could fill
empty seats in Jacksonville].
McDaniels came to the Broncos when he had other choices, because...of his belief the
Broncos organization strives to be the best.
Additionally, there is a belief the committee keeps a running total of berths various
conferences receive during the selection process, thus establishing quotas.
Klimek told USA TODAY his original ruling was based on the belief the teen loaded
the gun himself and pulled the trigger within close range of his head.
Claim
(130) a.
b.
Cheney rejected the claim the Bush administration is to blame for the faltering
economy…
CNN
Despite the claim it has no territorial ambitions, the need to create buffer zones has
prompted Israel…
Military History
8.5 Technical issues, problems, open questions
8.5.1 Coordination
(131) I believe …
a.
b.
c.
d.
•
•
[∅=clause]TP
[that clause]CP
[that clause]CP
[∅=clause]TP
and
and
and
and
[∅=clause]TP
[that clause]CP
[∅=clause]TP
[that clause]CP
Could be coordination of embedded TP
The last case is the interesting one in the current proposal
The assumption that needs to be made: features marked for deletion are ‘invisible’ for ATBmovement (the two Vs count as identical).
50
(132) a.
b.
c.
 d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
I believe he is right and that you are wrong
I
[VP believe ]
& [VP believe [CP that …]]
Merge
[uT: __]
& [uT: __; uϕ: val]
Mark for deletion
I believe [VP believe ]
& [VP believe [CP that …]]
ATB Vv
[uT: __] [uT: __]
& [uT: __; uϕ: val]
[uT: __] [uT: val]
& [uT: val; uϕ: val]
copy valuation
[uT: val] [TP he is right] & [uT: val; uϕ: val]
Merge TP
Mark for deletion
Mark for deletion
8.5.2 Successive cyclic wh-movement
•
•
•
English and German are alike in that there are two options: that-CP or that-less version.
In German, the that-less version corresponds to a matrix declarative: the verb is in V2 position, assuming the trace of the wh-XP is in Spec,CP position (see Thiersch 1978).
In English, the famous that-trace effect arises (which I’m not attempting at explaining; see
the numerous approaches already out there.)
(133) a.
b.
What do you think [(that) Mary read __]?
Who do you think [(*that) __ read the book]?
optional that
*that
(134) a.
Wen
glaubst du
[CP wen
who.ACC think
you
who
‘Who do you think John will meet?’
wird
will
[TP der Hans
treffen ]]
the.NOM John meet ]]
b.
Wen
glaubst du [CP wen
who.ACC think
you
who
dass
that
[TP der Hans
treffen wird
the.NOM John meet will
c.
*Wen
glaubst du [CP wen
who.ACC think
you
who
(135) a.
Wer
glaubst du
[CP wer
who.NOM think
you
who
‘Who do you think will meet John?’
]]
]]
der Hans
{wird} treffen {wird}]]
the.NOM John {will} meet {will}]]
wird
will
[TP den Hans
the.ACC John
treffen ]]
meet ]]
b.
Wer
glaubst du [CP wer
dass
who.NOM think
you
who
that
*‘Who do you think that will meet John?’
[TP den Hans
the.ACC John
treffen wird
meet will
c.
*Wer
glaubst
who.NOM think
du [CP wer
you
who
den Hans
the.ACC John
]]
]]
{wird} treffen {wird}]]
{will} meet {will}]]
Options for that-CPs (not decided yet)
•
Intermediate C has uQ: __; this will allow/force the wh-XP to Re-merge in Spec,CP, to value
C. Movement of uQ: val can and must continue, since it has not been marked for deletion
(embedded C is not iQ).
51
•
•
•
Problem: this will mean that there is feature checking in intermediate positions.
Intermediate C has no uQ: __; wh-XP uQ: val has to reach a position where it is Merged with
iQ; this provides motivation for movement. However, Merge in intermediate Spec,CP would
not be allowed, unless we exempt successive cyclic movement from the Merge requirement,
for instance by a Last Resort version as in Bošković (2007):
“Last Resort should be formulated as follows: X undergoes movement iff without the movement, the structure will crash (with crash evaluated locally).” [p. 610]
Problem: This diminishes the power of Merge.
that-less TPs/CPs (see 8.3)
•
•
iT claues cannot Merge with V before Transfer.
Movement would have to be done via copy identification.
wh in situ?
(136) a.
b.
•
Who knew that John bought what?
Who thinks that John bought what?
Options for wh-in situ: unselective binding; another option would be to maintain that all whXPs are uQ: wh, and allow covert (feature) movement (which is likely not to be subject to the
Merge Condition, and could hence stop over in the relevant phase edge positions (in the absence of Q: __, if necessary.). This wouldn’t affect the ungrammaticality of in situ wh in embedded interrogative contexts, since there movement is necessary to value iQ.
(137) a.
C needs iQ; wh must value iQ
“
8.5.3 Semantic effects of embedded V2
A further important point: “Bridge verb” restriction
•
•
•
•
that omission is not generally possible, but is dependent on the higher verb, and on (very
complex) semantic properties, illocutionary force and others (Wechsler 1991, Reis 1997,
Truckenbrodt 2006).
that omission appears to be freer than embedded V2, but is also not possible with every verb.
The fact that the nature of the higher verb plays a role is not expressed in a system such as
P&T’s where the difference between that or no that is determined solely within the embedded clause..
Although I haven’t built specific restrictions into the system proposed here yet, and only used
the simple term ‘proposition’ for complements of bridge verbs, it is easy to see how this
could be done. There are two places where restrictions on that-omission can be built in:
o iϕ: val of matrix verb (if the feature is obligatory, as for instance with factive verbs in
German, that will be obligatory)
o s-selection, and perhaps the semantic process that combines the that-less clause with
the higher verb. If, as is often stated, V2 clauses are only possible in contexts of assertions, this could be an effect of the particular way ‘unselected’ clauses combine
with the higher verb, or the nature of iT clauses.
52
9. THE ANAPHOR AGREEMENT EFFECT
9.1 Main claims
(138) The anaphor agreement effect
[Rizzi 1990; Woolford 1999: 257 (2)]
Anaphors do not occur in syntactic positions construed with agreement.
(139) The anaphor agreement effect (modified)
[Woolford 1999: 264 (22)]
Anaphors do not occur in syntactic positions construed with agreement, unless the agreement is anaphoric.
Disclaimer: I will be assuming the generalizations and claims made in the literature. I am in no
position to evaluate their validity.
9.2 The anaphor agreement effect with object anaphors
9.2.1 Summary of main constructions
(140) a.
b.
•
•
John likes himself.
Baa-mé
tánge
he-ERG
SELF
‘He is hitting himself.’
pi-ly-á-mo
hit-PRES-3SG.SUBJ-AUGMENT
[Woolford 1999: 268 (31)]
[Lang 1973:49]
English, Enga have no object agreement — anaphors are possible.
Languages with object agreement: anaphors and agreement do not co-occur (different strategies in object anaphor constructions).
Inuit:
•
•
verb–SUBJ–OBJ
Object reflexives: no object agreement; no object or oblique object
(141) a.
b.
(142) a.
Angutip
arnaq
taku-vuaa
man.ERG woman.ABS
see-IND.3SG.3SG
‘The man sees the woman.’
*Hansiup immi
Hansi.ERG himself.ABS
‘Hans washed himself.’
Asap-puq.
wash-IND.3SG
‘He washed himself.
asap-puq
wash-IND.3SG.3SG
b.
[Bok-Bennema 1991:51]
Angut immi-nut
taku-vuq
man
himself-DAT
see-IND.3SG
‘The man sees himself.’
[Bok-Bennema 1991:50; Woolford 1999: 266 (25)]
Swahili:
•
•
[Woolford 1999: 265 (24)]
[Bok-Bennema 1991:28]
SUBJ–tense–OBJ–verb
(pronouns optionally overt)
Object reflexives: no object agreement, but reflexive marker
53
(143) a.
b.
Juma
a-li-m-busu
Juma
3SUBJ-PAST-3OBJ-kiss
‘Juma kissed her.’
(yeye)
(her; contrastive)
[Vitale 1981:117; Woolford 1999: 264 (20)]
Ahmed
a-na-ji-penda
Ahmed
3SUBJ-PRES-REFL-love
‘Ahmed loves himself.’
(mwenyewe)
(himself.EMPHATIC)
[Vitale 1981:137; Woolford 1999: 264 (21)]
Selayarese
•
•
SUBJ–verb–OBJ
Object reflexives: no object agreement, but agreement with possessor (object reflexives always trigger third person agreement)
(144) a.
b.
La-jañjang-i
kalen-na
3ERG-see-3ABS
SELF-3
‘He saw himself’
La-—alle-i
doe—-iñjo
i Baso—
3ERG-take-3ABS money-the DET Baso
‘Baso took the money.’
Ku-alle-i
doe—-iñjo
1SG-take-3ABS
money-the
‘I took the money.’
Ku-keo—-ko
1SG-call-2FAMILIAR
‘I called you.’
Ku-jañjangkaleng-ku
1SG.ERG-see-3ABS
SELF-1SG
‘I saw myself’
Mu-jañjang-i
kalem-mu
2FAMILIAR-see-3ABS
SELF-2FAMILIAR
‘You saw yourself’
To-jañjang-i
kalem-ba
1EXCLUSIVE-see-3ABS
SELF-1EXCLUSIVE
‘We (exclusive) saw ourselves.’
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
[Finer 1994; Woolford 1999: 275 (48)]
[Finer 1994; Woolford 1999: 275 (49)]
[Finer 1994; Woolford 1999: 275 (51)]
[Woolford 1999: 275 (51)]
[Woolford 1999: 275 (50)]
[Woolford 1999: 275 (50)]
[Woolford 1999: 275 (50)]
9.2.2 An account
•
•
Object agreement: realization of ϕ-features on v
Languages without object agreement:
o SUBJECT merges with [v’ v VP]
o v valued by SUBJECT  subject agreement (perhaps in some combination with T)
o If there is object shift: OBJECT merges above SUBJECT
o Object anaphors as above (valued by subject)
54
•
Languages with object agreement:
o OBJECT (re-)merges with [v’ v VP]
o v valued by OBJECT  object agreement (subject agreement via T)
o SUBJECT merges above OBJECT
Anaphor agreement effect
(145) Merge Condition: Merge α and β if i. or ii.
i.
ii.
•
•
Every iF of α matches a corresponding [uF: val] on β.
Only a DP with ϕ: val can Merge with v’ [iV:Agent, uϕ: __]
Anaphors can never merge with v’!
(142) b.
Angut
man
immi-nut
himself-DAT
(143) b.
Ahmed
Ahmed
a-na-ji-penda
3SUBJ-PRES-REFL-love
•
•
[Agree]
[Complementation]
taku-vuq
see-IND.3SG
(mwenyewe)
(himself.EMPHATIC)
Inuit: subject Merges with v’; subject agreement is triggered (perhaps in conjunction with T;
for oblique Case see below).
Swahili: subject valuing v and object yields a reflexive marker on v?
Some further technical details
•
How can the second DP (subject or shifted object) Merge with v’?
o First DP values uϕ: __ of v; it marks it for deletion; but actual deletion is a process of
transfer and does not happen until the vP is complete. Features marked for deletion
are accessible until the phase is sent to transfer.
o v/v’ after first DP is merged: [iV:Agent, uϕ: val]
o Merge condition allows v’ to Merge with (multiple) iϕ (this, in a sense, derives edge
movement).
•
How can an anaphor Merge as an object the verb (first Merge)?
o V is uϕ: val, can Merge with any iϕ.
o This provides support for the claim that anaphors are iϕ (but unvalued).
Prediction
•
•
•
Anaphors should always be excluded from Merging with v, if v is uϕ: __
Largely true: nominative anaphors are impossible in many languages (see below).
But: the current account does not yet entirely capture the lack of anaphor agreement effect in
contexts where there is no agreement: infinitives, languages without subject agreement,
oblique subjects.
55
9.3 The anaphor agreement effect with subject/nominative anaphors
