Current Issues in Spanish Syntax and Semantics [Reprint 2012 ed.] 9783110850536, 9783110169294

Citation preview

Current Issues in Spanish Syntax and Semantics

W G DE

Studies in Generative Grammar 53

Editors

Jan Köster Harry van der Hulst Henk van Riemsdijk

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Current Issues in Spanish Syntax and Semantics

Edited by

Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach Luis Silva-Villar

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

2001

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, Berlin.

The series Studies in Generative Grammar was formerly published by Foris Publications Holland.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Current issues in Spanish syntax and semantics / edited by Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach, Luis Silva-Villar. p. cm. — (Studies in generative grammar ; 53) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 3 11 016929 0 (alk. paper) 1. Spanish language — Clitics. 2. Spanish language — Verb. 3. Spanish language — Determiners. I. Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. II. Silva-Villar, Luis, 1954III. Series. PC4139.3 .C87 2001 465—dc21 2001044317

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Current issues in Spanish syntax and semantics / ed by Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach ; Luis Silva-Villar. — Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 2001 (Studies in generative grammar ; 53) ISBN 3-11-016929-0

© Copyright 2001 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printing & Binding: Hubert & Co, Göttingen. Printed in Germany. Cover Design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin.

Table of contents

Introduction

I.

1

The structure and interpretation of the Determiner Phrase

Ignacio Bosque Adjective position and the interpretation of indefinites

17

Enrique Mallen Issues in the syntax of D P in Romance and Germanic

39

Eugenia Casielles Suárez The syntax ans semantics of preverbal topical phrases in Spanish

65

II. Clitics Jon Franco On the doubling of overt operators

85

Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach Interface conditions and the semantics of argument clitics

107

Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach Adverbial weak pronouns: Derivation and interpretation

143

Víctor M. Longa and Guillermo Lorenzo Universal constraints on 'superfluous' elements: The case of Galician 'Arb Che'

175

Marta Luján and Claudia Parodi Clitic-doubling and the acquisition of agreement in Spanish

193

VI

Table of contents

III. Verbal and temporal properties, and the structure of the clause Luis López The causee and the theory of bare phrase structure

221

Gerhard Brugger Temporal modification, the 24-hour rule and the location of reference time

243

J. Clancy Clements Ergative patterning in Spanish

271

John Grinstead Morphological underspecification and overt subjects in child Catalan and Spanish

291

Luis Silva-Villar Verbless derivations in historical syntax: A case study of Northwestern Iberian languages

309

Subject index

347

Language index

353

Contributors

355

Introduction

The last three decades of the 20th century have been a period of intense scientific contributions within the area of Hispanic Linguistics. The development of generative grammar and related theoretical models in syntax and semantics provided new impetus for linguistics research while giving a solid foundation for future theoretical enterprises. The interest in the study of the Spanish language, and Iberian languages in general, has been propelled by the increasing presence of Spanish as the major foreign language at the university level in the USA and also by the need for theoretical contributions to model applied studies. The new central role of the Spanish language has attracted many scholars to this area of research in an attempt to test and expand descriptive generalizations and to contribute to theoretical linguistics properly. The emergence of the Principles and Parameters/Government and Binding framework in the eighties and the Minimalist Program in the nineties, as well as recent developments in formal semantics and in the study of language variation and evolution, have allowed a tighter fit between syntactic and semantic approaches. The study of grammar has become a study of interface issues and of the different strategies that arise in the dynamic interplay of processes belonging to these areas (Reinhart 1995). On the other hand, the empirical coverage of current theories has become more powerful and it has also become increasingly evident that cross-linguistic comparison can provide insightful evidence into the inner workings of a language. Data from language acquisition and from diachronic grammar open a window into why the current stage of a language has certain characteristic properties, as a result of individual-based or internal generalized development. Following this spirit, this compilation brings together the expertise of researchers working in syntax, the syntaxsemantics interface, and on the effect of variation and acquisition considerations in theoretical design. This volume contains thirteen papers that approach several problematic aspects of Hispanic syntax and semantics from a broad generative perspective. This compilation offers a balanced mixture of approaches, reflecting the current picture of research in such a diverse field. Some of the

2

Introduction

analyses proposed in these papers build on recent developments in the Minimalist Program. Others place the emphasis on descriptive issues and introduce less theoretical machinery or, alternatively, explore interface issues with diachronic syntax, language contact or language acquisition. The papers focus on a series of areas that have been the object of research for a number of years: the structure of noun phrases/determiner phrases, the theory and description of clitic proforms, and the role of verbal properties and tense in sentence structure and interpretation. In agreement with much of current research, some papers in this compilation have an intrinsic comparative focus, and issues of Spanish syntax, semantics and the syntax/semantics interface are considered in the broader canvas provided by other languages with similar structural properties, especially neighboring languages such as Galician, Catalan, etc. This makes this compilation of interest not only to researchers and scholars in Spanish linguistics but also to those interested in syntactic issues in the Iberian, Romance and Germanic languages in general.

The Structure and interpretation of the Determiner Phrase A basic insight in the development of generative grammar is that certain kinds of grammatical information must be categorially encoded to reflect the procedural structure of syntactic derivations. Certainly, there is strong evidence that a noun is the essential constituent in a noun phrase, but there is also additional information that is not readily associated with nouns, in particular deixis, definiteness, possession or quantification. Because this is not idiosyncratic information about a particular noun, but a common feature of all nouns, it does not seem appropriate to encode this information in the lexical entry of particular nouns. The possibility of D projecting a DP was originally proposed by Abney (1987). This proposal also implies that there is a full range of other functional categories between D and Ν such as Number, Case, Predication, Agreement and Temporality, as has been proposed in the literature. Mallen's (1989) dissertation was a pioneering work in the study of the articulation of Spanish DPs. The problem of adjective placement is one of the issues that has generated much controversy, both in the descriptive and the formal generative literature. Recently, several articles have addressed this issue within a minimalist framework and in the context of a refined structure of the DP, such as the one spelled out above. For instance, Silva-Villar and Gutiér-

Introduction

3

rez-Rexach (1998) argue that there is a temporal projection within DP to which temporal adjectives which appear in a prenominai position by Spell-Out have moved. Similarly, Demonte (1999) argues for movement to an internal Degree Phrase and Gutiérrez-Rexach (1999) hypothesizes that the presence of degree/partitive specifiers within DP hosting the corresponding operators gives rise to different varieties of neuter structures. Ignacio Bosque's "Adjective Position and the Interpretation of Indefinites" focuses on a systematic contrast that arises in the interpretation of indefinite nomináis, namely the contrast between a specific and a nonspecific reading. He studies how adjective position is systematically correlated with specificity and provides a wide array of empirical evidence in this respect. For instance, he shows that una novela interesante 'lit. a novel interesting' or un actor famoso 'lit. an actor famous' have both a specific reading and a non-specific reading (that is, what he calls a 'variable' interpretation). However, the phrases una interesante novela 'an interesting novel' and un famoso actor 'a famous actor' refer to specific individuals, that is, they lack this 'variable' reading. This restriction extends to elatives (extreme degree adjectives or adverbs). He considers a wide array of contexts in which this difference arises: in the presence of adverbs of quantification, generic contexts, directive constructions, negation, rhetorical questions, donkey sentences, etc. Following the idea that evaluative degree adjectives move to a higher degree projection in the DP, Bosque argues that the reason why indefinite NPs interpreted as variables may contain restrictive modifiers but not evaluative (or degree) modifiers belongs to the syntax/semantics interface. In these latter cases, the variable cannot be bound because an intermediate functional projection FP blocks the binding process. This projection is located between the higher intensional operator and the D° indefinite head. The attributive prenominai adjective moves covertly from the specifier of DegP to this functional projection FP (above DP), and in so doing prevents the binding of the indefinite by a higher operator. This gives rise to a standard minimality effect or, in minimalist terms, a violation of the shortest movement condition. Enrique Mallen also analyzes a set of data that illuminate the issue of the internal structure of the DP projection from a comparative point of view. In "Issues in the Syntax of DP in Romance and Germanic," he attempts to provide an explanatory theory of a series of systematic contrasts between the Spanish and the German noun phrase. These contrasts pertain to the number of internal nominal arguments and to their position as well as to the position of attributive adjectives. Mallen adopts

4

Introduction

a fine-grained internal structure of the DP, with a full range of functional categories: Determiner, Number, Case, Predication and Agreement. Adopting a minimalist architecture, he proposes that internal functional categories must raise to Det at some point of the derivation, deriving agreement properties from this process. Additionally, he proposes that case features are strong in German but not in Spanish and that there are several sub-instances of internal matching involving either AP movement or head movement of Kase to Det. In sum, he proposes a minimalist account of the parametric differences between the Spanish and the German DP. Whereas the two previous papers study aspects of the internal syntax and interpretation of noun phrases, Eugenia Casielles' "The Syntax and Semantics of Preverbal Topical Phrases in Spanish" addresses the issue of the variability in the distribution and interpretation of noun phrases in a left peripheral position. This is a topic that has received much attention recently in the context of a minimalist theory of the interfaces, with contributions such as Rizzi's (1997) analysis of the syntax of the left periphery of the sentence and Zubizarreta's (1998) study of the relationship between word order and focus. Nevertheless, none of these studies clearly investigates how the information structure of a sentence, in Vallduvi's (1992) terms, is matched with the syntax of the topic/comment and the focus/background articulations. Casielles investigates the syntax and interpretation of two so-called topical phrases in Spanish: preverbal subjects and dislocated elements. As is well-known, in Spanish and in other Romance languages subjects do not have to appear preverbally, in contrast with English. She notices that an important difference between postverbal and preverbal subjects is related to their interpretation. Postverbal subjects are interpreted as focal, belonging to the informative part of the sentence, while preverbal subjects are interpreted as topical. Casielles shows that preverbal subjects differ from dislocated phrases both syntactically and informationally and argues that the term 'topical' covers two different informational primitives: the sentence topic and the background. She proposes that sentence topics occupy the preverbal subject position in Spanish while background elements appear dislocated. From this point of view, subject raising can be viewed as a topic-driven movement and the position of background elements can be related to the theory of focus projection rather than to topic-driven movement, contra what is proposed by Zubizarreta (1998).

Introduction

5

Clitics The study of the structural configuration and position of Spanish clitics has been one of the most prominent loci of attention of research in Spanish syntax. Early work by Strozer (1976) and Rivas (1977) decisively contributed to the foundation of the base-generation hypothesis. Later, the work of Jaeggli (1982,1986) and Hurtado (1984) influenced the articulation of the theories of case and government. More recently, Suñer (1988) opened a new avenue of research with the discovery of the semantic conditions on clitic doubling, a correspondence which she termed the 'Matching hypothesis.' According to this hypothesis, doubled elements have to satisfy a specificity constraint. The first article of this section, "On the Doubling of Overt Operators," studies the syntax of quantificational doubling. Developing ideas from his influential dissertation, Jon Franco discusses a set of data on clitic-doubled quantifiers from Basque Spanish and some Argentinian dialects (Borer 1984) that at first sight seem to be exceptions to the regular patterns of Spanish Direct Object clitic doubling. In these dialects, the leista variant of (1), illustrated in (2), is grammatical, violating Suñer's (1988) specificity constraint. (1) * ¿A quiéniloi viste? to whom ACC-CL3sg saw-2sg 'Who did you see?' (2) ¿A quiéni le¡ viste? To whom ACC-CL3sg saw-2sg 'Who did you see?' Franco shows that the construction in question is epiphenomenal, in the sense that clitic-doubled w/z-elements and quantifiers are crucially of a referential nature and "hide" a null pronominal. Thus, the conditions on Spanish Direct Object clitic doubling in this type of sentence are simply satisfied by the existence of quantifiers involving the occurrence of the pro element that he posits. Since the above mentioned dialects, unlike Porteño Spanish, allow the interpretation of bare quantifiers with a discourse bound null pronominal, he suggests that the possibility of having direct object clitic-doubled bare quantifiers carrying along discourse bound null pronominals correlates with the fact that the former dialects allow plain referential null object pro without any identifying clitic. The asymmetry between dialects boils down to whether a grammar can li-

6

Introduction

cense a referential third person null object pro via discourse binding or not. Thus, whereas the grammars of Porteño Spanish and of many other Spanish varieties uniquely select clausal Agreement as the licenser of null pronominals, Basque Spanish uses a dual strategy and selects two licensers, namely, Topic and Agreement. Significantly, it is the Topic head that sanctions third person pro as complement of quantifier heads. The Minimalist Program has brought a new emphasis on the study of the interface and semantic conditions determining the licensing of syntactic constructions. Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach follows a minimalist philosophy in his study of the semantics of clitics and clitic doubling, "Interface Conditions and the Semantics of Argument Clitics". Following an original insight by Postal (1966), recently revived by Torrego (1995) and Uriagereka (1995), he conceives of weak pronouns or clitics as determiner heads, i.e. lexical resources with the categorial feature D. He proposes a model of the feature structure of clitics and a bare derivation without projections or labels. On the semantic side, he exploits the proposed featural specification and makes the denotation of clitics sensitive to their semantic case. Clitics are interpreted as arity reducing functions (Keenan and Westerstâhl 1997) inherently reduced to context sets. He argues that a doubling clitic imposes a semantic restriction on the generalized quantifier it associates with: the quantifier has to be a principal filter, i.e. semantically definite. Thus, it is argued that the clitic selects for an associate encoding an interpretable definiteness feature. The relevant property for doubling in Spanish is principal filterhood and not specificity. This point is further analyzed for the case of existential determiners. The study of nominal clitic proforms constitutes a well established and exhaustively charted territory in the Romance languages. Nevertheless, the properties of other types of proforms have not received much attention to date, especially with regard to Spanish. The existence of locative and temporal proforms has been noticed by several traditional grammarians and dialectologists (Badia 1947; Corominas and Pascual 1985; etc.), but it has also been claimed that contemporary Spanish lacks these clitics. In "Adverbial Weak Pronouns: Derivation and Interpretation," Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach, taking the findings in Gutiérrez-Rexach and Silva-Villar (1998) as a point of departure, argues in favor of the hypothesis that contemporary Spanish has a system of locative and temporal weak proforms. He studies some of the syntactic and semantic properties of these clitics, with particular emphasis on some semantic properties that have not received much attention even in languages were the existence of these proforms is known. He also presents evidence against a treatment of the

Introduction

7

weak adverb ahi, the correlate of English there, as a mere expletive and, consequently, against syntactic derivations based on the idea of an expletive replacement operation taking place covertly at LF and in favor of generalized overt movement (Kayne 1998). The ultimate goal of the author is to offer a unified account of the derivation and interpretation of sentences in which adverbial weak preforms, especially the clitic ahi, occur. A minimalist derivation is proposed which matches the compositional process of interpretation of locative doubling constructions. It is also argued that weak adverbial preforms denote functions of a kind similar to nominal clitics (in the terms of Generalized Quantifiers Theory, arity reducing functions restricted to a context set, as defended in the previous study). The difference between nominal and adverbial clitics resides in the contrasting nature of the context set. Adverbial clitics are restricted to properties of events and, in consequence, they are dependent on the eventive properties of the verbal projection they attach to. Continuing this focus on non-well studied preforms, Victor Longa and Guillermo Lorenzo's paper, "Universal Constraints on 'Superfluous' Elements: The Case of Galician 'Arb Che'," analyzes the syntax of the dative clitic che in Galician. This is a special ethical dative with some intriguing properties which partially differentiate it from its counterparts in other Romance languages. The authors propose to locate Galician 'Arb CHE' as the head of a xP projection, which is also the base position of the anaphoric clitic 'SE'. This explains their complementary distribution, as well as certain restrictions which affect both items. Namely, both 'Arb CHE' and 'anaphoric S E ' block the movement operation that experiencer datives must undergo for case reasons in the context of a psych-verb of the Italian preoccupare class. Longa and Lorenzo explain it as a consequence of a minimality effect in the crossing of case positions of the same sort. They claim that there is a pure pronominal PRO element in the Spec position of the τΡ headed by 'Arb CHE'. From this claim, it follows that this item is incapable of occurring in a position under the influence of a controller. Its affinity with the impersonal clitic 'SE' is also captured. With all this in mind, they conclude that the behavior of a seemingly peripheral element as 'Arb CHE' is actually strongly conditioned by central aspects of Universal Grammar. Finally, Luján and Parodi, like Franco, look at the problems that theories of clitic doubling face in the context of dialect variation. In their article, "Clitic Doubling and the Acquisition of Agreement in Spanish," they develop a minimalist analysis of certain agreement patterns found in Andean Spanish and Los Angeles Spanish. In the large Andean area, where Spanish co-exists with Quechua and many other native languages, pro-

8

Introduction

nominal clitics of variable case freely 'double' different kinds of Direct Objects with which they do not generally agree in gender and number (Luján 1987). Surprisingly, this type of clitic doubling also occurs in Los Angeles Spanish, as spoken by bilingual English speakers of Hispanic descent. Taking advantage of minimalist ideas on checking and movement theory, they generalize to other types of doubling involving structural case, such as the well-attested double genitives in Andean Spanish and other Latin-American Spanish dialects. They offer a new interpretation of the Andean Spanish stages known to hold in the process of acquisition of Standard Spanish without the aid of premises other than those that operate in a syntactic derivation and that account for language diversity on the basis of parametric strength values of formal features in the functional categories of a dialect.