Lack of agreement
(146) a.
b.
c.
•
•
•
•
•
*John said that himself left.
John believes himself to be smart.
zhangsani
shuo
ta-zijii
hui
Zhangsan
say
he-SELF
will
‘Zhangsan said he [lit. himself] will come.’
lai
come
[Haddad 2007:370]
Languages/constructions that lack subject agreement allow subject anaphors, provided they
are properly bound/valued (i.e., there is a higher DP within the Agree domain to value the
unvalued ϕ-features of the anaphors).
Lack of agreement means that v cannot be unvalued (otherwise valuation, and hence agreement, would be triggered).
Suggestion: non agreeing v (perhaps also T) is specified as uϕ: val
English infinitives (whether PRO or ECM); v/T in languages without subject agreement.
For now, this is somewhat forced by the Merge Condition (simply omitting ϕ-features will
not allow subjects to Merge with v’ without further assumptions). But it does reflect the general idea of how arguments are selected (cf. V uϕ: val).
Oblique vs. agreeing subjects … Icelandic [how could that happen?]
(147) a.
Húni
sagði að
séri
þætti
She.NOM said
that
SELF.DAT
was.SUBJ
‘She said that she [lit. herself] was fond of me.’
b.
*Jóni
segir að
sigi
elski
John.NOM says
that
SELF.NOM loves.SUBJ
‘John says that he [lit. himself] loves Mary.’
vænt
fond
um mig
of me
[Maling 1984: (8b)]
Maria
Maria
[Rizzi 1990: 33]
•
Datives do not agree in Icelandic; dative subject anaphors are possible (when properly
bound; subjunctive CPs allow binding,  subjunctive CPs are not phases)
•
Question: how/why can DATIVE, but not NOMINATIVE. subject anaphors Merge with v/T?
•
Note: Agreement must play a crucial role, since underlying nominative objects are impossible in both German and Icelandic, despite the fact that they are not subjects in the latter. But
in both languages, the NOMINATIVE agrees with the verb.
(148) a.
b.
Jóni
elskar
sigi
John.NOM loves
SELF
‘John loves himself.’
/ *hanni
/ *him
Honumi
líkar
bílinn
he.DAT
like
car
‘He likes his own car.’
sinni
SELF.POSS
56
/ *hansi
/ *his
c.
Joni
veit
að
Maria
elski
Jon.NOM knows that
Mary.NOM love.SUBJ
‘John knows that Mary loves him.’
d.
*Siggai
telur að
mer
líki
Sigga.NOM thinks that
me.DAT
likes.SUBJ
‘Sigga thinks that I like her [lit. herself].’
sigi /hanni
SELF.(ACC)/ him
sigi
SELF.(NOM)
[Rizzi 1990: 33]
Preliminary account — assumptions
•
•
•
DPDAT cannot value uϕ: __ of v/T (I do not know why, but it’s a fact).
DPDAT: uV: DAT (I assume lexical Case is lexically valued)
DAT—NOM constructions: involve an experiencer/applicative v [iV: EXP (DAT); uϕ: __]; verbs
like like hence come with a uV: EXP (not Agent), and uϕ: val.
(149) a.
DAT
subject
object
like.NOM
Icelandic = German
Icelandic
German
NOM
object
subject
Merges with V
VP Merges with v [iV: EXP (DAT); uϕ: __]
•
•
NOM
•
At this point, there is a choice: either NOM (re-)Merges or DAT Merges (since it is lexically
valued for Case [uV], it can Merge with a corresponding iV)
•
Icelandic, German are not object agreement languages, hence the subject must Merge first
o German: NOM (re-)Merges first and values v (resulting in subject agreement); DAT
Merges second; v’ is iV: EXP (DAT), which marks its uV: DAT (lexically valued Case)
for deletion.
o Icelandic: DAT Merges first (v’ marks uV: DAT for deletion); NOM (re-)Merges second
(since it’s still within vP, it can value v, the head of its mergee); this also yields
agreement with the NOM, but technically, it’s object agreement. [Since the DAT cannot, for whatever reason, value v’s ϕ-features, it should follow that it also does not
block valuation by the higher NOM across it.]
•
In short: there is a v head requiring valuation/agreement in these constructions, and only the
NOMINATIVE can do so.
Crucially…
•
•
•
In either derivation, Merge of a NOM anaphor is impossible (since it satisfies neither part of
the Merge Condition).
Thus NOM anaphors are successfully excluded.
This now also finally gives us an answer why DATIVE subject anaphors are possible: what
licenses Merge of the DATIVE is not valuation of v (agreement; which requires valued ϕfeatures), but the need of the DATIVE to get rid of its uV: val. For that purpose, it doesn’t matter whether its ϕ-features are valued or not — all it needs is a corresponding iV: DAT.
57
9.4 Some of the open ends…
Italian vs. Icelandic
•
•
Icelandic: Default agreement is only possible when there is no DPNOM
Italian: Default agreement is marginally possible (which then allows a DPNOM)
(150) a.
b.
c.
d.
•
•
•
A me
interessano
solo loro
to me.DAT
interest.3PL
only they.NOM
‘I am interested only in them.’
*A loro
interessano
solo se stessi
to them.DAT interest.3PL
only SE SELF.NOM
‘They are interested only in themselves.’
A loro
importa
solo di se stessi
to them.DAT matter.3SG
only of SE SELF (GEN)
‘All that matters to them is themselves.’
?A loro
interessa
solo se stessi
to them.DAT interest.3SG
only SE SELF.NOM
‘They are interested only in themselves.’
[Rizzi 1990: (14b)]
[Rizzi 1990: (15b)]
[Rizzi 1990: (15a)]
[Tucker; fn. in Woolford]
Italian has the same experiencer construction as Icelandic; when the NOMINATIVE agrees, it
cannot be an anaphor.
There are two ways to express that construction: GENITIVE anaphor (could this be a possessor
construction?), and marginally, no agreement on the verb.
The no agreement option appears to be dispreferred (and it is excluded in Icelandic), indicating that Merging a nominative must be enforced somehow.
Is it just about agreement or is there also a nominative anaphor effect? (Everaert 1991)
•
The famous Icelandic construction (Zaenen et al. 1985, Marantz 1991 among many others)
(151) a.
b.
•
•
*Jóni
telur
mér
finnast REFLi
John believes
me.dat find
SELF.NOM
‘John believes me to consider him strange.’
Jóni
telur
mér
finnast hann (sjálfur)i
John believes
me.dat find
he.NOM (SELF)
‘John believes me to consider him strange.’
skrýtinn
strange
skrýtinn
strange
Everaert (1991): SELF in hann sálfur is emphatic; true pronouns (not just “reflexives in disguise”); allow strict and sloppy interpretation under ellipsis, *topicalization, SELF follows
pronoun (but would precede sig).
There is no agreement in these cases; yet NOMINATIVE anaphors are excluded…
58
10. QR
This has been revised from the original version. This section is based on the handout of the following talk: http://wurmbrand.uconn.edu/Papers/ZAS.pdf
10.1 Some puzzles of Q(uantifier) R(aising)
•
QR (English) is typically clause-bound: impossible across finite indicative CPs.
(152) a.
b.
% c.
d.
•
*∀»∃
*∀»∃
*∀»∃
Johnson (2000): (6a)
(6b)
Fox (2000): 62
“
QR is possible from infinitives and subjunctive CPs.
(153) a.
b.
c.
•
It’s Mary that I told someone you would visit tMary.
I told someone you would visit everyone.
#Someone said that every man is married to Sue.
#Someone said that Sue is married to every man.
He demanded that we read not a single book.
QP»demand Kayne (1981, 1998)
A different student tried to stand near every visitor.
∀»∃
Johnson (2000): (22)
A different student wanted to read every book.
∀»∃
(25)
QR from infinitives cannot be reduced to restructuring (mono-clausal configurations;
Hornstein 1994, 1995); QR is possible from all control and ECM infinitives, including nonrestructuring infinitives (Kennedy 1997).
∀»∃
∀»∃
∀»∃
(154) a.
b.
c.
At least one American tourist expects to visit every European country this year.
At least one American tourist hopes to visit every European country this year.
Some government official is required to attend every state dinner.
(155) a.
b.
At least one professor believes Mary to have read every book.
∀»∃
John believes the students to know everything Mary does [believe the students to know].
•
QR from raising infinitives is impossible (Lebeaux 1995:65, Fox 1999:160, Fox 2000:144).
(156)
Mary seems to two women [to be expected [to dance with every senator. ]]
*∀»2
(157) a.
b.
c.
At least one soldieri seems (to Napoleon) [t to be likely to die in every battle].
∀»∃
#At least one soldieri seems to himselfi [t to be likely to die in every battle].
*∀»∃
#At least one soldieri seems to hisi commanders [t to be likely to die in every battle]. “
(158) a.
b.
#This soldier seems to someone to be likely to die in every battle.
John seems to a (#different) teacher to be likely to solve every one
of these problems.
#The ball seems to a boy to be under every shell.
cf. Every shell seems to a (different) boy to be over the ball.
c.
*∀»∃
*∀»∃
*∀»∃
Questions arising regarding QR:
 Why is there no successive cyclic QR (vs. other A’-movement)?
 What is the difference between (non-restructuring) infinitives/subjunctives and finite clauses?
 How can raising infinitives allow A-movement but not QR?
59
10.2 The account in short
10.2.1 Two types of QR — Fox (2000)
•
Obligatory QR (type-driven); optional QR (scope-driven)
(159) Scope Economy
Scope-shifting operations (SSOs) cannot be semantically vacuous.
[Fox 2000: 3]
(160) Shortest Move
[Fox 2000: 23]
QR must move a QP to the closest position in which it is interpretable. In other words, a
QP must always move to the closest clause-denoting element that dominates it.
 Why is there no successive cyclic QR (vs. other A’-movement)?
(161) a. #Someone said that every man is married to Sue.
a’. [vP someone said [CP *∀QP
[CP that
[IP ∀QP
a’’. [CP *∀QP
[vP someone said
[CP that
[IP ∀QP
…]]] *Scope Economy
…]]]
*Shortest Move
b. #Someone said that Sue is married to every man.
b’. [vP someone said [CP that [IP *∀QP [IP Sue is [vP ∀QP [vP …]]]]]] *Scope Economy
b’’. [CP *∀QP [vP someone said [CP that [IP Sue is [vP ∀QP [vP …]]]]]] *Shortest Move
 What is the difference between (non-restructuring) infinitives/subjunctives and finite clauses?
(162) a.
b.
Someone expects Sue to marry every boy.
∀»∃
not a single book » demand
Fox [2000: 65] “The first possibility is that the sentences in (91) contain null (modal) operators
that provide motivation for the necessary intermediate instances of QR. The second possibility is
that Shortest Move is a weaker condition than I have assumed.”
(163) Option 1:
a.
b.
c.
[vP demand [CP SUBJ [IP ???
[vP QP
[vP …. tQP ]]]]]
QP  vP: Shortest (obligatory)
Subjunctive/modal operator: either QP  IP or QP  CP would violate Shortest (two
modal operators would be needed)
(164) Option 2:
a.
[CP QP [vP he demanded [CP-SUBJ that [IP we [vP QP [vP …]]]]]]
(161)b’’. [CP *QP [vP someone said [CP that [IP Sue is [vP QP [vP …]]]]]]
Shortest Move
*Shortest Move
 What is special about either finite indicative clauses or infinitives and subjunctives and how
does this difference translate into a locality restriction for QR (excluding QR in the former but
not in the latter)?
 How can raising infinitives allow A-movement but not QR?
60
10.2.2 Main proposal
•
•
•
Two types of QR: Type-driven (target ⟨t⟩); scope-driven — subject to Scope Economy
No Shortest Move restriction (but see section ·)
Cyclic spell-out model



•
Completed cycles (phases) are subject to transfer
Transfer (simplified): Spell-out of the complement of a phase head (former PIC)
Accessibility: A spelled-out domain is inaccessible for further syntactic operations
(Agree, Move).
Consequence: QR (any form thereof) is phase-based (see Cecchetto 2003, 2004, Takahashi
2010 for similar approaches; see section · for some comparison).
(165)
YP
3
•
QPOBJ
YP
3
•
Y
XP
*(Q) 3
X
vP
3
QPOBJ
vP
3
QPSUBJ
v’
3
v
VP
phase
#
V QPOBJ
Type 1 QR: must target
Spec,vP.
Type 2 QR: possible only if
movement is across another
quantificational element, and
if the moving QP is accessible
(if XP is not a phase).
Spelled-out after
vP is completed
Finite clauses (Fox 2000 translated into a cyclic spell-out model)
(166)
vP
3
• Derivation : *Scope Economy
QP
VP
*
3
• Derivation  (one step movement):
V
CP
*Accessibility
said
3
QP
C’
*
3
C
…
that 3
Spelled-out after
…
vP
phase
CP is completed
#
QPOBJ
vP
#
QPSUBJ
v’
#
…
61
QR vs. other A’-movement — “Need vs. luxury”
•
•
A’-movement: The moving element, e.g., wh-XP (uQ: wh), and/or the moved to head (Cwh)
has a need, which must be satisfied (which overrides Economy/Last Resort).
Merge of wh-phrase in Spec,CP is allowed.
(167)
•
•
CP
3
XP
C’
uQ: wh 3
C
…
i/uQ: ___ @
Type-driven QR can also be seen as ‘need’-based, hence not subject to Scope Economy.
Scope-driven QP-movement: subject to Scope Economy (I leave open how QR interacts with
the Merge Condition).
Raising
(168)
vP
Mary seems to two women … to dance with every senator
3
*∀»∃
∀QPOBJ
VP
*
3
∃QPEXP
V’
to two women 3
• Derivation : *Scope Economy
V
XP
• Derivation : *Accessibility
seem
3
∀QPOBJ
X’
*
3
X
vP
3
∀QPOBJ
vP
phase
3
DPSUBJ
v’
#
…
But:
Movement of DPSUBJ to/through Spec,XP is possible, since the subject has a need (Case), which
allows movement in accordance with Last Resort.
Questions to be addressed:
•
•
What is XP?
What determines phasehood?
62
Control, ECM, Subjunctives
(169)
vP
At least one professor believes Mary to have read every book.
3
At least one professor claims to have read every book.
∀QPOBJ
vP
3
∀»∃; not a single » demand
∃QP/we
VP
3
V
XP
Not a phase
believe/claim/demand 3
X
…
3
vP
3
∀QPOBJ
vP
3
DP/PRO
v’
#
…
10.3 Tense and aspect in infinitives
10.3.1 Eventive predicates—two types of infinitives
(170) a.
b.
c.
•
•
•
Leo sings in the shower (*right now).
Leo sang in the shower right then.
Leo will sing in the shower right then.
Non-stative, non-generic, episodic predicates
Used to diagnose tense in infinitives (Pesetsky 1992, Bošković 1996, 1997, Martin 1996,
2001).
Against the above: eventive predicates do not distinguish between raising/ECM and control
(but they do tell us something about tense).
Two (of three) Classes of infinitives
•
•
Future infinitives: always allow eventive predicates
Simultaneous infinitives combining with propositional verbs (claim, believe, expect): never
allow eventive predicates (see also Abusch 2004).
(171) Future infinitives: Eventive
a.
b.