Verbal and temporal properties, and the structure of the clause In "The Causee and the Theory of Bare Phrase Structure," Luis López looks at Spanish causative constructions and proposes a new analysis of the role of the causee, an element that is normally viewed as having a dual role, shared by the causative verb and the subordinate predicate. He proposes a minimalist syntactic account, in which the causee is first merged with the lower predicate and later moves to the specifier of the projection headed by the verb hacer. It receives a second thematic role in this final position. López argues that his analysis has broader theoretical repercussions for current minimalist ideas and debates. Specifically, a consequence of his analysis is that the operation Move should apply freely whenever formal feature checking requires it, and no semantic considerations restrict the operations of the computational component. By postulating movement to thematic positions, López contributes to current efforts that attempt to eliminate differences between Merge and Move and reduce the latter to the former via differential copying. Dryer (1986) has shown that, just as languages display an ergative-absolutive marking pattern for subjects and direct objects, languages also display an analogous marking pattern for mono- and di-transitive objects. In "Ergative Patterning in Spanish", Clancy Clements presents evidence from word order tendencies, NP case marking, object pronominalization, and the application of certain syntactic rules which suggests that Spanish—to a greater or lesser degree—exhibits not only the nominative-ac-

Introduction

9

cusative pattern, but also the ergative-absolutive marking pattern as well. He argues that there is a suggestion of an ergative marking pattern in the discourse-determined postverbal order of intransitive clause subjects and transitive clause objects. Although in full object NP marking the data are inconclusive, Clements observes a stronger case for an ergative marking pattern in the pronominalization of mono-transitive direct objects and ditransitive indirect objects ('leísmo'). Regarding the sensitivity of rules to the ergative marking pattern, passivization clearly maintains the nominative-accusative distinction. Clitic ordering and dislocation, on the other hand, seem to suggest a sensitivity to the Primary Object - Secondary Object marking pattern, i.e. the ergative pattern. The study of the syntax and semantics of tense and aspect has received an important impulse during the nineties. Syntactic theories of tense, such as the ones proposed by Stowell (1993) and Zagona (1991), have developed new perspectives in the consideration of how temporal arguments are projected in syntax and have allowed for a reconsideration of Reichenbach's (1947) model of tense interpretation. In "Temporal Modification, the 24-hour Rule and the Location of Reference Time", Gerhard Brugger analyzes the Present Perfect in a cross-linguistic perspective, taking into account data from selected languages (English, Danish, Italian, Portuguese) with special attention to Spanish. He examines cross-linguistic variation regarding several constraints that have been proposed in the literature on this topic: the Past Adverb Constraint, the 24-hour Rule, Current Relevance and the Present Possibility Constraint. With respect to Spanish, he formulates a 24-hour Rule that is related to the Reference Time. Following the three-dimensional theory of tense proposed by Reichenbach and some of the more recent ideas by Stowell and Giorgi and Pianesi (1997), he addresses the issue of why we observe clear differences in the range of meanings across languages if apparently there is no difference in form. He correlates this with the richness of verbal inflection in each language and formulates a correlation between agreement and tense: the Present Perfect auxiliary distinguishes person (in all tenses) or has semantic content or both. He calls this generalization the Agreement-Tense Correlation. He shows that Spanish sides with the languages that exhibit rich verbal inflection, like Italian. Finally, Brugger's analysis also sheds new light on sequence of tense phenomena, where he brings in new data exploring the interaction of sequence of tense and the Present Perfect. The last two articles in this section bring in evidence from the areas of language acquisition and diachronic syntax. A growing area of research

10

Introduction

in Spanish syntax is the application of current theoretical models to language acquisition data with a dual purpose: to better understand the development of the computational system of natural language in a principled fashion, and to justify the status of syntactic categories in adult language. John Grinstead has this dual goal in his study "Morphological Underspecification and Overt Subjects in Child Catalan and Spanish," where the connection between the functional projections tense/agreement and the occurrence of subjects is analyzed. Using a comparative approach, Grinstead studies child Catalan and Spanish, and observes that in the acquisition of these languages there is an initial stage in which children neither use plural agreement nor non-present verbal morphology. He relates this fact to the idea that the null subjects used by the children studied is PRO, as a consequence of the failure of pro licensing and case checking. From a theoretical perspective, the main observation of Grinstead's study is that the emergence of adult-like tense and agreement morphology makes overt subjects possible in null subject languages, whereas it makes them obligatory in overt subject languages. In "Verbless Derivations in Historical Syntax: A Case Study of Northwestern Iberian Languages," Luis Silva-Villar analyzes so-called verbless structures along the history of Northwestern Iberian Languages (Spanish, Galician, Portuguese and Leonese). These are sentential structures in which there is no overt verbal/predicational category. Silva-Villar proposes a minimalist theory of the derivation of these structures that questions the concept of 'substantive category' (Chomsky 1995; 1998). He claims that non-substantive C(omp)-categories such as those headed by úlo/dólo 'lit. where-it' in Northwestern Iberian Languages license clauses very much like substantive categories, i.e. verbs. C-categories consist of a determiner, either an article or a weak pronoun, attached onto the wh-word hú/dó/ú 'where.' This analysis solves the problem of the encoding of verbal features with no overt lexical support. Other structures that provide evidence for this theoretical claim are those represented by Spanish (a)he/(a)fe and Galician-Portuguese eis, as well as modern Brazilian Portuguese cadê/quedê. Finally, SilvaVillar draws some theoretical consequences for the integration of minimalist syntax and the proper treatment of the evolution of syntactic structures, which develop the theory presented in Silva-Villar (1996). First, there has to be a theoretical distinction between "regular" and "irregular" syntax and, second, universal syntax at a certain period of time consists of sets of "regular syntax" mechanisms plus sets of "irregular syntax" mechanisms at that period.

Introduction

11

As a whole, the book may be of theoretical interest at various levels. First, it uses Spanish data to deal with a series of problems which are central to current linguistic theory and to provide up-to-date analyses of these data. Second, it goes beyond core data and uses peripheral constructions showing how linguistic theory can account for them in an interesting way. Some papers deal with connected issues in different dialects of Spanish or in related languages (Galician/Galegan, Catalan, German, etc.) In the tradition of generative grammar which is so well represented in Lightfoot or Roberts' work, it also contains an article which explains how principles of linguistic theory can account for language change. Finally, data from some articles provide descriptive elements which will be of interest for descriptive, contrastive and pedagogical purposes. The papers in this compilation originate from several research projects and events that have taken place in the last four years. Some of the papers appeared in preliminary form as working papers in the series Perspectives on Spanish Linguistics. Others were presented at the First Hispanic Linguistic Colloquium, which took place at Miami University (Oxford, Ohio) in October of 1997. Others are a product of research projects in which the editors were involved in the last two years. We wish to thank the Hispanic linguistics communities at the Ohio State University and UCLA, including faculty, students and visiting scholars for providing a stimulating environment during this period. The Department of Spanish and Portuguese, the College of Humanities and the Office of Research at the Ohio State University, as well as Mesa State College, provided the logistic and financial support needed for the culmination of the project. Tim Face helped with the proof reading in a timely manner.

References Abney, Steven 1987 The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. P h D dissertation. MIT. Badia Margarit, Antonio 1947 Los Complementos Pronominah-Adverbiales Derivados de Ί hi' e 'inde' en la Península ibérica. Madrid: Revista de Filología Española, An ;jo XXXVIII. Borer, Hagit 1984 Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1998 "Minimalist inquiries: The framework." Ms., MIT. Corominas, Joan and José A. Pascual 1985 Diccionario Crítico Etimológico Castellano e Hispánico. Madrid: Gredos.

12

Introduction

Demonte, Violeta 1999 "A minimal account of Spanish adjective position and interpretation." In Jon Franco et al. (eds.), Grammatical Analyses in Basque and Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45-75. Dryer, Matthew 1986 "Primary object, secondary objects, and antidative." Language 62:808-45. Giorgi, Alessandra and Fabio Pianesi 1997 Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax, New York: Oxford University Press. Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier 1999 "The structure and interpretation of Spanish neuter degree constructions," Lingua, 109:1,35-63. Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier and Luis Silva-Villar 1998 "Locative and temporal weak proforms." In José Lema and Esthela Treviflo (eds.), Theoretical Analyses on Romance Languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 205-226. Hurtado, Alfredo 1984 "The unagreement hypothesis." In L. King and C. Maley (eds.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jaeggli, Osvaldo 1982 Topics in Romance Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht. 1986 "Three issues in the theory of clitics: case, double NPs, and extraction." In H. Borer (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 19, The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Orlando: Academic Press, 15-42. Kayne, Richard 1998 "Overt vs. covert movement," Syntax 1,128-191. Keenan, Edward and Dag Westerstähl 1997 "Generalized quantifiers in Linguistics and Logic." In Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 837-894. Luján, Marta 1987 "Clitic doubling in Andean Spanish and the theory of case absorption." In Terrell Morgan, James Lee and Bill Van Patten (eds.) Language and Language Use: Studies in Spanish. Waltham, MD: University Press of America, 109-121. Mallen, Enrique 1989 The Structure of the Determiner Phrase. PhD dissertation. Cornell University. Postal, Paul 1966 "On so-called 'pronouns' in English." In David Reibel and Sanford Schane (eds.), Modern Studies in English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 201-224. Reichenbach, Hans 1947 Elements of Symbolic Logic, MacMillan, New York. Reinhart, Tanya 1995 "Interface strategies." Ms., OTS, University of Utrecht. Rivas, Alberto 1977 A Theory of Clitics. PhD dissertation. MIT. Rizzi, Luigi 1997 "The fine structure of the left periphery." In Liliane Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281-337.

Introduction

13

Silva-Villar, Luis 1996 Enclisis in Northwestern Iberian languages: A Diachronic Theory. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Silva-Villar, Luis and Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach 1998 "Syntactic position and the interpretation of temporal adjectives." Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 43:1, 97-120. Stowell, Tim 1993 "Syntax of tense." Ms. U C L A . Strozer, Judith 1976 Clitics in Spanish. PhD dissertation. UCLA. Suñer, Margarita 1988 "The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 391-434. Torrego, Esther 1995 "On the nature of clitic doubling." In Héctor Campos and Paola Kempchimsky (eds.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Uriagereka, Juan 1995 "Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance." Linguistic Inquiry 26, 79-124. Vallduvi, Enric 1992 The Informational Component. New York: Garland. Zagona, Karen 1991 "Perfective haber and the theory of tenses." In Héctor Campos and Fernando Martinez-Gil (eds.), Current Studies in Spanish Linguistics.Georgelown University Press, Washington, 370-403. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa 1998 Word Order, Prosody and Focus. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

I. Structure and interpretation of the Determiner Phrase

Adjective position and the interpretation of indefinites Ignacio Bosque

1. Introduction In this paper I will develop some ideas which appear in Bosque (1994, 1996a) and also in Picallo (1994). I argue that both prenominai evaluative qualifying adjectives and elatives force the specific interpretation of indefinites.1 Although 1 agree with the authors who claim that prenominai adjectives are licensed in projections of degree, I will show that these quantificational domains should not prevent variable binding of the indefinite D P by a higher operator, since degree heads are complements of an indefinite D°. I will argue that attributive and elative adjectives covertly move to a functional projection above D°, which gives rise to a standard configuration of minimality (now reduced to a "shortest movement condition"). Adjective placement is one of the most studied topics in Romance linguistics, whether traditional, descriptive, structural or generative. There is a huge bibliography on this matter, which covers many, not always related, factors: semantic classes of adjectives depending on their relation to the head noun, types of NP denotations, stylistic and rhythmic factors, syntactic and semantic connections with adverbs, semantic or pragmatic aspects related to subject orientation, etc. Most formal studies in the GB paradigm have concentrated on the structural positions that preposed adjectives occupy (see Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, Cinque 1994, Bernstein 1992, Valois 1991, among others). Nevertheless, and as far as I can see, the specific semantic factors that determine the interpretation of prenominai adjectives are still, basically, those that have been repeatedly pointed out in the abundant descriptive bibliography. A quick glance at some overviews of the traditional literature on adjective placement (such as Delomier 1980, Simón 1979, Penadés 1988 and the fist section of Klein-Andreu 1983, among others) is enough to realize that even if there is general disagreement on the importance of each of these factors, relevant generalizations depend on the existence of different classes of adjectives. In this paper I will have nothing to say on the well-noticed

18

Ignacio

Bosque

class of adjectives—mostly physical—for which different non-predictable but somehow related meanings in prenominai and postnominal position have been generally accepted. I have in mind adjectives such as bueno 'good', viejo 'old', pequeño 'small', pobre 'poor', simple 'simple', triste ' s a d \ p u r o 'pure', numeroso 'numerous', etc.2 Contrary to what one finds in these cases, there seems to be wider agreement on the fact that the difference in meaning in pairs that involve so-called "epithets" or "attributive adjectives" is more systematic. Some examples are in (1): (1) a. Un elegante vestido/ Un vestido elegante, 'an elegant dress' b. Una novela interesante/ Una interesante novela, 'an interesting novel' c. Un especialista destacado/ Un destacado especialista, 'an outstanding specialist' d. Un edificio majestuoso/ Un majestuoso edificio, 'a majestic building' e. Un actor famoso/ Un famoso actor, 'a famous actor' I do not provide different English glosses for these pairs, since their (nonobvious) semantic interpretation is the specific subject of this paper. I will focus on these cases—that is, only on indefinite nomináis—, and even so, I will concentrate on a single aspect of the semantic differences between these expressions. I will show that una novela interesante or un actor famoso have both a specific reading and a non-specific reading (that is, a variable interpretation 3 ). However, the phrases una interesante novela and un famoso actor refer to specific individuals, that is, they lack a variable reading, a restriction that extends to elatives. Elatives are extreme degree adjectives or adverbs. Adjectival elatives can be either prenominai or postnominal. They may be divided in three classes: 1. Morphological elatives, such as -isimo adjectives.4 2. Lexical elatives, that is, extreme degree adjectives without distinctive morphology: espléndido 'splendid', estupendo 'marvelous, great', magnífico 'magnificent', maravilloso 'wonderful', etc. As pointed out in the traditional descriptions, these adjectives do not take -isimo, since their extreme degree is lexically denoted. 3. Syntactic elatives, that is, adjectival phrases in which the adjective is modified by an extreme degree adverbial, as in extremadamente hon-

Adjective

position

and the interpretation

of indefinites

19

rado 'extremely honest' or increíblemente peligroso 'incredibly dangerous'. I will first present a number of crucial contexts for (non)specificity and I will show that elatives form a natural class with preposed attributive adjectives. In section 3,1 will suggest an explanation for the fact that nonspecific indefinites and elatives are excluded in these contexts.

2. The facts 2.1. Consider first indefinite nomináis which qualifying adjectives of the type pointed out above in quantified contexts. An appropriate minimal pair is found in (2): (2) a. Las cinco muchachas habían conocido a un actor famoso. 'The five girls had met a [spec./non-spec.] famous actor' b. Las cinco muchachas habían conocido a un famoso actor. 'The five girls had met a [spec.] famous actor' The sentence (2a) has the two interpretations that are expected: the wide scope interpretation ("there is a particular famous actor that each girl had met") and the narrow scope reading ("each girl had met a different famous actor"). On the contrary, sentence (2b) is not ambiguous. It allows for the specific interpretation, but it lacks the variable reading. That is, sentence (2b) says that all the girls met the same individual. Thus, (2a) might be followed by a comment such as "..., namely Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas, Harrison Ford, Richard Gere and Mel Gibson"), but (2b) only allows for an specification such as "..., namely, Brad Pitt". The "specific/non-specific" distinction shown in (2) is not directly related to the "type/token" interpretation of nomináis (in Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1992's sense). In fact, we may perfectly find situations in which the specific interpretation of the preposed adjective corresponds to the type reading, as in (3b), or to the token reading, as in (4b): (3) a. Las cinco muchachas llevaban un vestido elegante. 'The five girls wore an [spec./non-spec.] elegant dress' b. Las cinco muchachas llevaban un elegante vestido. 'The five girls wore an [spec.] elegant dress'

20

Ignacio Bosque

(4) a. Juan regaló una novela interesante a Luis, Pedro y Antonio. 'Juan gave an [spec./non-spec.] interesting novel to Luis, Pedro and Antonio.' b. Juan regalò una interesante novela a Luis, Pedro y Antonio. 'Juan gave an [spec.] interesting novel to Luis, Pedro and Antonio.' That is, sentence (3a) has the two interpretations that are expected: the wide scope interpretation ("there is a particular type of dress that every girl wore") and the narrow scope reading ("each girl was wearing a different dress, but all the dresses were elegant"). Sentence (3b) allows the specific interpretation and—again—lacks the variable reading, since it says that all the girls were wearing the same elegant dress. Obviously, the relevant reading in (3b) is the type interpretation, not the token interpretation, since—for non-linguistic obvious reasons—two people can not wear the same "token" dress at the same time, although they may perfectly wear the same "type" dress. The situation is different in the examples in (4) (for which I am indebted to C. Picallo). (4a) allows for a reading in which three different titles were given, but (4b) only allows for the reading in which three copies of the same specific novel were given. Elatives in indefinite nomináis parallel preposed adjectives, since they block the variable reading in the same contexts. That is, a sentence such as Las cinco muchachas habían conocido a un actor famosísimo 'the five girls had met a very famous actor' only allows for the specific interpretation. 2.2. As is widely accepted (see Heim 1982), generic operators and quantificational adverbials non-selectively bind indefinite DPs. That is, indefinite nomináis become non-specific because they are interpreted as variables under the scope of those operators. As expected, prenominai adjectives are excluded, but postnominal adjectives are accepted in this reading. Again, elatives clearly behave as preposed adjectives and lack the variable interpretation: (5) a. A las siete siempre había un programa interesante en la televisión. [NARROW OR WIDE SCOPE] 'At seven o'clock there was always an [spec./non-spec.] interesting show on TV' b. A las siete siempre había un interesante programa en la televisión. [WIDE SCOPE ONLY] 'At seven o'clock there was always an [spec.] interesting show on TV'

Adjective position and the interpretation

of indefinites

21

c. A las siete siempre había un programa interesantísimo en la televisión. [WIDE SCOPE ONLY] 'At seven o'clock there was always a very interesting show on TV' That is, (5a) allows for the natural interpretation in which a different show is meant for every day. On the other hand, (5b) and (5c) do not admit this reading. They only admit the one in which the same series was showed every day. The prenominai qualifying adjective and the elative force the indefinite nominal to be interpreted outside the quantifier siempre 'always'. The same interpretation is obtained in generic sentences. There is no problem with prenominai qualifying adjectives in sentences denoting particular events, (6) a. Has escrito un complicado artículo. 'You have written a complicated paper' b. Ayer vimos una interesante película. 'We watched an interesting movie yesterday' but the variable interpretation cannot be obtained with a generic adverbial or a habitual modal such as soler 'usually + V': (7) a. Un artículo complicado te suele llevar horas de lectura. Ά complicated paper usually takes you several hours to read' b. ??Un complicado artículo te suele llevar horas de lectura. (8) a. Una película interesante siempre se ve con agrado. 'An interesting movie is always watched with pleasure' b. ??Una interesante película siempre se ve con agrado. Again, elatives (prenominai or postnominal) behave as preposed adjectives: (9) a. ??Una película interesantísima siempre se ve con agrado. Ά very interesting movie is always watched with pleasure' b. ??Un artículo complicadísimo te suele llevar horas de lectura. 2.3. Non-explicit operators in generic and habitual sentences containing indefinites resemble explicit adverbials in that they bind the same type of individual variables, a well-known fact. The meaning of these adverbials (generally, habitually, always) is interpreted even if they are not overt. In

22

Ignacio

Bosque

these cases, preposed adjectives in indefinite nomináis do not provide the variables needed, and a situation of vacuous quantification obtains: (10) a. Hace unos años, un actor simpático encontraba pronto trabajo. 'Some years ago, a nice actor used to find a job soon' b. *Hace unos años, un simpático actor encontraba pronto trabajo. In other words, the problem with (10b) is simply that un simpático actor 'a nice actor' denotes an individual. Consequently, it provides no variable for the generic quantifier to bind. 2.4. Indefinite nomináis in directive contexts are non-specific, a well-attested fact. If I order someone to read a book, it would be very hard to get the interpretation of a particular book that either I or my addressee have in mind. Imperatives, deontic modals and other intensional contexts are traditionally recognized to provide existential closure for indefinites, but imperatives are different in that they do not normally allow for specific indefinites: (11) a. Read a book! It will do you no harm. b. *Read a certain book! It will do you no harm. As regards the point of this paper, imperatives provide a clear test for non-specificity. The results are as expected. This applies to both preposed adjectives, as shown in (12), (12) a. Escribe una novela interesante. Te harás famoso. 'Write an interesting novel. You'll be famous' b. *Escribe una interesante novela. Te harás famoso. and elatives, as shown in (13):5 (13) a. ??Escribe una novela interesantísima. 'Write an extremely interesting novel' b. Vayamos a algún sitio {agradable/??agradabilísimo}. 'Let us go to a nice place/ a quite nice place' c. ??Dame una noticia magnífica. 'Give me some wonderful news' Again, the specific interpretation of the indefinite is being forced, and this reading cannot have wider scope than the imperative projection. Notice

Adjective

position

and the interpretation

of indefinites

23

that the specific interpretation can be obtained with modals and intensional predicates, so the ultimate difference seems to lie on the fact that imperatives cannot be subordinate. 2.5. Elatives cannot be interpreted under the scope of negation: (14a) is ambiguous in the standard sense (wide or narrow scope interpretation of the quantifier), but (14b) only allows a wide scope reading: (14) a. No vino mucha gente. 'Many people did not come' or 'not many people came' b. No vino muchísima gente. Ά large number of people did not come' The wide scope reading oí mucho 'much' in (14a) provides the specific interpretation, but the low scope reading is also possible (in fact, preferable). This low interpretation is banned in (14b), and also in attributive prenominai adjectives 6 : (15) a. No he leído una novela policiaca famosa desde hace años. Ί have not read a [non-spec.] famous detective story in years' b. *No he leído una famosa novela policiaca desde hace años. Ί have not read a [spec.] famous detective story in years' c. No he leído una novela policíaca famosísima (*desde hace años). Ί have not read a [spec.] very famous detective story in years' 2.6. Indefinite nomináis can escape the scope of negation and be interpreted as specific, unless negation binds a negative polarity item. That is, sentence (16a) is ambiguous between the specific and the non-specific reading of the nominal, but (16b) is not ambiguous: the indefinite un libro is non-specific: (16) a. No he leído un libro. Ί have not read a book' b. No he leído un libro sobre ninguno de estos temas. Ί have not read a book on any of these topics' Since un libro 'a book' in (16b) has to be non-specific it will not be compatible with any grammatical marker that forces the specific interpretation. The prediction that indefinite nomináis with preposed adjectives will be rejected in these structures is met, as shown in (17b):

24

Ignacio Bosque

(17) a. No he leído un libro interesante sobre ninguno de estos temas. Ί have not read an interesting book on any of these topics' b. *No he leído un interesante libro sobre ninguno de estos temas. 2.7. Subjunctive relative clauses are well-known tests for non-specificity (see Rivero 1977). Indefinite nomináis are able to escape the scope of intensional predicates and become specific, but indefinites with subjunctive relative clauses have to be bound by an intensional operator. The immediate prediction is that we cannot have prenominai adjectives in these cases, and—again—the prediction is borne out: (18) a. Busco una novela famosa. Ί am searching for a [spec./non-spec.] famous novel' b. Busco una {novela famosa/ famosa novela} que tiene (indie.) más de cincuenta personajes. Ί am searching for a particular famous novel with more than 50 characters' c. Busco una {novela famosa/*famosa novela} que tenga (subj.) más de cincuenta personajes. Ί am searching for {any famous novel/a particular famous novel} with more than 50 characters' 2.8. Rhetorical questions license negative polarity items and also the nonspecific reading of indefinites (see Progovac 1992,1993): (19)

¿Cuándo me has regalado {nada/algo}? 'When on earth have you bought me anything/ something?'

Postnominal adjectives are compatible with this variable interpretation, but preposed adjectives and elatives are rejected, unless the question is not interpreted as rhetorical anymore. The non-rhetorical reading is marked with #: (20) a. ¿Cuándo me has regalado tú una {novela interesante/#interesante novela} para leer por las noches? 'When on earth have you bought me an interesting novel to read in the evenings?' b. #¿Cuándo me has regalado tú una novela interesantísima para leer por las noches?

Adjective

position

and the interpretation

of indefinites

25

'When on earth have you bought me an extremely interesting novel to read in the evenings?' That is, (20b) cannot be a rhetorical question, since this implies binding an indefinite variable, and the elative is forcing a wide scope reading. 2.9. So called "donkey-sentences" are well-known tests for non-specificity. As shown in the famous example (21), (21)

Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it.

they contain indefinites inside the restrictive clause of a universal quantifier, and also a pronoun in the nuclear scope. The pronoun apparently behaves as a bound variable, but it is not c-commanded by its antecedent, and it is not under its scope either (see Heim 1990 for extensive discussion). Again, preposed adjectives and elatives are rejected in these constructions, since they have to be specific: (22) a. Toda cadena de televisión que contrata a un actor famoso gana dinero con él. 'Every TV channel which hires a famous actor, wins money after him' b. ??Toda cadena de televisión que contrata a un famoso actor gana dinero con él. 'Every TV channel which hires a very famous actor, wins money after him' (23) a. Todo el que se compra una casa cara en París tarda muchos años en pagarla. 'Everyone who buys an expensive house in Paris needs many years to pay for it' b. ??Todo el que se compra una casa carísima en París tarda muchos años en pagarla. 'Everyone who buys a very expensive house in Paris needs many years to pay for it' Notice that in (22b) the pronoun él cannot be a bound variable, since its antecedent is a definite expression (un famoso actor 'a famous actor'). This nominal cannot be interpreted under the scope of the universal quantifier either, since it provides no variable to bind.

26

Ignacio

Bosque

2.10. Indefinite quantifiers such as cualquiera and ninguno are compatible with non-epithet preposed adjectives (see the introduction above), but not with the type pointed out in (1) or with elatives. This is to be expected, since these adjectives force specific interpretations: (24) a. Cualquier pobre hombre. 'Just any unfortunate man' b. Ningún buen trabajo. 'Any good job' (25) a. ?Cualquier famosa novela. 'Just any famous novel' b. ?Ningún interesante descubrimiento. 'Any interesting discovery' (26)

?Cualquier libro maravilloso. 'Just any wonderful book'

2.11. There is an interesting class of "cleft conditional" sentences—described in Gutiérrez 1994 for Spanish—which provide "pure variables" whose content is explicitly identified in the predicate of a copulative clause. An example is in (27): (27)

Si Juan lee algo, es la prensa deportiva. 'If John reads anything, it is sports news'

Interestingly, the variable is not always an indefinite pronoun (algo, alguien), but also a whole indefinite nominal: (28)

Si Juan ha conocido a una persona interesante en su vida, ha sido a María. 'If Juan has ever met anyone interesting in his life, it is Maria'

As (28) shows, postposed adjectives are allowed in these "cleft conditionals" in the position of the variable under the scope of the conditional operator. Preposed adjectives are rejected, since the variable interpretation of the indefinite nominal is a necessary property of this construction: (29)

*Si Juan ha conocido a una interesante persona en su vida, ha sido a María.

Adjective

position

and the interpretation

of indefinites

27

'If Juan has ever met an [spec.] interesting person in his life, it has been Maria' Not surprisingly, elatives pattern with preposed adjectives again: (30)

Si Juan ha leído alguna novela {larga/ ??larguísimaj en su vida, ha sido El Quijote. 'If Juan has ever read a {long/quite long} novel, it has been El Quijote'

2.12. Finally, so-called "personal a" marks specific indefinites in Spanish. It absence with personal indefinites under the scope of intensional predicates provides the variable interpretation. As one might expect, the preposition a cannot be absent if the indefinite personal nominal contains a preposed adjective or an elative. Again, the expectation is met: (31) a. Busco un actor famoso. Ί am looking for a [non-spec.] famous actor' b. Busco a un actor famoso. Ί am looking for a [spec.] famous actor' (32) a. Busco a un famoso actor, b. *Busco un famoso actor. (33) a. Busco a un famosísimo actor. Ί am looking for a extremely famous actor' b. *Busco un famosísimo actor.

3. Towards an explanation The natural question to ask now is "Why?", that is, why should indefinite nomináis with prenominai adjectives or elatives be interpreted as specific?7 As I have said, it seems natural to take as a point of departure the Lewis-Kamp-Heim hypothesis that interprets indefinites as variables either unselectively bound by quantifiers and generic operators, or existentially closed by implicit quantifiers. Accepting this, I will divide the basic question raised in this paper into two other questions equally natural, but perhaps more simple:

28

Ignacio

Bosque

A. Why do prenominai (attributive) adjectives and elatives form a grammatical class? B. Why do indefinite NPs interpreted as variables allow for restrictive modifiers, but not for evaluative (or degree) modifiers? Let us consider these two questions separately. 3.1. Take first question A. The most likely candidate to connect these two grammatical classes is the category of Degree. It is worth mentioning that traditional and descriptive analyses of qualifying adjectives emphasized the relationship existing between attributive readings and degree interpretations. This is particularly clear for Spanish in descriptive analysis of adjective position, such as Lapesa's (1975). This author establishes a class of "evaluative adjectives" which carry "estimative readings" in prenominal position (1975:331) but not in postnominal position. Bolinger's (1972) observation that adjective position in Spanish often correlates with adverb position in English is also particularly accurate. Bolinger's suggestion is that the NPs in the "a" sentences of (34) have different meanings in a way close to that in which the "b" sentences are also different. The distinction extends to pairs such as those in (35), also from Bolinger: (34) a. Sufrió terribles daños. 'It suffered a terrible damage' a'.Sufrió daños terribles. 'It suffered a terrible damage' b. It was terribly damaged. b'.It was damaged terribly. (35) a. Tenía ricos ornamentos. 'S/he had rich ornaments' a'.Tenía ornamentos ricos. 'S/he had rich ornaments' b. It was richly ornamented b'.It was ornamented richly Bolinger is correct in pointing out that terribly in (34b') and richly in (35b') specify the manner in which these events took place, that is, they are "restrictive adverbs". In the correspondent "b" sentences in pre-participial position, they come close to degree quantifiers, just as the Spanish adjectives do in the "a" examples.

Adjective

position

and the interpretation

of indefinites

29

Most formal analyses of Spanish (or Italian) prenominai attributive adjectives do not deal with these differences in meaning. A number of authors take adjectives to be maximal projections located either in specifier positions (Cinque 1994, Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, Sánchez 1995, Crisma 1995) or in adjunct positions (Berstein 1992). However, in some recent proposals, such as Zamparelli (1993) and Corver (1997ab) —the latter adapted for Spanish in Demonte (1999)—prenominai adjectives are licensed in degree projections. Corver (1997b) and Zwarts (1992) extend Higginbotham's (1985) notion of theta-binding and interpret it as a local licensing relation between a functional degree operator and a referential "argument of degree" provided by the theta-grid of gradable adjectives.8 The intuitive idea is that just like determiners are said to theta-bind a position in nouns, and that INFL theta-binds the event position in verbs, adjectives are considered to have "arguments for degrees" which are theta-bound by a Deg° operator. Gradable adjectives are then taken to be two-place predicates: the second argument is the "hidden degree argument" bound by a higher operator over degrees. In fact, non-gradable adjectives do not have degree arguments (from this perspective) in a way close to that in which stative verbs are said not to provide eventive arguments (see Kratzer 1995). If we accept these assumptions, prenominai attributive adjectives would be the result of overt movement of the adjective to the specifier of the degree projection, perhaps from inside a small clause, as in Berstein 1992 and Demonte 1999. We would have a simplified structure close to (36b), in which an abstract Deg° head takes a small adjectival clause from which the adjective moves to the higher specifier position: (36) a. Un famoso actor. b. [ D un [ DegP famosoj [Dego 0] [ AP , actor [ AP (famoso); ]]]] Notice that if adjectival movement is triggered by the need to check off a (strong) degree feature, and this feature is a "hidden argument" of the adjective, then at least some theta-roles must be considered to be strong features, a conclusion that other authors, including Horstein 1999 and Lasnik 1999, have reached on independent grounds. As pointed out at the outset, elatives may be morphological, lexical or syntactic. We can make the reasonable assumption that all three are maximal projections of a Deg° head. In fact, this Deg° head would have the same semantic features that are associated to the -isimo suffix in morphological elatives. The main difference with attributive adjectives is

30

Ignacio

Bosque

that elatives do not necessary prepose, as we have seen in section 2. A natural suggestion is that this is so because the degree interpretation is overtly marked in them (much in the way in which nomináis showing rich case inflection in Latin and other inflective languages allow for longdistance agreement). Postnominal gradable adjectives are not exceptional either because they receive a restrictive, non-attributive reading (an interpretation excluded for elatives9) in which their gradable nature becomes irrelevant. The semantic features of the Deg° head in (36b) cannot be identical to the corresponding Deg° head of elatives, since (36a) does not have the same meaning as Un famosísimo actor ('a very famous actor'). Even so, the relationship seems to be correct, since it says that prenominai attributive adjectives acquire in the syntax a semantic interpretation close to the one that other adjectives carry out from the lexicon. Let us then assume an analysis along these lines and turn to question B. 3.2. Let us now consider question B, namely "why may indefinite NPs interpreted as variables contain restrictive modifiers, but not evaluative (or degree) modifiers?" I will suggest that this is so because the variable cannot be bound in these cases, since an intermediate functional projection prevents the binding process. Let me explain the general approach briefly. Degree heads are quantificational heads, since degrees are quantifiers on extents, that is, operators on grades which bind extent variables. Remember that in the Lewis-Kamp-Heim approach, indefinites are variables either unselectively bound by quantifiers and generic operators or existentially closed by implicit quantifiers. NPs inside indefinites provide the necessary predicative information. Variables are bound by Q operators (determiners such as all, many, most, few), quantificational adverbs (always, seldom) and other generic and modal operators. If the binding process is direct, the operator binds the variable provided by the indefinite, and the indefinite acquires the quantificational force of the operator. If the binding process is indirect, an existential quantifier is introduced which provides existential closure. If we consider the syntactic structure suggested in (36b) for prenominai attributive adjectives, we will see that DegP is a complement of D°, but the presence of the adjective in DegP affects the whole DP: if makes it specific (if indefinite). This implies that prenominai adjectives have to be visible above D°, even if we see them below this D° head. Recall that in cases such as (11), repeated here as (37),

Adjective

position

and the interpretation

of indefinites

31

(37) a. Read a book! It will do you no harm. b. *Read a certain book! It will do you no harm. the specific interpretation of the nominal, forced by certain, cannot be obtained in (37b), since the imperative is preventing a wide-scope reading. Variable binding of the indefinite by this modal operator is obtained in (37a). Both nomináis are headed by the same determiner, but the variable interpretation is prevented from inside the indefinite D P in (37b). I will suggest that the variable interpretations excluded for Spanish indefinites with preposed adjectives must come from an intervening projection located between the higher intensional operator and the D° indefinite head. The attributive prenominai adjective moves covertly from the Spec/DegP to this functional projection FP (above DP), and in so doing prevents the binding process of the indefinite by a higher operator. This gives rise to a standard minimality effect. The basic structure is, then, close to the one in (38): (38)

O P E R A T O R . . . [ FP (Famoso¡) [ D un [ DegP famoso¡ [Dego 0] LAP* actor [ A P (famoso); ]]]]

What are the features of this functional projection? In Bosque (1996a) I argue that elatives and quantifiers of excess such as demasiado ('too much') are licensed by modal features, more specifically "epistemic modal features". These features come close to the factors that exclude questions such as (39b), in the non-echo and non-rhetorical interpretations, or prevent elatives from occurring in directive contexts and other nonepistemic environments, as in (40b): (39) a. Is this good? b. Is this wonderful? (40) a. Please recommend me some good book. b. ??Please recommend me some wonderful book. The structure in (38) shows, then, that an intermediate functional projection (possibly with modal features) prevents the indefinite from being bound by a higher operator, so that the variable interpretation is not possible. The wide-scope reading of indefinites with prenominai adjectives can easily be obtained, since this reading affects the whole DP, which is interpreted outside the licensing higher operator. 1 0 This is in agreement

32

Ignacio Bosque

with Fodor & Sag's (1982) claim that specific indefinites behave as referential expressions.11 Is this mechanism of interference a unique process in the grammar of DPs? I think it is not. In fact, we may find relatively similar phenomena in other constructions at the DP level. I will mention only one: prenominal adjectives and elatives are rejected in superlative DPs. Why should it be so? Notice that nothing prevents prenominai and postnominal evaluative adjectives from appearing in DPs containing restrictive relative clauses, as in (41)-(43): (41) a. El complicado problema que Juan solucionó ayer. 'The complicated problem that Juan solved yesterday' b. El problema complicado que Juan solucionó ayer. (43) a. El complicadísimo problema que Juan solucionó ayer. 'The extremely complicated problem that Juan solved yesterday' b. El problema complicadísimo que Juan solucionó ayer. But, interestingly, preposed adjectives and elatives are rejected in superlatives, as shown in (44): (44) a. El problema complicado más interesante del libro. 'The most interesting complicated problem of the book' b. *E1 complicado problema más interesante del libro. c. *E1 problema complicadísimo más interesante del libro. 'The most interesting extremely complicated problem of the book' There is a clear relationship between this constraint and the one that (38) shows: both reduce to classical minimality effects. In Bosque & Brucart (1991) it is proposed that the QP más interesante in (44) must move at LF in order to enter into a closer relation with the DP head el, so that the partitive coda is licensed and the construction is interpreted as superlative. The problem with (44b), along these lines, is that más raises at LF, but the DegP (that is, a QP) projection interferes and más cannot bind its trace. The partitive coda cannot, then, be licensed and the DP cannot be interpreted as a superlative construction. I do not have a specific formal proposal for each of the well-known modal and intensional triggers of the non-specific reading of indefinites. Nevertheless, I suspect that the line of explanation for the marked status of preposed adjectives in these contexts would not be much different than

Adjective position and the interpretation of indefinites

33

the one sketched so far. The explanation for the parallelism shown in this paper is based on the role of degree projections as licensers of prenominai attributive and elative adjectives, and the specific modal properties of these categories. The constraint that prevents indefinite nomináis containing them from being interpreted as variables is syntactic. In fact, it reduces to a classical minimality effect, now subsumed under "shortest movement". If all of this is on the right track, we have more support for the analysis of indefinites as bound variables, and for the much debated issue of covert movements being constrained by syntactic principles. In any case, the semantics of prenominai adjectives in Romance is one of the many classical topics that still require further research.