Leo decided/plans to bring the toys tomorrow.
The printer is expected to work again tomorrow.
The bridge is expected to collapse tomorrow.
The train is expected to arrive late tomorrow.
Control
ECM
Passive with an inanimate (surface) subject is evidence for ECM (cannot be control).
63
(172) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
A solar eclipse is forecast to occur in Württemberg in August 2019.
The petition is projected to have over 20,000 signatures by next week.
The party is thought to start at 10 p.m.
The storm is anticipated to hit the East Coast tomorrow.
The storm is predicted to hit the East Coast tomorrow.
Future ECM
(173) Propositional simultaneous infinitives: *Eventive
a.
b.
c.
d.
Yesterday, John claimed to be leaving (right then).
*Yesterday, John claimed to leave tomorrow.
*Yesterday, John claimed leave right then.
Yesterday, John claimed to be leaving tomorrow.
cf. I am leaving tomorrow.
Control
*Future
*Eventive
Planned future
e.
f.
g.
h.
Yesterday, John believed Mary to be leaving (right then).
*Yesterday, John believed Mary to leave tomorrow.
*Yesterday, John believed Mary to leave right then.
Yesterday, John believed Mary to be leaving tomorrow.
ECM
*Future
*Eventive
Planned future
Future infinitives pattern with finite future regarding eventive predicates
Simultaneous infinitives pattern with finite present regarding eventive predicates
Analysis (see Wurmbrand 2011b for details)
•
Finite future is indexical/absolute; infinitival future is relative (Dowty 1982, Abusch 1988 et
seq., Ogihara 1996).
(174) a.
b.
•
Leo decided a week ago to go to the party yesterday.
According to a report I read last week, the bridge was expected to collapse yesterday.
Leo decided a week ago that he will go to the party (*yesterday).
According to a report I read last week, it was expected that the bridge will collapse
(*yesterday).
Simultaneous tense ≠ PRES tense
(175) a.
b.
c.
d.
(176) a.
#5 years ago, Julia claimed that she is pregnant.
#5 years ago, it was believed that Julia is pregnant.
5 years ago, Julia claimed to be pregnant.
5 years ago, Julia was believed to be pregnant.
Finite future
b.
Future infinitives
TP
VP
2
2
T
ModP
V
ModP
PRES
2
decide, expect 2
Mod
vP
woll
vP
will
woll
@
@
64
double access
“
double access not necessary
“
c.
Simultaneous infinitives
VP
2
V
TP
claim, believe 2
T
vP
∅
@
•
•
•
Future (Abusch 1985, 1988): TENSE (absent in infinitives), plus the abstract modal woll which
contributes a modal force yielding posteriority (see e.g., Thomason 1970, Condoravdi 2001,
Copley 2002, Kaufmann 2005 among others).
woll part of future is crucial for eventive predicates (cf. (170a); see the QR Appendix for a
more detailed analysis of eventive predicates).
zero tense (as in sequence-of-tense [SOT] contexts) is incompatible with eventive predicates.
(177) a.
a’.
b.
b’.
John said that Mary was reading Middlemarch.
[PAST say
[PAST/∅ was reading …]]
[Portner 2003]
true PAST or simultaneous (SOT)
John said that Mary read Middlemarch.
[PAST say
[PAST/*∅ read …]]
true PAST; *simulataneous
*SOT
Distinction between woll and ∅-tense infinitives: selectional property of the matrix verb.
10.3.2 A third type of infinitive
•
Simultaneous infinitives combining with implicative, aspectual verbs, try, seem.
(178) a.
b.
(179)
•
TP
3
T
…
╲
VP
3
V
AspP
3
Asp
vP
#
PRO/DP to VP
V = {manage, try, begin, seem…}
Eventive predicates depend on the tense of the matrix predicate.
(180) a.
b.
(181) a.
b.
•
Yesterday, John tried/began/managed to sing in the shower (*tomorrow/*next week).
The tower began/seemed to fall over (*tomorrow/*next week).
Leo seems to sing in the shower (*right now).
cf. Leo seems to be singing right now.
Leo seemed to sing in the shower (right then).
The tower seems to fall over (*right now).
cf. The tower seems to be falling over right now.
The tower seemed to fall over (right then).
Wurmbrand (2011b): distribution of eventive predicates is an effect of aspect; in short (see
Appendix), PRES and ∅ tense are only compatible with IMPERFECTIVE, which corresponds to
-ing in English (PERFECTIVE is not realized in English).
(182) a.
b.
PRES
PAST
»
»
seem
seem
»
»
IMPERFECTIVE/*PERFECTIVE
IMPERFECTIVE/PERFECTIVE
65
»
»
sing (180a), (181a)
sing(180b), (181b)
•
•
Seem etc. infinitives are truly tenseless (extended vPs; no IP-projections)
Simultaneous propositional infinitives show no dependency of embedded aspect on the matrix tense (cf. the examples above did not allow eventive predicates in matrix PAST context).
Infinitive
Irrealis future
Propositional
Non-/Semiintensional
Examples
Syntax
decide, plan
expect, forecast
claim
believe, expect
manage, try
begin, seem
Control
ECM
Control
ECM
Control
Raising
Eventive predicates
Temporal composition of infinitive
Structure
possible
woll
wollP
impossible
zero tense
TP
dependent on maaspect
trix tense
AspP
One further argument for infinitival aspect (based on Keshet 2008)
•
Later-than-infinitive interpretation in implicative constructions (originally discussed in
Kusumoto 2005)