Notes 1. This paper is a slightly revised version of Bosque (1996b). I would like to thank Carme Picallo and Luis Sáez for discussing these issues with me in recent years. I am particularly indebted to Luis Sáez for his detailed comments and suggestions on a preliminary version of this paper. I refer the reader to Picallo (1994), who adds some arguments to the ones mentioned in Bosque (1994) to prove the specific interpretation of indefinite nomináis with preposed adjectives. It would be interesting to extend the issues to other Romance languages. As Picallo shows, the basic facts hold also for Catalan. I am aware of the fact that Italian elatives have some properties not shared with Spanish elatives. Thus, I would not be surprised to find some differences between Spanish and Italian in this respect. As for French, I am also aware of some relevant differences with Spanish in the domain of preposed adjectives (such as those pointed out by Delbecque 1990 and Pottier 1995). Nevertheless, one would expect the basic facts to remain essentially the same as regards (non)specificity. In any case, these are interesting questions to be explored. 2. See Demonte (1982) and Klein-Andreu (1983), among others, as regards this issue. 3. I will assume the analysis of non-specific indefinites as variables bound by generic operators and modals, or existentially closed by implicit quantifiers). See Lewis (1975), Heim (1982) and Kamp (1981), among others. For an overview, see Krifka et al. (1995). 4. This is a very productive adjectival affix in Spanish. These adjectives are usually considered superlative in traditional grammars. As pointed out in Bosque & Brucart (1991), they are not superlatives in present day Spanish, as opposed to Latin and some stages of Old Spanish, since they do not license partitive codas: *Un hombre altísimo de todos Ά quite tall man of all'. That is, superlatives are DPs from a syntactic point of view, as in The tallest man or in The most interesting book. They require a D° head, a Q P and (optionally) a "coda" (of all, among the children, that I have ever seen, etc.). 5. This property of elatives (both lexical and morphological) was first pointed out to me by E. Barjau (p.c) in 1992. See Bosque (1996a) for an analysis of similar cases with quantifiers of excess such as demasiado 'too much'. 6. The special adjectives pointed out above (see fn. 2) are exceptional in this and many other respects: No he leído un buen libro en muchos años Ί have not read a good book in many years'.

34

Ignacio

Bosque

7. C. Picallo (1994) adds some interesting arguments for the specific interpretation of indefinite with preposed adjectives. They are related to the interpretation of variables in contexts of floating quantification. I refer the reader to her paper for these arguments. 8. The relationship between this implicit degree argument and the gradability of predicates is explored for Spanish in Bosque and Masullo (1998). 9. Nominal gapping is permitted with PPs and postposed restricted adjetives in Spanish, as in El 0 rojo 'the red one'. Since elatives cannot be interpreted as restrictive modifiers, they reject nominal gapping: ??El 0 extraordinario 'the extraordinary one'. On similar grounds, elatives are not able to provide the information necessary to restrict the denotation of a noun, so that the identification that definite articles ask for becomes infelicitous: ??Me ha leído el cuento maravilloso 'S/he has read the marvelous tale to me', ??Le compré la silla comodísima Ί brought him/her the very confortable chair'. On these constraints see Brucart (1987), Demonte (1999) and Leonetti (1999). 10. As shown by (37), imperatives constitute an exception, possibly because they are root categories and cannot be mapped in the restrictive clause of a quantificational structure. 11. As L. Sáez points out to me, elatives in relative clauses with indefinite heads provide a potential problem with this analysis since they force specific readings as well: (i) a. Un problema interesantísimo [SPECIFIC ONLY], 'an extremely interesting problem' b. Un problema que era/fuera interesantísimo [SPECIFIC ONLY] 'a problem which was extremely interesing' Certainly, there is a problem of locality here: in order to block the indefinite variable to be bound, the elative should be in the specifier of a functional projection dominating the adjective. In (ib) it is not in that position, since it is the predicate in a copulative sentence inside the relative clause. I cannot offer a formal solution to this problem, but the fact (repeteadly pointed out) that relative clauses partially behave as determiners might suggest a plausible way out.

References Berstein, Judy 1992 Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structure across Romance, Ph.D. Dissertation, Cuny. Bolinger, Dwight 1972 "Adjective Position Again", Hispania, 55.1, pp. 91-94. Bosque, Ignacio 1994 "Degree Quantification and Modal Operators in Spanish", presented at the Seventh Symposium on Romance Language and Linguistics, Going Romance, Utrecht, December 1993 and also to the XXIVth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Los Angeles, March 1994. 1996a "On Degree Quantification and Modal Structures", in Claudia. Parodi et. al. (eds.), Aspects of Romance Linguistics, Washington, Georgetown University Press 1996, págs. 87-106. 1996b "On Specificity and Adjective Position," in Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Luis Silva-Villar, Perspectives on Spanish Linguistics, U C L A , 1-14.

Adjective position and the interpretation of indefinites

35

Bosque, Ignacio and José María Brucart 1991 " Q P Raising in Spanish Superlatives", presented at the Primer coloquio de Gramática Generativa, Madrid, Universidad Autónoma. Bosque, Ignacio and Pascual José Masullo 1998 "On Verbal Quantification in Spanish", in Olga Fullana and Francisco Roca (eds.), Studies on the Syntax of Central Romance Languages, University of Girona, págs. 9-63. Brucart, José María 1987 La elision sintáctica en español, Barcelona, Universität Autònoma. Cinque, Guglielmo 1994 "On the Evidence for partial N-Movement in the Romance DP", in Guglielmo. Cinque et. al. (eds.), Paths towards Universal Grammar. Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, Georgetown University Press, pp. 85-110. Corver, Norbert 1997a " M u c h Support as a Last Resort", Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 1, pp. 119-164. 1997b "The Internal Syntax of the Dutch Extended Adjectival Projection", Natural Language and Linguistics Theory, 15, pp. 289-368. Crisma, Paola 1995 "On the Configurational Nature of Adjectival Modification", in Karen Zagona (ed.), Grammatical Theory and Romance Languages, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 59-71. Delbecque, Nicole 1990 "Word Order as a Reflection of Alternate Conceptual Construals in French and Spanish. Similarities and Divergences in Adjective Position", Cognitive Linguistics, 1.4, pp. 349-416. Delomier, Dominique 1980 "La place de l'adjectif en français. Bilan des points de vue et théories du XX e siècle", Cahiers de Lexicologie, 37.2, pp. 5-24. Demonte, Violeta 1982 "El falso problema de la posición del adjetivo: dos análisis semánticos". Boletín de la Real Academia Española, 62, pp. 453-485. 1999 "A Minimal Account of Spanish Adjective Position and Interpretation", in Jon Franco et. al. (eds.), Grammatical Analyses in Basque and Romance Linguistics, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 45-75. Fodor, Janet & Ivan Sag 1982 "Referential and Quantificational Indefinites", Linguistics and Philosophy, 5. pp. 355-398. Giorgi, Allessandra and Giuseppe Longobardi 1991 The Syntax ofNPs, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Gutiérrez, Salvador 1994 "Estructuras ecuandicionales", in V. Demonte (ed.). Gramática del español. Publicaciones de la Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica, vol. IV, pp. 363-383. Heim, Irene 1982 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Heim, Irene 1990 "Ε-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora", Linguistics and Philosophy. 13. pp. 137-177. Higginbotham, James 1985 "On Semantics", Linguistic Inquiry, 16, pp. 547-593.

36

Ignacio

Bosque

Hornstein, Norbert 1999 "Movement and Control", Linguistic Inquiry, 30, pp. 69-96. Kamp, Hans 1981 "A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation", in Jeroen Groenendijk et al., Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Amsterdam, Mathematisch Centrum, pp. 277-322. Klein-Andreu, Flora 1983 "Grammar in Style: Spanish Adjective Placement", in Flora. Klein-Andreu (ed.), Discourse Perspectives on Syntax, New York, Academic Press, pp. 143179. Kratzer, Angelika 1995 "Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates", in Greg Carlson & François Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 125175. Krifka et al. 1995 "Genericity: An Introduction", in Greg Carlson & François Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-124. Lapesa, R. 1975 "La colocación del adjetivo atributivo en español", in Homenaje a la memoria de D. Antonio Rodríguez Moñino, Madrid, Castalia, 343-359. Lasnik, Howard 1999 "A Note on Pseudogapping", MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 27, pp. 143163. Leonetti Manuel 1999 "El artículo", in Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Madrid, Espasa, pp. 787-890. Lewis, David 1975 "Adverbs of Quantification", in Edward Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-15. Penadés, Inmaculada 1988 "La posición del adjetivo calificativo", chapter 1 of Inmaculada Penadés, Perspectivas de análisis para el estudio del adjetivo calificativo en español, Universidad de Cádiz. Picallo, Carme 1994 "A Mark of Specificity in Indefinite Nomináis", Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 4.1, pp. 143-167. Pottier, Bernard 1995 "Sobre el adjetivo antepuesto en español y en francés", in Homenaje a Félix Monge: Estudios de Lingüística Hispánica, Madrid, Gredos, pp. 375-378. Progovac, Liliane 1992 "Negative Polarity: A Semantico-syntactic Approach", Lingua, 86, pp. 271-299. Progovac, Liliane 1993 "Negative Polarity: Entailment and Binding", Linguistics and Philosophy, 16.2, pp. 149-180. Rivero, María Luisa 1977 "Specificity and Existence: A Reply", Language, 53, pp. 32-48. Sánchez, Liliana 1995 "Word Order, Predications and Agreement in Spanish, Southern Quechua and Southern Andean Bilingual Spanish", in Karen Zagona (ed.), Grammatical Theory and Romance Languages, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 209-218.

Adjective position and the interpretation of indefinites Simon, C. 1979

37

"El problema de la colocación del adjetivo en castellano: revisión crítica del estado de la cuestión", Cuadernos de Filología (Universidad de Valencia), 2.1, pp. 183-198. Valois, Daniel 1991 The Internal Syntax of DP, Ph. D. Dissertation, UCLA. Vergnaud, Jean Roger and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta 1992 "The Definite Determiner and the Inalienable Construction in French and in English", Linguistic Inquiry, 23, pp. 595-652. Zamparelli, Roberto 1993 "Pre-nominal Modifiers, Degree Phrases and the Structure of APs", Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Venice, vol. 3,1, pp. 139-163. Zwarts, Joost 1992 Λ" Syntax—X' Semantics. On the Intepretation of Functional Heads, Utrecht, OTS Dissertation Series.

Issues in the syntax of DP in Romance and Germanic Enrique Mallen

1. Introduction This article analyzes some issues relevant to the syntactic structure of noun phrases in Romance and Germanic, concentraing specifically on Spanish and German. I attempt to provide answers to the following questions: (a) why do Spanish and German feature postnominal DP arguments at the right periphery of the noun phrase?; (b) why are both agent and theme argument DPs allowed in event nomináis in German, while only themes are permitted in Spanish?; (c) why does a restricted number of lexical arguments occur prenominally in German, while they never do in Spanish?; (d) since both agent and theme arguments may cooccur in German, why can agents not occur postnominally in event nomináis, if they are allowed in prenominai position?; (e) why do attributive adjectives occur prenominally in German, while they generally occur postnominally in Spanish?; (f) what is the relation between prenominai attributive adjectives and/or determiners and Case inflection on the noun? The structure of DP that will be adopted has a full range of functional categories, namely Determiner (Det), Number (Num), Case (Kase), Predication (Pred), and Agreement (Agr). These heads undergo movement under parametrically encoded restrictions on feature-matching. Case features, for instance, will be argued to trigger obligatory matching at PF in Germanic either by AP-movement to the specifier of Kase or head-movement of Kase to Det. Pred, on the other hand, is assumed to force NP to move to the specifier of Pred in both Spanish and German. Finally, nominal arguments must match their Case features by moving into the domain of Agr. In Germanic, where a functional element Genitive (Gen) may be inserted, licensing of an additional genitive argument is possible. No such element is available in Romance. Portions of this paper were presented at the Germanic Linguistic Association Conference. Ohio State University (April, 1998), and the West

40

Enrique

Mallen

Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics XVI. The University of Washington, Seattle (February, 1997). See also Mallen (1998a).

2. Arguments/adjuncts in DP in Romance and Germanic Spanish and German are similar in that the derived nominal equivalent to the internal and external arguments of transitive verbs is usually realized in postnominal position (cf. Mallen 1989, Bhatt 1989). The same distribution is observed for possessors in both languages (cf. 1). (1) a. La descripción del ladrón the description of-the thief b. El padre de mi amiga the father of my friend c. El Porsche del Playboy the Porsche of-the playboy d. La manifestación del año pasado the demonstration of-the year last e. Daß er den Dieb beschreibt that he the thief described f. Die Beschreibung des Diebes the description the thief g. Der Vater meiner Freundin the father of my friend h. Der Porsche des Playboys the Porsche of the playboy i Die Friedensdemonstrationen des letzten Jahres the peace-demonstration of last year However, as (2) shows, not all genitive arguments occur in postnominal position in German. German differs from Spanish in that nominal arguments may also occur in prenominai positions, though this distribution is restricted almost exclusively to proper nouns. (2) a. *De Bokan el ataque fue inexcusable. of Bokan the attack was inexcusable b. Bokans Angriff war unverzeihlich Bokan attack was inexcusable

Issues in the syntax of DP in Romance and Germanic

41

c. Der Angriff Bokans war unverzeihlich the attack Bokan was inexcusable d. IDes Mannes Arbeitsplatz of the man the workplace e. IDes Kindes Teddybär of the kid the teddy bear f. *Meines Bruders aus Wiesbaden neue Wohnung of my brother from Wiesbaden new apartment The distribution of genitive arguments and adjuncts in German is particularly interesting in contrast to the placement of attributive adjectives which one generally observes in this language. In comparison with the former's predominantly postnominal position, the latter must occur in prenominai position in German. In this respect, they differ from their Spanish equivalents, which commonly occupy a postnominal position (cf. 3e). (3) a. Unübertreffliche Erfolge /*Erfolge unübertreffliche superlative successes/successes superlative b. Omas unübertreffliche Erfolge / granny's superlative successes/ *Omas Erfolge unübertreffliche granny's successes superlative c. Die unübertrefflichen Erfolge /*Die Erfolge unübertrefflichen the superlative successes/the successes superlative d. Deine unübertrefflichen Erfolge / your superlative successes/ *Deine Erfolge unübertrefflichen your successes superlative e. El éxito inesperado de la abuelita the success unexpected of granny The distribution of attributive adjectives is clearly connected with the realization of morphological case features on the noun in German. The presence of the adjective in prenominai position affects the inflectional case paradigm. As Gallmann (1996) shows, a noun belonging to a lexical paradigm which normally marks inflectional case with a specific suffix may lack the expected inflection in the context of a prenominai adjective. (4) a. ein Orchester ohne eigenen Dirigent en an orchestra without own director

42

Enrique

Mallen

b. ein Orchester ohne Dirigent an orchestra without director Gallmann (1996) proposes a Suffix Rule (SR) to account for these syntactic constraints. The SR regulates the inflectional realization of case on the nominal head. According to this rule, nouns are not case-marked (i.e. are case-indifferent) unless they agree with an "adjectival" word. Of special interest to our purposes is the fact that for a noun to be inflected for case, the adjectival constituent it agrees with must occur prenominally. (5) a. aus diesem Holze/aus diesem Holz of this wood/of this wood b. aus hartem Holze/aus hartem Holz of hard wood/of hard wood c. *aus Holze/aus Holz of wood/of wood d. unseren Wäldern droht der Tod our forests menaces the death e. *unseren Wälder droht der Tod our forests menaces the death f. Europas Wäldern droht der Tod Europa's forests menaces the death g. *Europas Wälder droht der Tod Europa's forests menaces the death h. Eis mit kandierten Früchten ice-cream with candied fruits i. *Eis mit kandierten Früchte ice-cream with candied fruits j. Eis mit Früchten ice-cream with fruits k. ??Eis mit Früchte ice-cream with fruits 1. die Verarbeitung dieses Holzes the processing of this wood m. die Verarbeitung tropischen Holzes the processing of tropical wood As shown in (5), the cooccurrence restriction applies not only to the weak ending -en in dative and accusative phrases (4a-b), but also to the facultative dative -e (5a-c), the dative plural -n (5d-k), and the genitive -s (51-m).

Issues in the syntax of DP in Romance and Germanic

43

In addition to adjectival placement, another important difference between Spanish and German is the fact that event nomináis can only have a genitive D P argument interpreted as agent in the former, but not in the latter. In Spanish, the nominal agent must be generated as a by-phrase; whereas in German it may occur as a genitive argument in prenominai position. (6) a. *La frecuente descripción de BonnieA de los hechosT molestaba the frequent description of Bonnie of the events annoyed a todos everyone b. La frecuente descripción de los hechosT por parte de BonnieA the frequent description of the events by Bonnie molestaba a todos annoyed everyone c. Bonnie'sA ständige Beschreibung der EreigniseT Bonnie's frequent description of the events The unavailability of agent arguments does not extend to result nomináis in Spanish, which allows both the agent and the theme argument to be expressed overtly. This is also possible in German as long as the genitive agent occurs prenominally. (7) a. El abuso de PedroA/T de su madreT/A the abuse of Peter of his mother b. *Die Behandlung PetersA seiner MutterT the treatment of Peter of his mother c. *Die Behandlung der MutterT des ArztesA the treatment of the mother of the doctor As (7b-c) show, two postnominal genitive D P arguments are not a possibility in German (cf. Bhatt 1990).

3. The functional structure of DP I have set this analysis in the context of an explanatorily adequate theory of grammar, namely the minimalist framework of Chomsky (1995). This program assumes that the computational mechanism of syntax is universal, and that any variation in the distribution of syntactic constituents

44

Enrique Mallen

across languages is the result of differences in inflectional feature specification of lexical and functional categories. The computational system selects an item from the lexicon and subjects it to a generalized transformation (GT) which derives phrase markers in accordance with economy conditions. At any point in the a phrase marker's derivation, the operation Spell-Out may apply, which switches the derived structure to the PF component. After Spell-Out, the computational process continues, with the sole constraint that it has no further access to the lexicon. In addition to economy conditions, the computational mechanism is regulated by interface conditions on its output, which additionally must comply with the requirements imposed by PF and LF. One such requirement is that a strong inflectional feature should not reach either component. Parametric differences between grammars are limited to the strength of inflectional features, languages being very similar at LF. These inflectional features are encoded in functional categories and must be matched by equivalent features in lexical projections. Matching requires movement to the local domain of the functional category to establish the necessary structural relation. Once movement applies, the features are checked and disappear. Where and when (i.e., before or after Spell-Out) movement applies varies from language to language, depending on the properties of the PF or LF components. More specifically, there are certain conditions which are imposed on the presence/absence of these features at the interface levels LF and PF. These determine the occurrence of syntactic processes that create divergences across languages within the parametric paradigm. The strong features of a functional category require movement to them before Spell-Out, or else the relevant features would survive to PF, causing the derivation to crash. In contrast, overt movement is impossible when functional categories contain weak features. Economy conditions· require that the output of movement in this case should be invisible. As a result, languages where movement applies after Spell-Out maintain phrase constituents in their hierarchically inserted positions by GT. Conversely, no substantial difference should be found in the way languages like German and Spanish, for instance, project their argument structure. In both languages, syntactic configurations are generated from argument structure by a process of generalized transformation. As a result, phrase markers generating nominal structures should be basically identical. I will assume that the internal structure of the noun phrase resembles that of clauses in the richness of its functional configuration. Nominal elements of the functional and lexical type are inserted from the lexicon with specific features, which then trigger syntactic relations between the

Issues in the syntax of DP in Romance

and Germanic

45

lexical and functional elements. I will argue that differences in feature specification alone account for the common distribution of postnominal arguments in Spanish and German, as well as for the divergent placement of adjectives and proper noun subjects in the two languages. The existence of functional categories inside noun phrases has been corroborated in numerous analyses. Szabolcsi (1983), for instance, presents evidence in support of a more inflected structure for noun phrases. In Hungarian, in particular, the noun phrase appears to contain an intermediate functional category (Fc). This functional category serves as a sort of agreement node establishing a relation between the head noun and its subject (an external argument or a possessor). Noun and subject agree in person and number, just as a subject agrees in person and number with a verb in a clause. Moreover, the particular agreement markers are the same as those found on the subject of a verb. (8) (Szabolcsi 1983:89) a. Az én-0 vendég-e-m the I-Nom guest-Poss-lsg 'My guest' b. A te-0 vendég-e-d the you-Nom guest-Poss-2sg 'Your guest' c. A Mari-0 vendég-e-0 the Mary-Nom guest-Poss-3sg 'Mary's guest'

d.

I Agr, ^

This parallelism is not accidental since the nominal agreement performs the same function as verbal agreement: (i) it triggers nominative case on the possessor; and (ii) it licenses pro-drop in Hungarian. The idea that noun phrases contain intermediate functional projections between Det and Ν has been further confirmed by Ritter (1988,1990) in her analysis of Construct State (CS-DP) and Free State DP (FS-DP) constructions in Hebrew. CS-DPs exhibit the following properties: (i) they contain a genitive phrase immediately following the head noun; (ii) they do not cooccur with determiners; (iii) they take on special morpho-phonology; (iv) the complement of the head noun is not preceded by a preposition. Ritter proposes that the noun distribution in CS-DP and FS-DP constructions is the result of noun-raising to the intermediate functional category Number (Num), which contains the number features of the noun phrase.

46

Enrique

Mallen

The noun moves only to Num in FS-DPs, while CS-DPs require the noun to proceed on to Det. The obligatoriness of noun-raising is attributed to the requirement that the Det head be identified (or reinforced) in order for it to be able to assign Case to the subject. In CSDP, the subject is forced to move up to spec-NumP to be string adjacent to the genitive Case assigner Det. In contrast, for FSDP Case is assigned by the noun in Num. This latter strategy is not possible in CSDP since the head noun must move up to Det to identify the CSDP. When a direct object is present in CS-DP, the word order is NSO, which is achieved by nounmovement over the subject. (9) a. b p [ d N] [ NumP DP 2 [Num, [Num tN] [NP AP [NP t2 [N, tN DP] D Um· Um N] [ NP AP [ NP DP [N. tN DP] A -

[ D P

[

N

U

M

P

(CSDP) (FSDP)

(10) a. Axilat dan et ha-tapuax eating Dan the-apple b. Axilat dan ha-menumeset et ha-uga eating Dan the-polite the-cake c. *Axilat dan et ha-uga ha-menumeset eating Dan the-cake the-polite d. Ha-axilat shel dan et ha-tapuax the-eating of Dan the-apple e. Ha-axila ha-menumeset shel dan et ha-uga the-eating the-polite of Dan the-cake f. *Ha-axila shel dan ha-menumeset et ha-uga the-eating of Dan the-polite the-cake As (10) shows, the distribution of adjectives confirms the proposed movement of the nominal head. In CS-DP, the adjective must follow the subject; while it must precede it in FS-DP. Assuming that the adjective is adjoined to NP, the head noun moves over the AP on its way to Num. Carstens (1991) has offered additional evidence for the existence of such an intermediate functional category. She claims that the relative word order of number words and head nouns parallels the order of a verb and its complement across languages: Num-Noun in VO languages; Noun-Num in OV languages. According to Carstens, this can be explained if the number word is the head of a Num Phrase and takes an NP complement. The number word must occur between the determiner and the head noun. The locus of pluralization, whether expressed by a full word or by morphological features, must be the functional category Num.

Issues in the syntax of DP in Romance and Germanic

47

Sigurösson (1993) has argued for a different functional category (Kase), which encodes the case features of the noun phrase. These features are subsequently matched against those of a sentential Agr once the noun phrase raises to the relevant spec-AgrP. According to Sigurösson, the presence of Kase is necessary to account for the full range of elements in prenominai position in Icelandic. First, Icelandic—like Danish, but unlike Swedish and Norwegian—identifies definiteness with a single morphological element, which may occur as an independent morpheme (i.e. the article) or as a dependent suffix on the noun. (11) a. Hid fraega verk the famous work b. *Hiö fraega verk/5 c. Fraega verkrâ Following Sigurösson (cf. also Svenonius 1993), the definite suffix is generated in Det and attaches to the noun as the latter raises to Det. Where an adjective intervenes, as in (lla-b), the noun remains in its base-position, and the article carries the definite feature. Det may also be taken to be the position occupied by prenominai possessive pronouns. Additional evidence to the effect that (11) involves some form of head movement comes from the fact that full DP genitives are not allowed in prenominai position in Icelandic. (12) a. Aliar gessar J>rjár nyju kenningarpinar all these three new theories your b. Aliar pinar prjár nyju kenningar all your three new theories c. Fyrirlestur mâlfœdingsins lecture.Nom linguist.DEF.Gen d. * Mâlfœdingsins Fyrirlestur Since the noun is unable to check its case-feature in Det, there must be a separate functional category where this may occur. Sigurösson has identified this category as Kase. I will adopt both Ritter's and Sigurösson's proposals, assuming that DP contains both Num and Kase dominating NP (cf. 13). As shown schematically in (13), I will also propose that the features regulating concord in Number, Case, and Gender are checked as an Agreement (Agr) head raises through the different functional heads at some point in the derivation.

48

(13)

Enrique

Mallen

[DP [D

AgrJ

[NUIIIP [Num

t j [KP [Kase t, ] [AgrP tAgr [NP N]]]]]

The assumption that the lexical head of the noun phrase in Germanic is dominated by a series of functional projections, each of which regulates one of the grammatically relevant features, differs from Olsen's (1989b) analysis of German noun phrases. Olsen proposes that the functional category Det in German includes an explicit specification of all the grammatical φ-features. These features are then transferred both to the maximal projection of the noun phrase and to its lexical head. The transfer of features takes place through percolation (to DP) and through the creation of an agreement chain (with NP). As pointed out in Mallen (1998b), the morphological marking in this chain is not evenly distributed. Rather, Case marking occurs either at the top or at the bottom of the chain. (14) Agreement chain (Olsen 1989b:45) An agreement chain is an uninterrupted chain (Det¡, Xi+1, Yi+n) of identical superscripts headed by Det and formed on the basis of functional selection between X and its functional complement Y. The notion of agreement chain is reinterpreted in the present analysis as a head raising mechanism. Agr links the agreement features with those of DP as it moves cyclically from functional head to functional head until it reaches Det. Contrary to the assumptions made by Ritter and Sigurösson, the noun inside NP does not undergo head movement.

4. NP movement in DP The process of Ν movement proposed by Ritter and Sigurösson could in principle account for the distribution of nominal agents in (1) as well as for the impossible placement of an adjunct between the raised head and the genitive in spec-NP or spec-AgrP, what Bhatt (1990) identifies as an adjacency requirement between noun and genitives. As Ltihr (1988) has pointed out, however, the adjacency requirement is relaxed in instances like (15c) and (15d), where the complement of the noun can indeed intervene between the noun and the genitive. (15) a. *Die Zerstörung [durch Bomben] der Stadt the destruction by bombs of-the city b. *Die Zerstörung [gestern] der Stadt the destruction yesterday of-the city

Issues in the syntax of DP in Romance and Germanic

49

c. Der Minister [für Arbeit] der Bundesrepublik the minister of Labor of-the Republic d. Der Mangel [an Offenheit] der Regensburger Ärzte the lack of openness of-the Regenburg doctors These structures would not be problematic in a framework that allowed free postposing inside DPs (this possibility has in fact been suggested in the literature), but are unexpected within the generally adopted constraints introduced by Kayne (1994). To account for (15c-d) and related facts, I will assume that postnominal genitives in German and Spanish are not a consequence of nominal head movement, but rather movement of the entire NP to the specifier of a functional category Predicate Phrase (PredP) (cf. Sánchez 1996). The functional category PredP is projected whenever a modifier is present in the noun phrase. However, it is only after movement of NP to spec-PredP that the necessary predication relation between the modifier and NP can be established. Predicate phrases have a recursive nature. Their recursivity is explained by assuming that Agr may optionally select PredP, rather than NP. Agreement between adjectives being stacked is made possible by incorporation of the lower Agr to the higher Pred. This incorporation allows the features of the lower Agr to be checked against those of the higher Agr by spec-head agreement. (16)

[Dp D

[NUITIP

Num [ PredP [e] Pred [ AgrP Agr [ NP N]]]]]

The existence of a DP-internal Pred projection provides a syntactic frame for the notion that restrictive and argumentai modification inside DP involve some type of subject-predicate relation. Pred behaves as a two place predicate with an NP subject in its specifier and AgrP in its complement position. Additionally, it allows for a unified account of the similarities in syntactic behavior and semantic interpretation of restrictive noun modifiers such as adjectives, prepositional phrases and relative clauses and for the syntactic properties of argumentai modifiers found in thematic structures and inalienable possession constructions. The common syntactic behavior of different non-argumental modifiers can be accounted for by assuming that they are all embedded under the same maximal projection, i.e. Predicate Phrase. According to Sánchez, spec-PredP is also the position where null NPs are licensed in Spanish. As observed in (17), null NPs can also be licensed in German. However, contrary to Olsen's (1988a,b) prediction, having a

50

Enrique

Mallen

fully inflected Det alone does not seem to be sufficient to license a null NP: if the modifier is absent, the noun must occur overtly. In contrast, when the modifier is present, Pred must be projected inside DP, providing the necessary spec-PredP as a licensing site for the null NP. (17) a. Das Münchner Wetteramt meldete, dieser November the Munich weather-bureau reported this November sei der sonnenreichste [e] seit 100 Jahren is of-the sunniest in 100 years b. *Die gewünschte Arbeit ist uns annehmbar, the desired work is to-us reasonable, aber nicht einfach die [e] but not simply the The licensing of null NPs as well as the post-nominal position of extensional adjectives in Spanish can be explained as the result of the availability of the specifier position of Pred. The postnominal position of extensional adjectives results from an obligatory NP raising that is required to satisfy the checking of the strong predicate features of the NP. The position in which null NPs can be licensed in Spanish is spec of Pred, where licensing occurs through spec-head agreement with Pred. Agreement between the projection headed by the adjective (that is selected from the lexicon bearing gender and number features) and Agr can be achieved through spec-head agreement. Subsequently, Agr incorporates into higher functional projections until it reaches Det, accounting for the fact that when the NP raises to spec of Pred it checks both its gender and agreement features. Every element in the specifier position of a category to which agreement incorporates is able to check its gender and number features in that position. Depending on the strength of the features of the respective functional categories, movement will take place before or after Spell Out in different languages. I will argue below that case inflection on the noun is a reflection of agreement between NP in spec-PredP and Pred, which inherits its case features as a member of the chain with K. When Κ is [+strong], its feature must be checked before Spell Out. As we will observe, this occurs in German, but not in Spanish.

5. Prenominai adjectives We have seen that word order differences between languages are simply a consequence of the redistribution of elements for inflectional purposes. The problem we face is how to account for the fact that adjective phrases

Issues in the syntax of DP in Romance and Germanic

51

systematically occur in prenominai position in German, while they remain postnominal in Spanish. Since NP movement to spec-PredP is independently required, we expect the Spanish ordering; so their distribution in German comes as a surprise. Let us assume that the base-positions of adjectives is universally determined by their semantic relation to the nominal head (cf. Bosque & Picallo 1994) and that variation in the surface arrangement of adjectives across languages is the result of NP-movement to a higher functional position. In other words, NP-raising would result not only in postnominal genitive arguments, but also in postnominal adjectives. This analysis works in a fairly straightforward manner for Spanish. However, German presents a serious challenge to such a hypothesis since postnominal genitive DPs coexist with prenominai attributive adjectives in this language. In spite of this difference, I will assume that attributive adjectives occur in similar positions in both German and Spanish, namely in spec-AgrP where they match the gender features of the noun phrase encoded in Agr. In order to account for the prenominai distribution of attributive adjectives in German, I argue that a process of AP raising to a specifier position is involved. More specifically, the position where all adjectives end up in German is spec-KP. Movement of the AP is conditioned purely by case inflection: once in spec-KP the adjective can match its case features against those of Kase. The plausibility of this assumption is initially confirmed by the fact that, in addition to number and gender inflection, the attributive adjective obligatorily inflects for Case in German (all attributive adjectives occurring in a series bear parallel Case markings in German) (cf. Olsen 1989b; Schachtl 1989). By contrast, Spanish adjectives inflect for number and gender, but not for Case. (18) a. Los cachorros irlandeses juguetones the puppies Irish playful b. Die/alle jungen bissigen Hunde the/all young biting dogs c. Einige junge bissige Hunde some young biting dogs d. Junge bissige Hunde young biting dogs e. Mit gültigem entwertetem Fahrschein with valid cancelled license

52

Enrique

Mallen

Interestingly, as Kester (1996) points out, the rare cases of postnominal adjectives in German remain uninflected (cf. 19). That is, they are those that need not match any case feature (including case). (19) a. Diese Woche regenerisch und stürmisch this week rainy and stormy b. Eine Katze so groß a cat so big Another clear indication that the prenominai distribution of attributive adjectives in German is connected to case specification comes from the fact that a prenominai adjective licenses Case inflection on the noun (cf. Gallmann 1996). (20) a. von diesem Planet en of this planet b. von E.T.s rotem Planeten of E.T.'s red planet c. von E.T.s Planet of E.T.'s planet d. von E.T.s lila Planet of E.T.'s lilac planet e. aus diesem Holze/aus diesem of this wood/of this f. aus hartem Holze/aus hartem of hard wood/of hard g. *aus Holze/aus Holz of wood/of wood

Holz wood Holz wood

According to Gallmann for a noun to be inflected for Case, it must agree with a prenominai constituent, be it a determiner or adjective. To explain this cooccurrence restriction, let us assume that an inflected noun is selected by a strongly marked Kase category (i.e. marked Kase[+strong]) and that the inflectional feature of Kase[+Str0ngj must be matched before spellout. Matching may occur by Kase raising to Det or by the displacement of a constituent to spec-KP. An instance of the first process is observed in (20a) where a determiner licenses strong inflection. The second alternative is taken in the structures in (20b). Once the AP is in spec-KP it satisfies both its Case requirement and the matching requirement on Kase[+strongj. Under the assumption that the NP which has moved to spec-

Issues in the syntax of DP in Romance and Germanic

53

PredP agrees with Pred and that Pred is coindexed with Kase as a member of the chain formed by Agr-raising, the NP agrees in Case with the AP in spec-KP. As a result, the strong inflection on the noun may be licensed in spec-PredP.

6. Postnominal arguments Nouns and adjectives are not the only constituents requiring Case inside DP in German. If we assume that nominal arguments inside noun phrases are DPs (cf. Mallen 1989 and others), these elements must also move to positions where their Case-features can be checked in both Spanish and German. Since under Minimalism structural Case is a manifestation of spec-head agreement between a DP and Agr, the same relation should apply in both subject and object inflectional systems across categories. The association of a subject or object DP and Ν should be mediated by Agr, a collection of φ-features. Agreement is determined by the φ-features of Agr; while case is assigned to an element in spec-AgrP. In German and Spanish, only case is morphologically overt, as agreement takes place covertly in LF. (21)

[Dp [D Los'] [ NumP [ Num muchos'] [KP[K abusos'] the many abuses LgrP de PedroE Agr s ' [ AgrP de su madre¡ Agr 0 ' [ NP N']]]]]] of Peter of his mother

The adjacency requirement on genitive DPs in Spanish and German now follows from the relation they establish with an Agr head. The genitive DP must be in the specifier of the relevant Agr and no other element can intervene between them (cf. 22a-b). In (22a), the PP intervenes between the noun and the genitive DP resulting in an ungrammatical structure. (22) a. *E1 retrato de Aristótelesl de RembrandtE the portrait of Aristotle of Rembrandt b. *Das Verständnis für Mariax PetersE the understanding of Maria by Peter c. Das Verständnis PetersEfür Maria{ the understanding by Peter of Maria Once we adopt an analysis in which DP-internal case involves separate realizations of the functional category Agr, we can easily account for the

54

Enrique

Mallen

unavailability of agent genitives in event nomináis in Spanish (cf. 6a) if we assume that these nomináis are selected by one single Agr. Supporting evidence to this proposal comes from Hebrew. According to Hazout (1994) the absence of agent argument in event nomináis in Hebrew can be accounted for if we take Case and theta-role assignment in nomináis to be a combined property of the lexical head and the affix onto which it attaches. Nominalization applies in the syntax with the addition of specific inflection. The argument structure and subcategorization frame of the nominalizing inflection determines the resulting distribution of arguments in the noun phrase. The verbal external argument is coindexed with the internal argument of the nominalizing suffix and is optionally realized as a DP (cf. 23c). (23) (Hazout 1994:33) a. Argument Structure of Nom (R¡, Rj) b. Subcategorization frame of Nom: [ _ VP] c.