Time of making the final four/losing follows the time of picking in the context given.
Relative clause modifies NPI object which forces the object+relative clause to stay in
a position lower than fail/embedded negation.
(183) Context as in Keshet (2008:306): NCAA basketball “March Madness” tournament and the
betting pools concerning this tournament. The way such betting proceeds is that you must
choose a winner for every game in every round before the tournament begins. So, if there
are four teams – call them A, B, C, and D –, you might choose A to beat B and C to beat D
in round one, and choose A to beat C in round two. The second-to-last round of the
tournament is called the “Final Four,” since there are four teams left. Now, let us say that I
placed such a bet before the tournament began. After the tournament, I can say:
a.
b.
I failed to pick any team that made the final four.
I managed not to pick any team that lost in the first round.
Keshet’s analysis:
(184)
VP
4
manage 4
not
5
DPi
5
%PERFECTIVE #
any team that
PRO pick ti
PERFECTIVE lost
in the first round
•
The same interpretation is possible with seem.
(185)




Embedded clause: PERFECTIVE below
NEG; time of picking is a subinterval
of matrix time (time of managing).
Relative clause: SOT (non PAST);
PERFECTIVE  the time of losing is a
subinterval of a higher time.
NPI: must stay below negation, but
can move above infinitival aspect
Relative clause outside the scope of
infinitival PERFECTIVE: time of losing
is not ordered w.r.t time of picking.
John seemed not to pick any team that lost in the first round.
66
10.3.3 The syntax of raising infinitives
•
•
•
Syntactic properties used to argue for TP in raising infinitives: binding, floating quantifiers
Binding (examples attributed to Danny Fox, cited in Grohmann et al. 2000, Bošković 2002,
Pesetsky and Torrego 2007, Castillo et al. 2009, among others): evidence for movement of
the subject to/through an infinitival projection above vP (XP)
If __ hosts a copy of the subject, it follows that himself can and must be bound by the subject
(since closer than the experiencer); if no stop-over movement, these facts would be puzzling.
(186) a.
b.
Johnj seems to Mary to appear to himselfj to be happy.
*Mary seems to Johnj to appear to himselfj to be happy.
(187) a.
b.
[John seems to Mary seems [XP __ to [appear to himself appear [vP John to be…]]]]
*[Mary seems to John seems [XP __ to [appear to himself appear [vP Mary to be …]]]]
•
•
Intermediate movement in raising constructions (Bošković 2002, Pesetsky and Torrego 2007)
But: this position is not Spec,TP, but Spec, AspP.
Why should there be movement to this position?
•
•
•
Movement is not driven by some EPP, but by locality (Bošković 2002).
Back to phases: if AspP is phase, movement of the subject must stop-over in Spec,AspP to
escape spell-out.
Movement is allowed by Last Resort, since the subject needs to value/check its Case.
Why is AspP a phase?
•
•
Standard phase approach (Chomsky 2000, 2001): only vP, CP (maybe DP, PP) are phases.
Dynamic phase approaches:


•
•
Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2005): complement of a lexical verb, whatever its label or
size, is an agreement domain.
Bošković (2010): the highest projection of the nominal domain counts as a phase.
Proposal: the highest projection of the verbal domain (extended projection of V) is a phase.
Raising infinitives: AspP is a phase.
Back to QR
•
•
Finite clauses (CPs): phases, as before
Raising infinitives (XP in (168) = AspP): phases
[One potential prediction, which I haven’t been able to test: Does the scope potential of QPs
embedded in a raising infinitive change when the QP is modified by a relative clause which
interacts scopally with embedded Asp? Judgments are too complex.]
Now what about subjunctives, control and ECM infinitives?
Short answer
•
•
woll, zero tense, subjunctive are selected by the higher verb
This type of selection voids phasehood.
67
10.4 Putting it all together
10.4.1 Selection
•
Tense of a finite embedded clause is not selected by the higher verb.
(188) a.
b.
c.
•
Leo said that he is eating a cookie.
Leo said that he will eat a cookie.
Leo said that he ate a coookie.
Aspect in a raising infinitive is not selected by the higher verb (combination of type of embedded predicate—stative vs. non-stative; and higher tense).
(189) a.
b.
c.
•
John seems to be sleeping right now.
John seems to sleep whenever the mailman comes.
John seems to like bananas.
Subjunctive is dependent on the higher verb.
(190) a.
b.
•
I demand that he listen to this.
*I said that he listen to this.
The type of infinitive is also dependent on the higher verb
(191) a.
Mary decided to leave tomorrow/to become/get/#to be pregnant (only if the decision
is about achieving a future state).
Mary claimed to be/*become/*get pregnant/*to leave tomorrow.
b.
Proposal
•
•
Infinitival tense, subjunctive: selected by the higher verb.
Difference to ‘regular’ selection: selected tense/Mod/C is interpretable.
(192) a.
Future infinitive
VP
3
Vdecide
ModP
uF: woll
2
Mod
vP
iF: __ @
b.
•
•
•
Simultaneous infinitive
VP
3
Vclaim
TP
uF: ∅
2
T
vP
iF: __ @
c.
Subjunctive
VP
3
Vdemand
CP
uF: SUBJ
2
C
TP
iF: __ @
uF: woll/∅ is subject to Complementation Merge; hence can only combine with a corresponding iT.
Typical configuration for selection (e.g., verbal morphology): iF: val values uF: __
Selection here involves the reversed configuration: uF:val values iF: __



Infinitival T becomes dependent on the higher verb.
Matrix V becomes dependent on a particular complement.
Consequences for phasehood
68
Assumption: Valuation voids phasehood
•
•
•
Only interpretationally complete units can be transferred.
iF: __ in a potential phase projection postpones transfer.
Similar ideas: Government transparency corollary (Baker 1988), Phase Extension (den
Dikken 2007)—head movement voids barrierhood/phasehood; here I propose that headhead-selection (i.e., valuation) also voids phasehood.
What about finite complements?
•
•
Different type of selection — complementation merge
Complementation merge does not involve valuation (of T, C) by V (C, that, comes valued)
•
The same is the case in for-infinitives (which are phases):
(193) a.
b.
•
A different student wanted to read every book.
∀»∃
A different student wanted for you to read every book. *∀»∃
Johnson (2000): (25)
(27)
for: matrix V cannot value embedded T across C (accessibility); for is inherently valued iT:
woll (similar to that); for-CP combines with matrix V via complementation merge (like a finite CP).
10.4.2 Open issues, outlook, alternatives
Implicatives
•
•
•
•
The tense properties are the same as in raising infinitives; the structure should hence include
Asp, but no other tense projections.
Wide-scope of an embedded QP over the matrix subject is clearly possible. If the structures
involve control, this means that QR from the infinitive must be allowed. One option is to assume that PRO (which can be analyzed as involving unvalued interpretable features) also
postpones phasehood (Wurmbrand 2010). This assumption may also be necessary to account
for QR across multiple control infinitives.
The other option is to assume that these infinitives involve raising.
I have not been able to test whether wide scope is possible over elements other than the subject (adding matrix modifiers, creates extraposition structures, which changes the scope potential, even for scope over the subject; cf. #Some woman managed on her/John’s birthday to
marry every man). If these constructions involve raising (rather than control), the scope could
be the result of reconstruction.
(Non-)Restructuring?
•
Hornstein (1995), Cecchetto (2004) argue that QR is only possible out of restructuring infinitives (unless ACD is involved).
(194) a.
b.
c.
Someone persuaded John to attend every class.
Someone hated to kiss everyone.
Someone wanted for you to meet every woman.
69
*∀»∃
*∀»∃
*∀»∃
[Hornstein 1995]
•
•
For for-infinitives see above.
hate involves a factive infinitive, which may have additional structure above TP (e.g., a CP
and/or NP); judgments vary significantly for factive infinities in English ((194b) is ungrammatical for many speakers independently of scope).
Object control/double object constructions:
•
•
This may be evidence for a Closest/Shortest restriction on QR (at least for speakers who disallow wide scope here—there are also speakers who allow ∀»∃ in (194a)).
Suggestion: additional phasal structure in the matrix vP (split vP):
[vP1
SUBJECT

vP2: phase; VP spelled-out after vP2 is completed; DIRECT OBJECT can control/Agree
into infinitive (not a phase) before spell-out.
vP1: phase; v1 can Case-license DIRECT OBJECT.
Wide scope of embedded object: QR would need to go through the edge of vP2, and
VP (if Closest); VP-adjunction is motivated, since scope between persuade and QP
changes; but second step would violate Scope Economy; one-step QR to vP2 is allowed if Closest is not in effect.