NP, (DPj)

N'¡ N,

VP;

Nom V DPk (R¡, Rj) (Aj, Bk) As Hazout shows, both "subjectless" and "active" event nomináis are possible in Hebrew. In the first example, the internal argument receives genitive Case; in the second, it is the external argument that is marked with genitive. (24) a. Axilat ha-tapuax eating the-apple b. Harisat ha-oyev et ha-ir destruction the-enemy the-city c. Ha-axila Sei Dan et ha-tapuax the-eating Dan the-apple What we observe in Hebrew (and in Spanish), then, is a restriction in event nomináis to one genitive Case per noun phrase. Only when the external argument is not syntactically realized, can the internal argument

Issues in the syntax of DP in Romance

and Germanic

55

receive genitive Case. When the external argument is realized, the internal argument is marked Accusative. Hazout assumes that the nominalizing affix characteristic of event nomináis is responsible for the above restrictions in Hebrew. German appears in principle to resemble Hebrew and Spanish, since a genitive agent appears to be in complementary distribution with a genitive object in event nomináis (cf. 25a). (25) a. *Die dauernde Belagerung Bokans von Dubrovnik war the continuous siege of-Bokan ( A ) of Dubrovnik was geschichtlich unverzeihlich historically inexcusable b. Bokans dauernde Belagerung von Dubrovnik war Bokans continuous siege of Dubrovnik was geschichtlich unverzeihlich historically inexcusable However, as (25b) shows, the genitive agent may cooccur with a genitive object as long as it appears in prenominai position. This may be explained if German differs from Spanish in having an independent Agr affix (call it Gen) whose inflectional realization is the genitive marker -s in (26).

56

Enrique

Mallen

Gen is inserted in event nomináis and allows the features of the agentive genitive to be matched in its specifier position. The effect of the insertion of Gen is parallel to the insertion of the preposition por 'by' in event nomináis in Spanish. In both instances, an agent may be realized in spite of the "intransitivity" of the event noun. However, only in German is the subject exclusively dominated by a projection of D.

7. Prénommai arguments Concerning the projection of D dominating a subject argument, it must be pointed out that, although German allows prenominai genitives, it imposes strict conditions on the type of constituent that is raised: unmodified bare proper names or terms of relations which lack a determiner. The impossible coocurrence of prenominai genitives and determiners seems to indicate that both are in fact in the domain of Det. (27) a. *Der Serben dauernde Belagerung von Dubrovnik war by-the Serbs continuous siege of Dubrovnik was geschichtlich unverzeihlich historically inexcusable b. *Der Stadt dauernde Belagerung durch die Serben war of-the city continuous siege by the Serbs was geschichtlich unverzeihlich historically inexcusable c. *Die Bokans dauernde Belagerung von Dubrovnik war the Bokans continuous siege of Dubrovnik was geschichtlich unverzeihlich historically inexcusable d. *Die Der Serben dauernde Belagerung von Dubrovnik the by-the Serbs continuous siege of Dubrovnik war geschichtlich unverzeihlich was historically inexcusable The range of possessive elements that may occupy prenominai positions in Germanic include possessive pronouns. As has been observed by Olsen, however, these pronouns differ from other prenominai genitive elements in their Case marking. Possessive pronouns must encode the same Case marking as the entire DP; while other prenominai genitives may (and must) be Case-marked independently.

Issues in the syntax of DP in Romance

and Germanic

57

(28) a. Meines Vaters Kritik von seinen Studenten of my father criticism of his students b. Meine/*meines Kritik von seinen Studenten my/ of mine criticism of his students c. Zu meines Vaters/ *meiner Vater Kritik von seinen Studenten to my father's/of mine father criticism of his students This difference may be explained if we assume that possessive pronouns are merged elements: a combination of the possessive affix (m-, d-, s-, etc.) in Gen raised to Det and -ein in Num. What we observe in the ungrammatical structures in (28b-c), then, is an impossible double genitive Case-checking on the agent by Gen, namely -m and -s.

By contrast, in the examples where a proper noun is attached to Gen, only one element can match its Case and be marked with the suffix -5 as shown in (30). The proper noun must subsequently move to Det. Let us assume that elements inflectionally marked as [+definite] (i.e. definite determiners, proper nouns, etc) must have this feature checked in a proper Det category (Det [+def j). In German, [-(-definite] is a strong feature and requires checking before Spell Out by moving the proper constituent to the head Det [+def] . In (31a), it is a single genitive constituent that moves

58

Enrique Mallen

"visibly" to Det[ Def j. Extraction of the genitive element from D P on its way to Det would constitute an instance of left-branch extraction and would thus be blocked. In contrast, if the prenominai genitive is a proper noun, Det only projects to the head level, and no extraction is involved, simply movement of the entire D-projection (cf. 31b).

Pred

AgrP

agentk

Agr'

Otto's Agr s I

Gent

AgrP object

Agr'

Agr 0

Κ

NP

PredP

Pred

AgrP

agent, Det k Agr s Genk

Agr' AgrP object Agr 0

Agr' NP

Issues in the syntax of DP in Romance and Germanic

59

PredP Pred

Det

AgrP agentk

Agr'

DPk

Agr s

XP

AgrP

Genk object

Agr'

Agr„

NP

Independent evidence for the existence of a strong [+definite] feature in Det triggering the movement in (31) can be found in other languages. As is wellknown, Icelandic and Norwegian mark nouns with a suffix for definiteness. In our terms, we may say that Det[ +def j must be filled at some point in the derivation in both languages. The strong [-t-definite] feature of Norwegian requires that movement take place before Spell Out. Once in Det[+def], the noun blocks the occurrence of an attributive adjective, as shown in (32b-c). In Icelandic, on the other hand, movement can be postponed until LF and the adjective can cooccur with the definite noun (cf. 32e-f) (cf. Mallen 1998b for details). If no noun raising takes place, the attributive adjective is free to occur with the definite noun in both languages (cf. 32a,d). (32) a. Den lille geita the little goat. D E F b. Geita goat. D E F c. * Lille geita little goat. D E F d. Hin lítla geit the little goat e. Lítla geitin little goat. D E F f. *Hin geit the goat. D E F

[Norwegian] [Norwegian] [Norwegian] [Icelandic] [Icelandic] [Icelandic]

60

Enrique

Mallen

While the presence/absence of Gen in Agr s explains the differences we encounter between Romance and Germanic, we are left with the problem of providing a reason for the prenominai occurrence of certain genitive elements in the former language. If—as we posit—the agent argument receives Case in spec-Agr s P in instances of postnominal agentive genitives in German, any further movement must be blocked under Economy. A sentence like (33a) should be grammatical in German. (33) a. *Die (ständige) Kritik Ottos von seinen Studenten the constant criticism by-Otto of his students ärgerte mich richtig annoyed me much b. Ottos (ständige) Kritik seiner/von seinen Studenten Ottos constant criticism of-his/of his students ärgerte mich richtig annoyed me much In (33b), we have two arguments which require genitive Case. The object can receive genitive Case from Agr 0 . The subject, on the other hand, is assigned Case under agreement with Gen in Agr s . Subsequently, the agent moves to Det to match the feature j+definite]. What we observe in (33a) is that the NP cannot raise to spec-PredP over a genitive agent if A g r 0 is present in the same structure. (34) a.

Issues in the syntax of DP in Romance and Germanic

61

(34) b.

D k Kase

PredP Pred

AgrP agent

Agr'

I Genv Following Chomsky's (1995) definition of equidistance, let us assume that in deciding the distance of two competing targets X and Y from a specific element Ζ, X and Y are considered equidistant from Ζ if X and Y are in the same minimal domain—a minimal domain S (Min(S)) for any set S of categories is defined as the smallest subset Κ of S such that for any X e S, some Y e Κ reflexively dominates X (Chomsky 1995:178). Otherwise, the element closer to the target is the one which must move to it, in accordance with Economy. Applying this notion to our configuration, we observe that movement of Agr s to Pred extends the domain of Agr s P. Therefore the complement of Agr s may move to spec,PredP. This is the case in instances of noun phrases containing only Agr s . The NP may move over the agent argument. This is also true of noun phrases containing a single A g r 0 as complement of Pred. Again, the NP complement of A g r 0 may move to specPredP. However, where both Agr s and A g r 0 are present, movement of Agr s to Pred licenses movement of Agr 0 P, but not movement of NP. As a result, the NP cannot match its predicational feature as required and the derivation crashes at PF.

8. Conclusion I have shown that the distribution of nominal arguments and adjuncts inside D P in Spanish and German can be accounted for under the minimalist framework of Chomsky (1995). I have assumed that noun phrases contain a full range of functional categories, namely Det, Num, Kase, Pred,

62

Enrique Mallen

and Agr. The latter must raise to Det at some point in the derivation, thus accounting for the chain of agreement between all functional categories inside DP. In addition, Kase encodes case-features. These features are strong in German (but not in Spanish) and thus require matching at PF. Matching takes place either by AP-movement to the specifier of Kase or head-movement of Kase to Det. Pred must be projected when a predication relation between a noun and an modifier is involved. When Pred is strong—as in German and Spanish—, NP must move to the specifier of Pred. Genitive arguments of a noun are projected with case-features which must be matched at the proper level. Matching is mediated in this instance by Agr. Event nomináis select for a single Agr. In Germanic languages, however, a functional element Gen may be inserted (Gen-support), thus licensing an additional genitive argument. Det has strong features in German, but not in Spanish. These features require headmovement to Det. A genitive argument which projects only to X-level may raise to Det to meet this requirement.

References Bhatt, Christa 1989 Parallels in the Syntactic Realization of the Arguments of Verbs & Their Nominalizations. Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases & Sentences, 17-35, ed. by Christa Bhatt, Elisabeth Löbel, Claudia Schmidt. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1990 Die syntaktische Struktur der Nominalphrase im Deutschen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Bosque, Ignacio and Carme Picallo 1994 Postnominal Adjectives in Spanish Indefinite DPs. Ms.,1-54. Carstens, Vicky 1991 The Morphology and Syntax of Determiner Phrases in Kiswahili. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Chomsky, Noam 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gallmann, Peter 1996 Die Steuerung der Flexion in der DP. Linguistische Berichte 164. 283-314. Hazout, lian 1994 Nominalizers in Theta Theory. The Linguistic Review 11, 5-48. Kayne, Richard 1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge (MA), MIT Press. Kester, Elle-Petra 1996 The Nature of Adjectival Inflection. Utrecht: OTS. Liihr, R 1988 Adjazenz in komplexen Nominalphrasen. Unpublished Ms.

Issues in the syntax of DP in Romance and Germanic

63

Mallen, Enrique 1989 The Structure of Determiner Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University. 1998a The Structure of Noun Phrases in German & Spanish. Perspectives on Spanish Linguistics II, 75-97, ed. by Luis Silva & Javier Gutiérrez Rexach. Los Angeles/Columbus: UCLA/OSU. 1998b Agreement & Case Matching in Noun Phrases in German. German: Syntactic Problems—Problematic Syntax, 191-230, ed. by Werner Abraham. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Olsen, Susan 1989a Das Possessivum: pronomen, Determinans oder Adjektiv? Linguistische Berichte 120, 133-153. 1989b AGR(eement) in the German Noun Phrase. Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases & Sentences, 39-49, ed. by Christa Bhatt, Elisabeth Löbel, Claudia Schmidt. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ritter, Elizabeth 1988 A Head-Movement Approach to Construct-State Noun Phrases. Linguistics 26, 909-929. 1990 Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Ms. U Q A M . Sánchez, Liliana 1996 Syntactic Structure in Nomináis: A Comparative Study of Spanish & Southern Quechua. Ph.D. dissertation. USC. Schachtl, Stephanie 1989 Morphological Case & Abstract Case: Evidence from the German Genitive Construction. Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases & Sentences, 99-112, ed. by Christa Bhatt, Elisabeth Löbel, Claudia Schmidt. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sigurösson, Halldór Ármann 1993 The Structure of the Icelandic NP. Studia Linguistica, All, 177-197. Svenonius, Peter 1993 Selection, Adjunction & Concord in the DP. Studia Linguistica, 47.2,198-219. Szabolcsi, Anna 1983 The Possessor that Ran Away from Home. The Linguistic Review 3, 89-102.

The syntax and semantics of preverbal topical phrases in Spanish1 Eugenia Casielles Suárez

1. Introduction This paper investigates the syntax and interpretation of two so-called topical phrases in Spanish: preverbal subjects and dislocated elements. It is well-known that in this language, like in other Romance languages, subjects do not have to appear preverbally, as in English. As the contrast between (1) and (2) shows, subjects can occur preverbally or postverbally: (1)

Paco llamó ayer 'Paco called yesterday'

(2)

Ayer llamó Paco yesterday called Paco 'PACO called yesterday'

An important difference between postverbal and preverbal subjects has to do with their interpretation. Postverbal subjects are interpreted as focal, belonging to the informative part of the sentence, while preverbal subjects are interpreted as topical, as the point of departure for the sentence. From this perspective while the sentence in (1) would be an appropriate answer to a question such as 'What's up with Paco?', (2) would not be an appropriate answer to that question, but rather to a question such as: 'Who called yesterday?' 2 Thus, we could describe the contrast in (1)(2) as follows: focal subjects in Spanish are allowed to stay inside VP while topical subjects raise to a preverbal subject position. Furthermore, Spanish also allows for the construction in (3) referred to by Cinque (1990) as Clitic left-dislocation (CLLD). In this construction, a dislocated phrase co-occurs with a resumptive clitic. (3)

La sidra la trajo José 3 the cider it brought José 'The cider, J O S E brought it/JOSE brought the cider'

66

Eugenia Casielles

Suárez

As opposed to other preposing mechanisms such as Focus Preposing (FP), the dislocated element in these structures is interpreted as topical.4 That is, the sentence in (3) would be appropriate in a context in which it is under discussion that different people brought different things (including cider) and the speaker is informing about who brought the cider. One interesting property of Romance CLLD, not shared by other apparently similar preposing mechanisms such as English Topicalization and English (non-clitic) left-dislocation is the fact that it allows for any type and number of dislocated elements. 5 (4)

A él el coche su madre no se lo dejaría nunca to him the car his mother not cl cl would-lend never 'His mother would NEVER let him borrow the car'

Thus, in addition to non-focal preverbal subjects such as the one in (1), the left periphery in Spanish can be occupied by a variety of topical dislocated phrases. Notice that as (4) above shows, these two topical elements can co-occur preverbally. In fact, the subject can be intermingled with these dislocated topical phrases in any order: (5) a. Su madre a él el coche... his mother to him the car ... b. El coche su madre a é l . . . the car his mother to him ..., etc. Therefore, in structures such as (4), the subject seems to be also dislocated. This poses several questions that will be investigated in this paper. First, we need to know if there are two different positions involved—a non-dislocated preverbal subject position and dislocated positions—or just dislocated positions. That is, it might be that in Spanish there is no specifier position for the subject and that preverbal subjects are always dislocated. Notice that as opposed to other languages such as English, where all subjects raise to a preverbal subject position, in Spanish focal subjects can stay inside VP; only topical subjects appear preverbally. From this perspective, it would not be surprising if topical subjects were dislocated just like any other non-subject topical elements. Second, although both preverbal subjects and dislocated elements are referred to as "topical", it is not clear what we mean by that. Are we using this term vaguely to cover both topics and non-focal elements? Finally, we would like to know what is the connection between their "topical" interpreta-

The syntax and semantics of preverbal topical phrases in Spanish

67

tion and their peripheral position. That is, what drives these elements to those positions? This paper is organized as follows. In section 1 , 1 offer evidence which suggests that there is a specifier preverbal position distinct from dislocated positions. Section 2 considers the information properties of these two so-called topical elements and proposes that preverbal subjects and dislocated phrases also differ informationally. Finally, I suggest in section 3 a connection between these two elements and their syntax. I propose that while something like Rizzi's (1997) Topic Criterion seems adequate for preverbal subjects, Zubizarreta's (1998) proposal is more appropriate for dislocated elements.

2. Are preverbal subjects dislocated? Prima facie, it might seem appropriate to give a unified treatment of preverbal subjects and dislocated phrases in Spanish. The fact that subjects can intermingle freely with these dislocated phrases in any order, as shown above in (5), seems to support this analysis. As has been suggested (Contreras 1991, among others) since they can remain postverbally and seem to behave like dislocated phrases if preverbal, in contrast to English subjects, they may not involve a specifier position at all. 6 They could be occupying an adjunction site, just like other dislocated topical elements. From this perspective focal subjects would be licensed VP-internally and topical subjects would be always dislocated. However, I think there is evidence which suggests that this cannot be the case; that preverbal subjects do occupy a specifier position distinct from the position occupied by dislocated elements, and with different syntactic requirements. The evidence comes from the distribution of Bare Nomináis. As (6) shows, bare nouns in Spanish are not allowed as preverbal subjects: (6)

*Niños jugaban en el parque 7 'Children were playing in the park'

However, they can appear dislocated: (7)

Libros (los) hay en la biblioteca 8 books (them) there-are in the library

68

Eugenia Casielles

Suárez

Similarly to non-bare dislocated elements, BNs can appear in these dislocated structures intermingled with other topical phrases. (8)

Yo a él libros no le dejaría I to him books not cl would-lend Ί wouldn't lend him books'

The contrast between (6) and (7) suggests that there is a difference between the preverbal subject position and the position(s) occupied by dislocated elements.9 As (6) shows, this position seems to be even more restricted than in English, where BN preverbal subjects are allowed, as the English translation in (6) shows. In Spanish this position can only be occupied by a full DP. One question immediately arises: why is (6) ungrammatical? As I have pointed out in Casielles (1996,1997), I believe that in Spanish so-called NP movement is restricted to DPs. That is, only a full DP can establish an appropriate spec-head agreement relation in this language. Therefore, BNs which lack a determiner cannot DP move, and cannot get out of the VP in Spanish.10 If this is right, we would not expect them to participate in any type of NP-movement. As (9) shows, this is correct: BNs are not allowed as subjects of passive or raising structures: (9) a. *Niños 'Children b. *Niños 'Children

fueron maltratados were mistreated' parecen estar contentos seem to be happy'

If this is correct and BNs are stuck inside VP, we expect some restrictions regarding their interpretative possibilities in this language. As is wellknown, BNs in English can have either an existential reading, as in (10), or a generic reading as in (11). (10) Children were playing in the street

(existential)

(11) Children (generally) play in the street

(generic)

It has been proposed (Heim 1982) that while the existential reading comes from the variable (introduced by the indefinite) being bound by existential closure of the nuclear scope in a tripartite semantic structure, the generic reading results from the variable (in the restrictor) being bound by a generic operator. As Diesing (1990, 1992) has pointed out,

The syntax and semantics of preverbal

topical phrases in Spanish

69

these two interpretations correlate with two syntactic positions in German. In this language, a BN can occupy two different positions: to the right of particles such as 'ja doch' which are assumed to mark the VP boundary, as in (12), and to the left, that is, outside of VP, as in (13). (12)

...weil ja doch Kinder auf der Straße spielen, ... since prt prt children on the street play '... since there are children playing in the street'

(existential)

(13)

...weil Kinder ja doch auf der Straße spielen, ... since children prt prt on the street play '... since (in general) children play in the street'

(generic)

These two different positions correlate with the two different interpretations: inside VP, the BN has an existential interpretation, and inside IP, the BN has a generic interpretation. 11 If this is on the right track, and there is a correlation between being inside VP and having an existential interpretation, and if the generalization that I have proposed is true, and BNs in Spanish cannot leave the VP, we expect them to be able to have the existential interpretation only. This is correct. Similar to the German case in (12), only the BN inside VP gets an existential interpretation: (14)

Jugaban niños en el parque play children in the park

(existential)

(15)

*Niños jugaban en el parque children play in the park

(*existential)

However, as opposed to German, since the BN cannot appear outside of VP, no generic reading is available: (16)

*Niños jugaban en el parque children play in the park

(*generic)

As is well-known in order to have the generic interpretation we need a full DP: (17)

Los niños (generalmente) juegan en la calle (generic) the children (generally) play in the street

70

Eugenia

Casielles

Suárez

Thus, it seems plausible to assume that in Spanish a BN cannot move out of the VP, and therefore can never occupy the preverbal subject position. If this is right, we still have to account for examples such as (7) repeated here as (18): (18)

Libros (los) hay en la biblioteca books (them) there-are in the library

I think that there is independent evidence which suggests that CLLDs do not involve movement. I should mention that this has been argued for all CLLDs, not just those involving bare nouns, and therefore it is not an ad hoc solution to account for (18). As has been noted by Contreras (1991), Vallduví (1988), and Escribano (1991), among others, CLLDs are not sensitive to island constraints. (19)

La sidra no conozco a nadie que la odie the cider not know-lsg part, nobody that cl. hate-3sg 'Cider, I don't know anybody that hates it'

(20)

La sidra no sabemos quién la trajo the cider not know-lpl who cl. brought 'The cider, we don't know who brought it'

This applies not only to these non-BN dislocated elements (which involve a resumptive clitic), but also to BN dislocated phrases, which may not. 12 (21)

Dinero te pregunta (que) por qué no tiene money cl ask-3sg (that) by what not have-3sg 'Money, she asks you why she doesn't have' (Vallduví 1988 taken from Rivero 1980)

In addition, recall that we can dislocate as many phrases as we want and in any order: (22) a. Yo a él libros no le dejo I to him books not cl lend b. A él yo libros no le dejo to him I books not cl lend c. Libros yo a él no le dejo books I to him not cl lend

The syntax and semantics of preverbal

topical phrases in Spanish

71

These are not features we expect from moved elements. Movement processes have very specific requirements as to the number and ordering of the moved elements. As Cinque (1990) has pointed out, these dislocated phrases behave more like base-generated adjunctions. From this perspective, a BN can be adjoined but cannot be DP-moved to the preverbal subject position. Thus, we have seen some evidence suggesting that preverbal subjects and dislocated elements are syntactically distinct in Spanish. The preverbal subject position can be viewed as a unique specifier position which can only host a single full DP, which has moved from a VP-internal position:

On the other hand, a series of adjoined, recursive positions which can be base-generated freely can host any type and number of dislocated phrases in any order, as in (24):

From this perspective, examples such as (25), cannot be evidence that subjects are always dislocated: (25) a. A él su madre el coche no se lo dejaría nunca to him his mother the car not cl cl would-lend never 'His mother would NEVER let him borrow the car'

72

Eugenia Casielles Suárez

Examples like these show that subjects can be dislocated. This raises two interesting questions. First, since, as we have seen, subjects seem to have a special position (the preverbal subject position) which they can occupy when they are topical, why would they ever appear dislocated? That is, if both are topical, as compared with postverbal subjects, which are focal, what is the difference between a dislocated subject and a non-dislocated subject? Second, examples like (25) seem to indicate that if there is a dislocated element in the structure, the subject, if non-focal, will also be dislocated. But, why would that be? That is, what is blocking a structure with a nondislocated preverbal subject and dislocated elements? I will consider these questions in the next section, where I will suggest that the key lies in the term "topical."

3. Dislocated vs. non-dislocated topical elements In the previous section I argued that preverbal subjects and dislocated phrases differ syntactically. We considered the contrast between grammatical postverbal (27) and dislocated BNs (28) on the one hand, and ungrammatical BN preverbal subjects in (29): (27)

Jugaban niños en el parque play children in the park

Unmoved (inside VP)

(28)

Dinero, tengo yo money, have I

Unmoved (based-gen.)

(29)

*Niños jugaban en el parque children were-playing in the park

DP-Moved

However, if we look at their interpretation, both preverbal subjects and dislocated phrases are assumed to be topical: (30)

Jugaban niños en el parque were-playing children in the park

Focal

(31)

Dinero, tengo yo money, have I

Topical

(32)

*Niños jugaban en el parque children were-playing in the park

*Topical

The syntax and semantics of preverbal

topical phrases in Spanish

73

Thus, from the point of view of information structure, whatever our syntactic analysis of this contrast is, if both are "topical," we still have to explain how come one type of topic is grammatical, while the other is not. In addition, if subjects have a unique specifier position that they occupy when they are topical, why do subjects ever get dislocated? That is, what is the difference between a non-dislocated preverbal subject and a dislocated subject? In the division between topical and focal, both are supposed to be topical. Part of the problem has to do with the term "topical." One of the reasons why syntacticians have often avoided the connection between certain syntactic positions and certain topical interpretations is probably the elusiveness of the concept "topic." As Vallduvi (1992) has pointed out, it has been used in many different and contradictory senses. This term has been imprecisely used in the literature, often equated with non-focal. In this way, I think it has been used to refer to two different information primitives: sentence Topics and Background elements. In the literature on information structure, two articulations stand out: the Topic-Comment articulation and the Focus-Background articulation. The Topic-Comment articulation separates the topic or theme, which is understood as the point of departure for the sentence as a message, from the rest of the sentence: the Comment or Rheme. Although it would include very different proposals (See Firbas 1964, Halliday 1967, Contreras 1976, Gundel 1988, Reinhart 1982, among others) all assume a dichotomy where the topic is separated from the rest of the sentence. In this view, a sentence such as (33) could be divided into the topic, Mark in this case, and the Comment took the children to the movies: (33)

Mark/took the children to the movies

The Focus-Background articulation separates the focus, which is the informative part of the sentence, intonationally marked, from the rest of the sentence referred to as the presupposition/open proposition/background or topic in the Prague school sense. Numerous works concentrate on this division (Sgall et al. 1986, Erteschik-Shir 1997, Chomsky 1971, Jackendoff 1972, Rochemont 1986, Prince 1981, Selkirk 1984, Ward 1985). From this perspective, sentences such as those in (34) would be divided into the focus (in capital letters) and the rest of the sentence. 13 (34)

Mark C A L L E D the children

74

Eugenia Casielles

Suárez

Notice that, as (33) shows, the Topic-Comment articulation seems to be the unmarked pragmatically, phonologically and syntactically: it can start a discourse, that is, it can be used out-of-the-blue, it involves a preverbal subject and a predicate, and rightmost focus-related accent. The same features can be observed in Spanish: (35)

Mark llevó a los niños al cine Mark took part, the childeen to-the movies

The Focus-Background articulation, however, is pragmatically marked in that it cannot start a discourse. It is only felicitous in a particular, very restricted context. (36)

What happened? #Mark CALLED the children

For this articulation to be felicitous, everything except the focus needs to be recoverable from the discourse. As the examples above show, the nonfocal part of each dichotomy has totally different properties. That is, the topic is a unique, sentence initial element, which does not have to be necessarily discourse old, and is often a preverbal subject. The Background, on the other hand, can encompass multiple phrases (Mark and the children in (36), does not have a particular place in the sentence, does not correlate with the preverbal subject and is necessarily discourse-old. Notice that in English, this articulation is marked phonologically, by shifting sentence accent to the left. In (37)-(39) we have some more examples: (37)

MARK bought a book for the children

(38)

Mark BOUGHT a book for the children

(39)

Mark bought a BOOK for the children

However, in Spanish and other Romance languages, which prefer to mark focus with unmarked rightmost sentence accent, the Focus-Background structure of sentences such as (37)-(39) can be syntactically marked instead, by dislocating all the background elements. From this perspective, the Spanish equivalent of these sentences could be as follows: (40)

Un libro a los niños se lo comprò MARK a book for the children cl cl bought MARK

The syntax and semantics

of preverbal

topical phrases in Spanish

(41)

Mark un libro a los niños (sí) se lo C O M P R Ò Mark a book to the children (yes) cl cl B O U G H T

(42)

A los niños Mark les compró un L I B R O to the children Mark cl bought a B O O K

75

This would mean that dislocated elements in Spanish are not topics, but Background elements. If this is correct, now we can answer the questions posed above. First, the BN puzzle is accounted for. It is not the case that BNs can be topics in dislocated positions but they cannot be topics in the preverbal subject position. Now, we can describe their behavior from an information structure point of view, as follows: while BNs can be part of the Background, they cannot be sentence topics. Second, we can now understand why subjects would ever get dislocated. The difference between a dislocated subject and a non-dislocated subject is that the former is part of the Background in a Focus-Background structure while the latter is a sentence topic. Finally, our hypothesis also explains the behavior of the subject in structures like (25). Since a sentence can have a Topic-Comment structure or a Focus-Background Structure, but not both, we should not expect to find a non-dislocated preverbal subject and a dislocated element. The appearance of a dislocated element means that the sentence has a Backgroundfocus structure. Therefore, this structure does not have a topic. The subject will be either focal or Background. If focal, it will appear inside the VP, and if it is part of the Background it will appear also dislocated. In this section I have pointed out that the term topical covers two different information primitives: the sentence topic and the Background. I have suggested that in Spanish, while the sentence topic occupies the preverbal subject position, Background elements appear dislocated. From this perspective, preverbal subjects and dislocated elements not only differ syntactically, but also informationally. In the next section I conclude with some comments about the connection between these two types of topical elements and their syntax.

76

Eugenia Casielles

Suárez

4. The syntax-informatics mapping: topic features and p-movement There has recently been an increasing interest in current generative research in finding a place in the grammar for what Vallduvi (1992) refers to as Informatics,14 More specifically, the correlation between certain syntactic positions and certain topical/focal interpretations needs to be accounted for. We have seen that in Spanish topical DPs end up in the preverbal subject position while Background elements appear dislocated. Can current syntactic theories account for this? Two recent works (Rizzi 1997 and Zubizarreta 1998) offer specific proposals to account for syntactic-informational correlations of dislocated elements. That is, as opposed to previous purely syntactic accounts of dislocated elements, which did not account for their topical nature, these works connect the interpretation of dislocated elements with the positions they occupy. Although neither Rizzi (1997) nor Zubizarreta (1998) clearly distinguish between topics and non-focal elements or between non-dislocated preverbal subjects and dislocated phrases, both connect the position of peripheral elements to their topical interpretation. Rizzi (1997) considers CLLDs in Italian and proposes a variety of Topic Phrases where dislocated elements can satisfy the Topic Criterion. He assumes that CLLDs involve movement and thus brings these structures in line with current assumptions on movement, which needs to be triggered by the satisfaction of a criterion (Rizzi 1991) or in Chomsky's (1993) terms by the checking of a feature. Although I do not think that CLLDs involve movement (see below), I think that something like Rizzi's Topic Criterion can account for subject raising in Spanish. That is, only DPs with a Topic feature will raise to the preverbal subject position, the position reserved for sentence topics. Regarding the dislocated position of Background elements, I don't think that they are driven to that peripheral position by a topic feature, as Rizzi (1997) suggests. They are placed outside VP so that they are not interpreted as focal. From this perspective, they behave similarly to scrambled elements in Dutch as analyzed by Reinhart (1995), based on Cinque's (1993) theory. That is, the dislocated element in a sentence such as (43) is syntactically removed from the VP so that the focal element, Mark in this case, occupies the unmarked sentence-final focal position:

The syntax and semantics

(43)

of preverbal

topical phrases in Spanish

77

A los niños los llamó Mark to the children CI called Mark 'Mark called the children'

Notice that although a sentence such as (44) would still leave the focal element in the sentence-final focal position, if we were to leave "a los niños" inside the VP, as in (44), it could be interpreted as focal, due to the fact that sentence-final focus can project at least up to the whole VP.15 (44)

Llamó a los niños Mark

In this sense (44) would not mark narrow focus on the subject, as (43) does. In order to escape focus the object is dislocated, as in (43). Thus, the position of dislocated elements is related with their non-focal nature. This is similar to Zubizarreta (1998) who also relates the position of dislocated phrases with the preference in Romance to maintain focus-related sentence-final accent, and with the theory of focus projection. However, there are two differences. First, while I think that these Background elements are base-generated, as pointed out in the previous sections, she suggests that defocalized constituents undergo a prosodically motivated movement (p-movement). Second, Zubizarreta (1998) also seems to equate non-focal with topical and even though she relates the position of these elements with the theory of focus projection, similarly to Rizzi (1997), she also argues for the existence of topic features that get checked in T(ense)P. She proposes that in Spanish T P is a syncretic category where features such as "topic," "focus" or "emphasis" can combine with the feature tense. 16 As I have suggested here, dislocated elements behave more like Background elements rather than topics. This means that if we want to relate the position of these elements with a feature, a [-focus] feature seems more appropriate than multiple topic features. This, in turn would explain the difference between non-dislocated preverbal subjects and dislocated elements that we have seen here, which neither Zubizarreta (1998) nor Rizzi (1997) consider. While the position of dislocated elements is related with the theory of focus projection and the fact that these are non-focal (or Background) elements, the position of preverbal subjects can be related with a Topic-Criterion a la Rizzi (1997), since in Spanish only topical subjects raise to the preverbal subject position. From this perspective, if IP-external elements get interpreted as non-focal, we do not need multiple topic features or multiple topic phrases. Although I cannot explore here the consequences

78

Eugenia Casielles Suárez

of this analysis, this would mean that languages like Spanish have a direct syntax-informatics mapping where an element in the preverbal subject position is interpreted as the sentence topic and IP-external elements are interpreted as Background elements. In sum, in this paper I have shown that preverbal subjects differ from dislocated phrases both syntactically and informationally. I have pointed out that the term topical covers two different information primitives: the sentence Topic and the Background. I have suggested that in Spanish, sentence topics occupy the preverbal subject position while Background elements appear dislocated. From this perspective, while subject raising can be viewed as a Topic-driven movement, the position of Background elements is related with the theory of focus projection rather than with a Topic-driven movement.

Notes 1. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the VII Coloquio de Gramática Generativa, University of Oviedo April 1997, at the I Coloquio de Lingüística Hispánica, Miami University, Ohio, October 1997, and in talks at the Linguistics Program Coloquium at Wayne State University, December 1997 and the Linguistics Department Coloquium at Michigan State University, March 1998.1 thank the audiences there and an anonymous reviewer for their comments. Usual disclaimers apply. 2. The question-answer test is used here just to clarify the context. Although it is probably one of the most popular mechanisms used to identity topical and focal elements, it introduces other complications which will not be considered here. For instance, one would have to take into account that elliptical answers are often used in responses. For example, to a question such as 'Who called yesterday?', one can just answer: 'Paco'. In addition, since pronouns (full or empty) can be used in the answer, a totally different aspect having to do with the use of nouns vs. pronouns as topical elements also interferes. Thus, one might say that a question such as 'What's up with Paco?' would be answered using a pronoun instead of repeating the proper name: 'He called yesterday'. I will leave all these issues aside here. See Lambrecht (1994) for a useful discussion. 3. In (3) the subject appears postverbally, but, as we are going to see below, this is not necessarily the case. That is, CLLDs do not trigger inversion in Spanish, as questions and other preposing mechanisms do. See Cinque (1990) for some of the properties of CLLDs in Italian. As shown in Casielles (1997), the same properties hold of CLLDs in Spanish. 4. In (i)-(ii) we have some examples of FP in English and Spanish respectively. See Casielles (1998), Prince (1981) and Ward (1988) for more details on this construction and Rizzi (1997) for important differences between CLLDs and FPs in Italian. (i) FIDO they named it (Prince 1981 ) (ii) EN PRIMAVERA visitò Juan Leningrado (Hernanz and Brucart 1987) in spring visited Juan Leningrad 'IN T H E SPRING Juan visited Leningrad'

The syntax and semantics of preverbal topical phrases in Spanish

79

5. It should be noted that any phrase can be dislocated (not just objects and subjects). As the following examples show we can dislocate an AdjP, a PP, a CP, a gerund, etc. (i)

Tonto no lo parece 'Stupid he doesn't seem' (ii) De la conferencia no he oído nada 'About the lecture I haven't heard anything' (iii) Que fumas lo sabemos todos 'That you smoke we all know' (iv) Estudiando nunca está 'Studying he never is' 6. For this and related issues see Olarrea (1996) and Ordóñez (1997). 7. Although I cannot consider this here, I should mention that preverbal BN subjects improve dramatically if focused intonationally, as in (i). See Contreras (1986) and Casielles (1997) for an account of these cases. (i)

L A N G O S T A S destruyeron las cosechas (Contreras 1986) 'Grasshoppers destroyed the crops'

8. As opposed to non-bare dislocated DPs, a dislocated BN does not obligatorily trigger the appearance of the clitic. In fact, even when it appears optional in examples like (7), its appearance is quite rare and even ungrammatical for some speakers. Although this difference could make us think that we might be dealing with a different preposing mechanism, I do not think that is the case. First, we know that in languages such as English, for instance, where there is a preposing structure which involves a resumptive pronoun (Left-dislocation) and another one that does not (Topicalization), they cannot be mixed unordered in a sentence. However, notice that in Spanish dislocated BNs such as the one in (7) can co-occur intermingled with clear cases of clitic-left dislocated phrases in any order, as we have in (8). Second, we know that BNs trigger the appearance of a different clitic in other languages. Thus, in Catalan a partitive clitic appears when a BN is dislocated. Spanish has lost this type of clitic. Therefore, the absence or optionality of the clitic is probably related with the nature of the dislocated element, a BN in this case, and with the fact that its resumptive clitic is not available in Spanish rather than with the nature of the preposing mechanism. See Casielles (1996), Contreras (1991) and Vallduvi (1988) for more details and evidence that these are cases of CLLD without an overt clitic and not cases of Topicalization. 9. As (i) shows, where we have a dislocated subject, the contrast in grammaticality cannot be reduced to a subject-object asymmetry but to dislocated vs. non-dislocated phrases. (i)

Alumnos, no creo que vengan students not think-lsg that come-3pl 'Students, I don't think they will come'

10. The difference between Spanish BNs and English BNs could then be related with different properties of determiner phrases in these two languages, maybe having to do with strong/weak features of the determiner head or with the presence of an empty det head in English BNs but not in Spanish BNs. I leave this open for further research. 11. She proposes the Mapping Hypothesis in (i):

80

Eugenia Casielles Suárez (i)

12. 13.