v1 [vP2
DIRECT OBJECT
v2
[VP
persuade
INFINITIVE
]]]
Scope out of finite indicative clauses — who, when, how?
(195) a.
b.
•
%Someone said that every man is married to Sue.
John said that you were on every committee that Bill did say that you were on.
[Wilder 1997]
Empirical situation of when wide scope out of finite clauses is possible is very unclear.
Other phase-based approaches
Italian (Cecchetto 2004)
•
Cecchetto assumes no cyclic spell-out of LF; covert movement occurs after (PF) spell-out
and is constrained by the PIC (specifically, the version of Chomsky 2001); the PIC is hence a
locality condition on movement and a condition on (PF) spell-out.
•
Main claim: Non-restructuring infinitives do not allow scope-driven QR; QR out of nonrestructuring infinitives is possible when QR saves ACD but only when embedded VPellipsis resolution is not available.
•
Italian non-restructuring examples given:
o ammettere di fare (‘to admit doing’): factive (see above)
o Object control verbs, which solidly disallow restructuring and QR (see above)
o cercare di fare ‘to try doing’: marginally allows clitic climbing and QR (examples
given as ?)
o No future irrealis examples (e.g., decide, plan) are given to illustrate the impossibility
of (scope-driven) QR out of these non-restructuring infinitives.
70
Assuming there is indeed a connection between restructuring and QR in Italian…
•
Difference between QR for inverse scope and QR to fix ACD is, as far as I can tell, only
stipulated in Cecchetto’s account: ACD counts as motivation for QR, but scope inversion between a QNP and an intensional verb does not.
•
The account here could implement this as follows:


Option 1: QR out of non-restructuring infinitives is blocked; ACD QR is ‘special’
Option 2: QR out of non-restructuring infinitives is possible in principle (no locality
violation); additional (soft) restrictions on QR.
•
Option 1: Italian infinitives project a CP (di ≈ for—phase); ‘luxury’ QR is impossible
(*accessibility or movement to the edge of CP violates Scope Economy); ACD QR is not
subject to Scope Economy. Why? Last Resort: If no QR, the structure would crash (note that
wide ACD resolution is only possible when embedded VP resolution is impossible).
•
Option 2: Same structure as in English, but QR is subject to “Fewest steps” in Italian; i.e.,
two-step QR is dispreferred (but not excluded by locality or Scope Economy); two-step QR is
only possible when there are no other alternatives (cf. the impossibility of wide ACD resolution when embedded VP resolution is available); Cecchetto also notes a difference between
QR of AcI-subjects, which, under my account, involves only one-step QR (Italian At least
one pacifist has seen each of the policemen throwing a stone ?∀»∃) and objects embedded in
an AcI complement, which requires two steps of QR (At least one journalist has seen the police officer beating each of the pacifists ?? ∀»∃); QR out of finite clauses violates either accessibility or Scope Economy, and is hence (firmly) excluded.
Takahashi (2010)
•
•
•
Main claim: phases are defined by Case; scope driven QR is impossible after type-driven QR
This is well-motivated for the scope properties of Japanese, but may not extend to English;
differences between indicative and subjunctive complements, and between raising and ECM
infinitives require additional assumptions.
Japanese is similar to Italian (Option 2) in that only one step of QR is allowed; it remains to
be determined whether this is also a soft constraint in Japanese.
10.5 Summary
Theoretical tools used:
•
•
•
•
•
Reverse Agree, selection as feature valuation (or merge restriction imposed by uFs)
Cyclic spell-out
Dynamic phase approach
Two types of QR and Scope Economy (Fox 2000)
Semantic-based determination of infinitival structure
71
The complete picture I argued for:
Complement
Future infinitive
Propositional infinitive
Subjunctive
Raising infinitive
Finite CP
Structure
wollP
TP
CP
AspP
CP
Highest head
unvalued
unvalued
unvalued
valued
valued
Phase
no
no
no
yes
yes
QR
possible
possible
possible
impossible
impossible
10.6 QR Appendix
10.6.1 Eventive predicates
•
Informal definitions of aspect (see, e.g., Klein 1994, Kratzer 1998, von Stechow 1999):
PERFECTIVE: event time interval has to be included in the reference time interval
IMPERFECTIVE: reference time interval has to be included in the event time interval.
•
•
•
•
(IM)PERFECTIVE aspect is projected syntactically in English in non-stative constructions.
IMPERFECTIVE aspect: realized with progressive morphology. Consequence: progressive has
to be used whenever the reference interval is included in the event interval).
(196) Event interval (singing) included in reference interval (yesterday, tomorrow): PERFECTIVE
a.
b.
John sang in the shower yesterday.
John will sing in the shower tomorrow.
(197) Reference interval (mailman’s arrival) included in event interval (singing): IMPERFECTIVE
a.
b.
*John sang in the shower when the mailman arrived.
cf. John was singing in the shower when the mailman arrived.
*John will sing in the shower when the mailman arrives.
cf. John will be singing in the shower when the mailman arrives.
[(197b) is grammatical if it is interpreted in a way that John’s singing will start after (or at the same
time as) the mailman’s arrival (e.g. the singing is used as a code or signal to indicate the mailman’s
arrival). Under this reading the when clause takes scope over the future elements (i.e., it shifts the
reference time to a time after the time of the when clause, which is compatible with a perfective interpretation.]
•
•
•
•
•
Non-generic PRES tense: reference interval (an interval corresponding to the utterance time,
the speaker’s ‘now’) necessarily included in event interval;  only IMPERFECTIVE.
Generic/habitual interpretation: repeated occurrences of singing events, which are included in a larger reference interval; event intervals are included in the reference interval
Stative constructions: no aspect is projected.
SOT: zero tense associates reference interval of embedded clause with event interval of matrix (time of saying), embedded R is included in E (time of reading)  IMPERFECTIVE.
Shifted PAST: embedded PAST shifts embedded R to a time before the matrix E; embedded E
(time of reading) is included in R (time before saying); PERFECTIVE possible.
72
(198) a.
b.
c.
•
John said that Mary was reading Middlemarch.
John said that Mary read Middlemarch.
[PAST say
[∅
was reading/*read ]]
SOT possible
*SOT
SOT
Shifted interpretation: if embedded R is restricted to a short interval, e.g., by a when clause
(mailman knocking), embedded R is included in embedded E again;  progressive required.
(199) a.
b.
John said yesterday that Mary was reading a week ago when the mailman knocked.
*John said yesterday that Mary read a week ago when the mailman knocked.
(200) a.
TP
3
T
AspP
PAST
3
PRES
Asp
…
∅
IMPERFECTIVE
c.
TP
3
T
AspP
PAST
3
*PRES
Asp
…
*∅
PERFECTIVE
b.
TP
3
T
ModP
PAST
3
PRES Mod
AspP
∅
woll
3
can
Asp
…
… (IM)PERFECTIVE
10.6.2 Two types of QR—Potential experimental evidence
Hackl et al. (2010)
(201) The lawyer was careful to remember ...
=(27)
a.
b.
c.
the fact that the young defense attorney presented
the fact that the young defense attorney did
the fact that the young defense attorney was
d.
e.
f.
every fact that the young defense attorney presented
every fact that the young defense attorney did
every fact that the young defense attorney was
... during the second cross examination period.
•
•
QPs (201e) facilitate ACD resolution compared to the-DPs (201b) during real time sentence
processing in local ellipsis case.  Evidence for local QR.
Large ellipsis: reverse effect; QPs do not facilitate ACD resolution; non-local QR is different
(involves additional processing steps).
Moulton (To appear)
•
•
Pen-and-paper questionnaires testing difficulty of QR out of (different types of) infinitives
Context biased towards wide-scope
73
Experiment 1
(202)
Sample Item: The restaurant was very busy on Saturday night. The head chef needed all his
assistant chefs to pitch in. When he returned from the market, he was pleased that an assistant
chef prepared/had begun/helped/decided to prepare every dish.
How many assistant chefs prepared/had begun/helped/decided to prepare dishes?
One
Several
(203) a.
b.
c.
d.
Mono-clausal
.71
Restructuring: begin, start, try
.61
Implicative restructuring: manage, bother, dare
.61
Non-restructuring: decide, hope, expect
.49
Mean Proportion of inverse scope responses
Paired t-tests on an items analysis:
Mono-clausal constructions significantly easier than restructuring
Mono-clausal constructions significantly easier than non-restructuring
Mono-clausal & implicative: not significant
(a)/(b)
(a)/(d)
Paired t-tests on subjects performance:
Mono-clausal constructions & restructuring not significant (not: (a)/(b))
Mono-clausal constructions significantly easier than non-restructuring
Mono-clausal constructions significantly easier than implicative
(a)/(d)
(a)/(c)
Experiment 2
(204) a.
b.
c.
•
Restructuring: begin, start, finish
Potentially restructuring: want, try
Non-restructuring: decide, hope, expect
.37
.35
.32
Mean Proportion of inverse scope responses
No significant difference between any of the above (but tendencies).
Summary
•
•
•
The experimental evidence seems to show that QR in simple clauses is different from QR out
of (any kind of) infinitives.
This raises questions for accounts that assume that QR from these two domains is the same.
Fox-style account captures this: simple clauses require only one step of QR (type-driven
QR), whereas infinitives (whether restructuring, non-restructuring, ECM) require a second
step of scope-driven QR, which may be unavailable in some languages.
74
11. REFERENCES
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Abusch, Dorit. 1985. On verbs and time. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Abusch, Dorit. 1988. Sequence of tense, intensionality, and scope. In Proceedings of the 7th
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Hagit Borer, 1-14. Stanford, Calif:
CSLI Publications.
Abusch, Dorit. 2004. On the temporal compostion of infinitives. In The syntax of time, ed. by
Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme, 27-53. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford, England: Oxford UP.
Bader, Markus, and Schmid, Tanja. 2009. Verb clusters in colloquial German. Journal of
Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12.3:175-228.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Baker, Mark, and Willie, Willie Udo. 2010. Agreement in Ibibio: From Every Head to Every
Head. Syntax: A Journal of Theoretical, Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research
13.2:99-132.
Bloemhoff, Henk. 1979. Heranalyse van een Stellingwerver oppervlaktestructuur. Us Wurk:
Tydskrift foar Frisistyk 28:31-38.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1994. What does adjacency do? In The morphology-syntax
connection, ed. by Heidi Harley and Colin Phillips, 1-32. MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 22. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002. Realizing Germanic Inflection: Why Morphology Does not
Drive Syntax. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6.2-3:129-167.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Jonas, Dianne. 1996. Subject Positions and the Roles of TP.
Linguistic Inquiry 27:195-236.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1998. Two heads aren't always better than
one. Syntax 1.1:37-71.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Wurmbrand, Susi. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 23.4:809-865.
Bošković, Željko. 1996. Selection and the categorial status of Infinitival Complements. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 14:269-304.
Bošković, Željko. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-Movement and the EPP. Syntax 5.3:167-218.
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more
minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38.4:589-644.
Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying First and Last Conjunct Agreement. Natural Language &
Linguistic Theory 27.3:455-496.
Bošković, Željko. 2010. Phases beyond clauses. Ms., University of Connecticut. Storrs.
75
Bošković, Željko. To appear. On unvalued uninterpretable features. In Proceedings of the North
Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 39. Amherst: University of Massachusetts,
GLSA.
Bošković, Željko, and Lasnik, Howard. 2003. On the Distribution of Null Complementizers.
Linguistic Inquiry 34.4:527-546.
Bresnan, Joan. 1971. A Note on the Notion 'Identity of Sense Anaphora'. Linguistic Inquiry
2:589-597.
Brody, Michael. 1997. Perfect chains. In Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax,
ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 139-167. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Canac-Marquis, Réjean. 2005. Phases and Binding of Reflexives and Pronouns in English. In
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure
Grammar, ed. by Stefan Müller, 482–502. Stanford, Calif: CSLI Publications.
Castillo, Juan Carlos, Drury, John E., and Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2009. Merge Over Move and
the Extended Projection Principle: MOM and the EPP Revisited. Iberia: An International
Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 1.1:53-114.
Cecchetto, Carlo. 2003. QR in the Theory of Phases. In Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Gina Garding and Mimu Tsujimura, 123-136.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Cecchetto, Carlo. 2004. Explaining the locality conditions of QR: Consequences for the theory of
phases. Natural Language Semantics 12.3:345–397.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on
minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels and
Juan Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Michael
Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On Phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. by Robert
Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 8:425-504.
Chung, Sandra. 2006. Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. In Proceedings of the 31st
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Rebecca T. Cover and Yuni
Kim, 73-91. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Condoravdi, Cleo. 2001. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the
past. In Stanford Papers on Semantics, ed. by David Beaver, Stefan Kaufmann, Brady
Clark and Luis Casillas. Stanford, Calif: CSLI Publications.
Copley, Bridget. 2002. The semantics of the future. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Despić, Miloje. 2010. Phases, reflexives, and Spell Out domains. Ms. Storrs, Conn.
Dikken, Marcel den. 2007. Phase Extension: Contours of a Theory of the Role of Head
Movement in Phrasal Extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33.1:1-41.
Dikken, Marcel den, and Hoekstra, Eric. 1997. Parasitic participles. Linguistics 35:1057-1089.
Doherty, Cathal. 1993. Clauses without that: The case for bare sentential complementation in
English. Doctoral dissertation, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz.
Doherty, Cathal. 1997. Clauses without complementizers: Finite IP-complementation in English.
The Linguistic Review 14:197-220.
Doherty, Cathal. 2000. Clauses without "that": The case for bare sentential complementation in
English. New York: Garland Press.
76
Dowty, David. 1982. Tenses, time adverbs, and compositional semantic theory. Linguistics and
Philosophy 9:405-426.
Everaert, Martin. 1991. Nominative anaphors in Icelandic: morphology or syntax? In Issues in
Germanic Syntax, ed. by Werner Abraham, Wim Kosmeijer and Eric Reuland, 277-305.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fischer, Silke. 2004. Optimal Binding. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22.3:481-526.
Fischer, Silke. 2006. Matrix Unloaded: Binding in a Local Derivational Approach. Linguistics:
An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences 44.5:913-935.
Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic
Inquiry 30.2:157-196.
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press/MITWPL.
Fox, Danny, and Nissenbaum, Jon. 1999. Extraposition and Scope: a case for overt QR. In
Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Sonya
Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen and Peter Norquest, 132-144. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press.
Franks, Steven. 2005. What is that? In Indiana University Working Papers in Linguistics 5, ed.
by Y. Kitagawa and Dorian Roehrs, 33-62. Indiana.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Benjamins.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K., Drury, John, and Castillo, Juan Carlos. 2000. No More EPP. In
Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Roger
Billerey and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen, 153-166. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Hackl, Martin, Koster-Moeller, Jorie, and Varvoutis, Jason. 2010. Quantification and ACD:
Evidence from real time sentence processing. Ms. Cambridge, MA.
Haegeman, Liliane, and Lohndal, Terje. 2010. Negative Concord and (Multiple) Agree: A Case
Study of West Flemish. Linguistic Inquiry 41.2:181-211.
Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning and processing. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Hegarty, Michael. 1991. Adjunct extraction and chain configurations. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Heinat, Frank. 2006. Probes, pronouns, and binding in the Minimalist Program. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Lund,
Hicks, Glyn. 2006. The derivation of anaphoric relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of
York,
Hicks, Glyn. 2009. The derivation of anaphoric relations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese. In
Proceedings of the MIT-Harvard Joint Conference (HUMIT 2000), ed. by Ora
Matushansky, 67-80. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1994. An Argument for Minimalism: The Case of Antecedent-Contained
Deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 25.3:455-480.
77
Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford; Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnsen, Sverre. 2008. Binding in complements of perception verbs. Talk given at East coast
workshop in syntax (ECO 5), University of Connecticut.
Johnsen, Sverre. To appear. Non-local binding in tenseless clauses. In Papers from the 45th
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago,
Chicago Linguistic Society.
Johnson, Kyle. 2000. How Far Will Quantifiers Go? In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist
Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan
Uriagereka, 187-210. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson, Kyle. 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In The handbook
of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. by Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 439–479.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Kaufmann, Stefan. 2005. Conditonal truth and future reference. Journal of Semantics 22.3:231280.
Kayne, Richard. 1981. Two notes on the NIC. In Theory of markedness in generative grammar,
ed. by Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi, 317--346. Pisa: Scuole Normale Superiore.
Kayne, Richard. 1998. Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 1.2:128-191.
Kennedy, Christopher. 1997. Antecedent-contained deletion and the syntax of quantification.
Keshet, Ezra. 2008. Infinitival complements and tense. In Proceedings of SuB12, ed. by Atle
Grønn, 303-317. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London and New York: Routledge.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Proceedings
from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII, ed. by D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson, 92110. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, CLC Publications.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a Pronoun: Fake Indexicals as Windows into the Properties of
Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40.2:187-237.
Kusumoto, Kiyomi. 2005. On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural
Language Semantics 13.4:317–357.
Ladusaw, William Allen. 1980. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions.
Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 22.4:811–877.
Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the Minimalist Program.
In Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Carlos Otero, ed. by
Héctor Campos and Paula Kempchinsky, 251-275. Washington, D.C.: Gerorgetown
University Press.
Lasnik, Howard. 1997. A gap in an ellipsis paradigm: Some theoretical implications. Linguistic
Analysis 27.3-4:166-185.
Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic
Inquiry 15:235-289.
78
Lebeaux, David. 1991. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of derivation. In Perspectives
on phrase structure: heads and licensing, ed. by Susan D. Rothstein, 209-240. San
Diego, Calif: Academic Press.
Lebeaux, David. 1995. Where does binding theory apply? In Papers in Syntax, Syntax-Semantics
Interface and Phonology, ed. by Ricardo Echepare and Viola Miglio, 63-88. College
Park: University of Maryland, Department of Linguistics.
Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where does binding theory apply? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2008. Binding, phases, and locality. Syntax 11.3:281-298.
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States
Conference on Linguistics, ed. by German Westphal, Benjamin Ao and Hee-Rahk Chae,
234-253. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, CLC Publications.
Martin, Roger Andrew. 1996. A minimalist theory of PRO and control. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Martin, Roger Andrew. 2001. Null case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32.1:141166.
Marušič, Franc. 2005. On non-simultaneous phases. Doctoral dissertation, Stony Brook
University,
Marušič, Franc, Marvin, Tatjana, and Žaucer, Rok. 2003. Depictive secondary predication in
Slovenian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Languages 11, ed. by Wayles Browne, JiYung Kim, Barbara Partee and Robert Rothstein, 373-392. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic
Publications.
Merchant, Jason. 2008. An Asymmetry in Voice Mismatches in VP-Ellipsis and Pseudogapping.
Merchant, Jason. 2011. Aleut case matters. In Pragmatics and Autolexical Grammar: In honor of
Jerry Sadock, ed. by Etsuyo Yuasa Yuasa, Tista Bagchi and Katharine P. Beals, 382-411.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Merchant, Jason. To appear. Polarity items under ellipsis. In Diagnosing syntax, ed. by Lisa
Cheng and Norbert Corver. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moulton, Keir. To appear. Scope relations and infinitival complements. In UMOP: Processing
and Semantics, ed. by Jan Anderssen. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
Nunes, Jairo, and Zocca, Cynthia. 2005. Morphological identity in ellipsis. In Leiden Papers in
Linguistics, ed. by Noureddine Elouazizi, Frank Landsbergen, Mika Poss and Martin
Salzmann, 29-42. Leiden: Leiden University.
Nunes, Jairo, and Zocca, Cynthia. 2009. Lack of morphological identity and ellipsis resolution in
Brazilian Portuguese. In Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax, ed. by Jairo
Nunes, 215-236. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1996. Tense, attitude, and scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Owens, Jonathan. 1985. A Grammar of Harar Oromo (Northeastern Ethiopia). Hamburg:
Helmut Buske Verlag.
Pesetsky, David. 1992. Zero syntax II: An essay on infinitives. Ms., MIT. Cambridge, MA.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David. 1998. Some Optimality Principles of Sentence Pronunciation. In Is the Best
Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, ed. by Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox,
Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis and David Pesetsky, 337-383. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press and MITWPL.
79
Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories.
In The syntax of time, ed. by Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme, 495-537.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2006. Probes, Goals and Syntactic Categories. In
Proceedings of the 7th annual Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Keio University,
Japan.
Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of
features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture, ed. by Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian and
Wendy Wilkins, 262-294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Portner, Paul. 2003. The (Temporal) Semantics and (Modal) Pragmatics of the Perfect.
Linguistics and Philosophy 26:459–510.
Quicoli, A. Carlos. 2008. Anaphora by Phase. Syntax 11.3:299-329.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar of
Contemporary English. New York: Seminar.
Reis, Marga. 1997. Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In Sprache im
Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Christa Dürscheid, Karl
Heinz Rahmers and Monika Schwarz, 121–144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32.3:439-492.
Reuland, Eric. 2005. Agreeing to Bind. In Organizing Grammar, ed. by Hans Broekhuis, Norbert
Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz and Jan Koster, 505-513. Berlin, Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Richards, Norvin. 1996. Toward a Feature-Movement Theory of Long-Distance Anaphora. Ms.,
MIT. Cambridge, MA.
Richards, Norvin. 1997. Competition and disjoint reference. Linguistic Inquiry 28.1:178-187.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. On the anaphor-agreement effect. Rivista di Linguistica 2:27–42.
Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple WH fronting. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 6.4:445-501.
Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-State
Contexts. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
Stechow, Arnim von. 1999. Eine Erweiterte Extended Now-Theorie für Perfekt und Futur.
Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 113:86-118.
Svenonius, Peter. 1994. Dependent Nexus: Subordinate predication structures in English and the
Scandinavian languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa
Cruz.
Takahashi, Masahiko. 2010. Case, phases, and nominative/accusative conversion in Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19.4:319-155.
Thiersch, Craig. 1978. Topics in German syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Thomason, Richard. 1970. Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria 36:264-281.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Extraposition from NP and prosodic structure. In Proceedings of
the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 25, ed. by Jill N. Beckman, 503517. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in
German. Theoretical Linguistics 32.3:257-306.
80
Tucker, Matthew. 2010. On the implications of the anaphor agreement effect for binding as
Agree. Ms., UCSC. Santa Cruz.
Vogel, Ralf. 2009. Skandal im Verbkomplex: Betrachtungen zur scheinbar inkorrekten
Morphologie in infiniten Verbkomplexen des Deutschen. Zeitschrift für
Sprachwissenschaft 28.2:307–346.
Warner, Anthony. 1986. Ellipsis conditions and the status of the English copula. In York Papers
in Linguistics 12, 153-172.
Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and parameters of syntactic saturation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wechsler, Stephen. 1991. Verb second and illocutionary force. In Views on phrase structure, ed.
by Katherine Leffel and Denis Bouchard, 177–191. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2001. Dressing up for vocabulary insertion: the parasitic supine. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 19.1:199-228.
Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2005. The syntax of tenselessness: On copying constructions in Swedish.
Doctoral dissertation, Umeå University,
Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2007. The syntax of tenselessness: Tense/mood/aspect-agreeing
infinitivals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wilder, Chris. 1997. Phrasal movement in LF: de re readings, VP-ellipsis and binding. In
Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 27, ed. by Kiyomi
Kusumoto, 425–439. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.
Woolford, Ellen. 1999. More on the anaphor agreement effect. Linguistic Inquiry 30.2:257-287.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2006. Licensing Case. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18.3:175-234.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2010. Parasitic morphology in Germanic: Consequences for the theory of
feature checking. Ms., University of Connecticut. Storrs. [Detailed handout available at:
http://wurmbrand.uconn.edu/Susi/Agree.html].
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2011a. Parasitic participles in Germanic: Evidence for the theory of verb
clusters. Submitted to Taal en Tongval.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2011b. Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Ms., University of
Connecticut. Storrs. [Available at: http://wurmbrand.uconn.edu/Susi/Infinitives.html].
Zaenen, Anne, Maling, Joan, and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions:
The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:441-483.
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2010. There is only one way to agree. Talk given at 33rd GLOW Colloquium,
Wroclaw, Poland.
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1995. A note on verb clusters in the Stellingwerf dialect. In Linguistics in
the Netherlands 1995, ed. by Marcel den Dikken and Kees Hengeveld, 215-226.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
81

ON AGREE AND MERGE Susi Wurmbrand University of Connecticut

Transcription

Similar documents

For more information: www.grandcasinobrewfest.com

Val Babajov - Invest Bulgaria Agency

Sept-Nov-December issue - Travel with Aging Parents

the leaflet

single-tenant, nnn leased investment opportunity

Little Kimble Free Church

PDF here - Val d`Hérens

CSS3 Cheat Sheet

How Do You Know It`s Val-Saint-Lambert?

moving made easy