14.

15. 16.

Mapping Hypothesis Material from VP is mapped into the Nuclear Scope Material from IP is mapped into the Restrictor

For English, since subjects have to obligatorily raise to IP for independent reasons, Diesing suggests that the existential reading in English involves reconstruction of the subject. See footnote 8. Although some effort has been made to find a structure that can account for all kind of sentences (see Vallduvfs (1992) hierarchical trichotomy), I have suggested (Casielles 1997,1999) that in fact there is no reason to expect all sentences to conform to a unique information structure. I think that we do not need to choose between the two traditional structures that have been independently used. That is, both dichotomies mentioned above are useful and compatible: some sentences have a topic-comment structure while others have a focus-background structure. From this point of view, it is not a matter of finding a unique articulation for all sentences but rather discovering how different languages express these two information structures: Topic-Comment and Focus-Background. See Erteschik-Shir (1997) and Vallduvx (1992) for two proposals about how information structure fits in the model. For the study of the syntax-informatics interface with particular reference to Spanish see Casielles (1997). For different theories of focus projection see Stechow and Uhmann (1984) and the references therein. To account for what she considers to be multiple topics, she suggests the following: "To the extent that there may be more than one topic per sentence, it is reasonable to assume that there may be more than one 'topic' feature that participates in the feature checking algorithm. Thus, besides the 'topic' feature on T, there may be a 'topic' feature on a functional category above TP ..." (Zubizarreta 1998:102).

References Campos, Héctor 1986 "Indefinite object drop", Linguistic Inquiry 17, 354-359. Casielles, Eugenia 1996 "On the Misbehavior of Bare Nouns in Spanish", in C. Parodi et al. (ed.) Aspects of Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the XXIV Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages at USC and UCLA, March 10-13, 1994. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. 1997 Topic, Focus and Bare Nomináis in Spanish, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 1998 "Focus Preposing it is called", in E. Benedicto, I. Romero and S. Tomioka (ed.) University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 21, 51-64. 1999 "Notes on the Topic-Focus Articulation", in Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach and Fernando Martinez-Gil (ed.) Advances in Hispanic Linguistics: Papers from the 2nd Hispanic Linguistics Colloquium at OSU. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press, 346-363. Chomsky, Noam 1971 "Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation", in Danny Steinberg & Leon Jacobovits, (eds.) Semantics. Cambridge: CUP, 183-216.

The syntax and semantics of preverbal topical phrases in Spanish 1993

81

"A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory", in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (ed.) The view from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo 1990 Types of A ' dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1993 "A null theory of phrase and compound stress", Linguistic Inquiry 24.2, 239297. Contreras, Heles 1976 A Theory of word order with special reference to Spanish. Amsterdam: NorthHolland. 1986 "Spanish bare NPs and the ECP", in Ivonne Bordelois, Heles Contreras and Karen Zagona (eds.) Generative studies in Spanish syntax. Dordrecht: Foris 1991 "On the position of subjects", Syntax and Semantics 25,63-79. Diesing, Molly 1990 "Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 41-79. 1992 Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Escribano, José L.G 1991 Una Teoría de la Oración. Oviedo: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Oviedo. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi 1997 The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: CUP. Firbas, Joshua 1964 "On defining the theme in functional sentence perspective", Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1.267-280. Gundel, Jeannette 1988 The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. New York: Garland. Halliday, Michael A.K. 1967 "Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English", Journal of Linguistics 3, 199244. Heim, Irene 1982 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Hernanz, María L. & José M. Brucart 1987 La Sintaxis. Barcelona: Crítica. Jackendoff, Ray 1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lambrecht, Knud 1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. Olarrea, Antxon 1996 Pre and Postverbal Subject Positions in Spanish: A Minimalist Account, Ph.D dissertation, University of Washington. Ordóñez, Francisco 1997 Word Order and Clause Structure in Spanish and Other Romance Languages, Ph. D dissertation, The City University of New York. Prince, Ellen F. 1981 "Topicalization, Focus-Movement and Yiddish-Movement: a pragmatic differentiation", Proceedings of the seventh annual meeting Berkeley Linguistics Society, 249-64.

82

Eugenia Casielles Suárez

Reinhart, Tanya 1982 "Pragmatics and Linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics", Philosophica 27, 53-94. 1995 Interface Strategies. Ms, OTS/Utrecht University. Rivero, María L. 1980 " O n left-dislocation and topicalization in Spanish", Linguistic Inquiry 11,363393. Rizzi, Luigi 1991 "Residual Verb Second and the Wh Criterion", Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics 2, University of Geneva. 1997 "The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery" in L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281-337. Rochemont, Michael 1986 Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Selkirk, Lisa 1984 Phonology and Syntax The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Sgall, Peter, Eva Hajicovà & J. Panevovà 1986 The Meaning of the Sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel. Stechow, Arnim von & Stephen Uhmann 1984 "Some Remarks on Focus Projection", in Werner Abraham and Sjaak de Meij (ed.) Topic, Focus and Configurationality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vallduvi, Enric 1988 "Functional load, prosody and syntax: left-detachment in Catalan and Spanish", CLS 24, 391-404. 1992 The Informational Component. New York: Garland. Ward, Greg 1985 The Semantics and Pragmatics of Preposing. New York: Garland. Zubizarreta, María. L. 1998 Word Order, Prosody and Focus. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

II. Clitics

On the doubling of overt operators1 Jon Franco

1. Introduction It has b e e n claimed in the literature on Spanish clitic doubling (cf. Borer 1984, H u r t a d o 1985, Jaeggli 1982, 1986, and Suñer 1988, 1992, a m o n g many others) that w/i-words, negative quantifiers, and universal and existential quantifiers cannot be clitic-doubled by an accusative clitic, as illustrated in (la-c): 2 (1) a. *¿A quién¡ lo¡ viste? to w h o m ACC-CL3sg saw-2sg ' W h o did you see?' b. *No lOj vi a nadie¡. not ACC-CL3sg saw-lsg to nobody Ί didn't see anyone.' c. *Lo¡ vi a alguien¡. ACC-CL3sg saw-lsg to s o m e o n e Ί saw someone.' In the generative f r a m e w o r k , the ungrammaticality of the data in (1) has been attributed by Suñer (1988) to a constraint which forces all clitic-doubled D O elements to be [-(-specific]. However, independently of how legitimate it may or may not be to assign a specifity value to b a r e quantifiers, several instances have been attested in which the leista version of the sentence in ( l a ) constitutes a grammatical utterance in some leista Spanish dialects f r o m Argentina (cf. B o r e r 1984) and the Basque Country (cf. Franco 1991, and L a n d a 1995), as in (2) below: (2)

¿ A quién¡ le¡ viste? to w h o m ACC-CL3sg saw-2sg ' W h o did you see?'

Unexpectedly, the direct object ννΛ-word in (2), unlike in ( l a ) , is grammatically clitic-doubled by a third person clitic which also agrees in num-

86

Jon Franco

ber. In fact, the construction in (2) poses a problem for most formal accounts of the data in (1) and is in need of an additional explanation. In this regard, I claim that the unexpected grammaticality of (2) is not due to a variation in conditions of well-formedness on clitic doubling between teista clitic doubling dialects on the one hand, and other clitic doubling dialects or even Standard Spanish on the other, but to the default interpretation of overt operators available across Spanish dialects. This paper is organized as follows. Section 1 reviews previous analyses of the phenomenon under study. Section 2 presents a further distribution of the data, in view of which Suñer's specificity requirement on clitic doubling is recast in terms of presuppositionality for the sake of accuracy. Section 3 attempts to derive the presuppositionality requirement by positing the existence of a pro which occurs as a complement of the cliticdoubled operator and that is ultimately responsible for the satisfaction of the matching of features (an agreement relation) between the quantifier phrase and the clitic. Section 4 deals with the licensing of discourse bound pro. Finally, a section of final remarks in which further syntactic correlations with this type of clitic doubling are pointed out is included.

2. Previous analyses Borer (1984) adscribes the grammaticality of (2) as well as the ungrammaticality of (la) to a Matching Principle. In essence, according to Borer, clitics are the spellout of Case features, and the wh-word a quién in (1) and (2) bears dative Case, as its occurrence with the preposition a 'to' may indicate. Thus, the wh-word matches with the etymological dative clitic le in (2), but not with the etymological accusative clitic lo in (1). Nevertheless, this account is untenable on several grounds. First, the prepositional particle a in (1) and (2) does not signal any dative Case marking on the wh-word phrase since most animate accusative DO in Spanish are preceded by this pseudopreposition. Second, the leísmo phenomenon in these dialects, as argued in Landa (1995) does not consist in the plain substitution of the dative clitic le for the regular etymological form of the accusative clitic, i.e., lo, la, but in the prominence of the feature [animate person] over the feature gender in the clitic paradigm. Independently, in Franco (1988) it is argued that the absence of the feature [gender] on the wh-word quantifier yields improper agreement with the masculine feature of the clitic lo in (1), whereas the underspecification of the feature gender on the clitic le facilitates the well-formedness

On the doubling of overt operators

87

of agreement relations between the quantifier and the clitic. This analysis is also bound to fail when confronted with new pieces of evidence in which masculine quantifiers fail to be clitic-doubled by the masculine clitic lo(s), as exemplified in (3): (3) *¿A cuántos, (hombres) los¡ mataron en la guerra civil? to how-many (men) ACC-CL3pl killed in the war civil 'How many (men) were killed in the civil war?' (under the strict cardinal reading of how many men) In (3), the w/î-element a cuántos 'to how many' agrees in gender, number and person with the clitic los, and still the sentence is ungrammatical. Additionally, both analyses above, that is, Borer (1984) and Franco (1988) can be uniformly called into question by crucial evidence drawn from laista dialects which highlight the feature femenine gender and in which the IO w/î-word is grammatically doubled by the etymological form of the accusative clitic la, as shown in (4): (4)

¿A quién¡ la¡ preguntaste? to whom CL3sg.Fem asked-2sg 'To whom did you ask?'

(Laista dialect from Castile)

It is clear that the grammaticality of the sentence in (4) shows that the contrast between (la) and (2) is neither a clitic lo versus a clitic le issue nor a matching violation of the feature gender. The clitic form is not the source of the ungrammaticality of (1); therefore, we must look for a solution in the other components of the construction.

3. The referentiality condition on W/r/quantifier clitic-doubling On a further introspection into the data from leista dialects, we find that w/z-extractions from accusative clitic doubling structures like that in (2) are actually sensitive to the possibility of linking the w/i-word with a class of elements inferred from the discourse context. That is to say, the sentence in (2) is only grammatical provided it occurs in a context of the type illustrated in the dialogue in (5):

88

Jon Franco

(5) a.—Esta mañana, he estado en el club. 'This morning, I went to the club' b. — ¿Ah sí? ¿Y a quién^e; has visto? Oh yeah And to whom ACC-CL3sg have-lsg seen 'Oh really? And who did you see?' Thus, the vf/i-word a quién in (5b) (or in (2) for that matter) can only refer to the members of a class, for instance, that of club members in (5b), and not to all possible animate entities. Additional evidence from clitic-doubled negative quantifiers and universal quantifiers seems to confirm the same discourse-linked requirement for clitic-doubled overt operators, as shown in the sentences in (6), which have been provided as possible answers to the question of the dialogue in (5): (6) a. No le¡ he visto a nadie¡. not ACC-CL3sg have-lsg seen to nobody Ί haven't seen anyone.' b. Les¡ he visto a todos¡. ACC-CL3sg have-lsg seen to everybody Ί have seen everbody/them all.' At first sight, the data in (5) and (6) seem to evoke Suñer's original idea that clitic-doubled elements must be [+specific]. Yet, an analysis built on the specifity of the doubled elements puts us in an awkward position when facing the data in (2). Firstly, operators cannot be inherently or lexically marked [+/-specific], otherwise, there would be two kinds of quiéninterrogatives, the specific one and the non-specific. Secondly, this type of feature value assignment gives us the impression that the quantifier phrase can arbitrarily be marked [+/-specific]. Bearing these considerations in mind, I am going to side along with the idea that the specificity requirement can be independently derived and encoded in the syntax (cf. Diesing (1992a,b), and Franco and Mejias-Bikandi (1999)) among others. Consequently, I am going to reapproach what we can call "the specifity constraint" from a different angle. Nevertheless, the descriptive power of this constraint will be integrated within a much more general constraint on Spanish clitic doubling, namely, only presupposed entities can be doubled by a DO clitic, which is somehow reflected in the discourse-linked condition exemplified by (5), (see Franco (1993) and Franco and Mejias-Bikandi (1997) in this regard). Supplementary clitic doubling data on w/z-words lend further support to this view, as illustrated in the sentences in (7):

On the doubling of overt operators

89

(7) a. ¿Adivina a quién¡ le¡ he visto? guess to whom ACC-CL3sg have-lSg seen 'Guess who I saw?' b. ¿A qué no sabes a quién¡ le¡ he visto? to what not know to whom ACC-CL3sg have-lSg seen Ί bet you don't know who I saw!' Obviously, if the hearer of the questions in (7) is asked who is the person the speaker saw is, that person must be an individual whose existence is presupposed at least by the speaker. Let us compare these sentences in (7) with (8) below: (8)

¡Vaya cara de susto! *¿A quién¡ le¡ has visto, what a-face of fear to whom ACC-CL3sg have-lSg seen a un fantasma? to a ghost 'What a scared face! Who did you see? A ghost?'

In (8), the ννΛ-word refers to any imaginable human-shaped creature, the set is open; additionally the speaker has an afterthought and suggests a hypothetical ghost as a cliché of something scary and indeterminate, regardless of whether he or she believes in the existence of ghosts. Having examined the data carefully, we can rephrase the problem in slighty different terms. It is not the case that Basque Spanish allows (2) throughout. There are many instances in which (2) would be disallowed if placed in certain contexts, as shown in (8). In this sense, Basque Spanish is not so different from the River Plate and Porteño Spanish dialects described in Jaeggli (1982, 1986) and Suñer (1988) respectively. However, unlike River Plate or Porteño Spanish, the referential interpretation of the quantifier seems to be the default one in Basque Spanish. Now, our object of investigation is to unveil how a bare w/i-word/quantifier can be interpreted referentially and hence, meet the alleged presuppositionality constraint on D O clitic doubling.

90

Jon Franco

4. A first approach to clitic doubled referential w/i-elements and quantifiers Let us assume, in the spirit of Borer (1984), Fernández-Soriano (1989), Silva Corvalán (1981, 1984), Saltarelli (1987) and Suñer (1988, 1992), among many others, that the clitic and the doubled phrase are in an agreement relation. Furthermore, along the lines of Franco (1993) within the Minimalist framework, the clitic heads an AGRo projection and checks its features against the doubled phrase in a Spec-head relation. Under this view, it is not unreasonable to assume that featurewise quantifiers are defective phrases; 3 in this way, insufficient matching of features is obtained between the clitic and the quantifier phrase. This would account for the ungrammaticality of (1) in which the phi-features of the clitic will remain unchecked by the wh-words and quantifiers which are underspecified for phi-features. However, the same analysis will leave the well-formedness of (2) unexplained since here also a feature deficient w/z-word would fail to check the phi-features of the clitic. Still, let us recall that one of the characteristics that distinguishes the quantifier in (2) from that in (1) is that the former is referential, 4 hence, it is also presuppositional. The relevant question now is how to encode presuppositionality in a formal syntactic and semantic relation without falling back to the feature value assignment device (with respect to presuppositionality) in quantifier phrases. For this purpose, it is arresting to note that in parallel to the occurrence of clitic-doubled bare quantifiers, there exist clitic doubled complex quantifier phrases which are standardly considered presuppositional, that is, inherent partitives (cf. Diesing 1992a), as exemplified in (9): (9)

¿A quién¡ de ellos¡ lo/le; viste? to whom of them ACC-CL3sg saw-2sg 'Which of them did you see?'

In (9), the w/z-partitive phrase agrees with the D O clitic in person, number, and even gender in the Porteño dialect. Nonetheless, the agreement relation is not necessarily carried out with the wh-word but with the ofphrase, as in (10): (10) a. ¿A quiénes (de nosotros¡) nos¡ deportarán? to which of us ACC-CL1P1. deport-Fut.3Pl 'Which ones of us will be deported?'

On the doubling

of overt operators

91

b. ¿Quiénes (de nosotros;) correremos¡ mañana? which of us run-Fut.lPl. tomorrow 'Which ones of us will run tomorrow?' In (10a), the DO clitic nos 'us' agrees with the o/-phrase de nosotros. Identical facts are obtained in (10b) with the subject-verb agreement morphology. Significantly, these sentences alternate with the covert realization of the o/-phrase as indicated by the parenthesis; hence, the sentence in (11) below with different realizations of feature person on the agreement clitic is also possible: (11)

¿A quiénes¡ nos¡/os¡/les¡ deportaran? to which-Pl ACC-CL1P1/2P1/3P1. deport-Fut.3Pl 'Which (ones) of us/you/them will be deported?'

The clitic nos 'us' in (11) leaves the reader with no choice but the specific interpretation of the w/i-word. The version with the clitic nos in (11) is perfectly grammatical not only in Porteño Spanish, but also in all Spanish dialects. It is my contention in this paper that what we are witnessing in examples (2) and (9) on the one hand, and (10) and (11) on the other, is the overt and covert realization of a partitive pronominal. Relevantly, a similar claim is put forward in Suñer (1988) for examples like (10). Extending and qualifying Suñer's insight, I specifically propose that in Basque Spanish, it is also the case that bare quantifiers and bare w/z-elements doubled by a third person DO clitic carry along either an overt partitive pronominal or an empty category pro (Chomsky 1982) which mediates the proper checking of features between the operator and the clitic. One of the original foundations of this analysis lies in: (i) the standard assumption that Spanish object clitics identify object pro (Jaeggli 1986, Suñer 1992); and (ii) the fact that all Spanish dialects obligatorily clitic-double pronominal objects, as in (12a,b) below. Moreover, Spanish makes use of the possibility to realize this pronominal covertly or overtly, as in (12a): (12) a. LeSj vi a ellos/proj. ACC-CL3P1. saw.lsg. to them Ί saw them.' b. *Vi a ellosj. saw.lsg. to them Ί saw them.'

92

Jon Franco

Taking advantage of this strategy already present in the grammar of Spanish, I hypothesize an extension of the overt/covert pronominal object alternation to inherent object partitives and more importantly to clitic doubled object quantifiers and wh-words. Let us next consider a clinching piece of evidence in favor of the existence of pro in quantifier phrases that shows that my positing of this empty category in this type of clitic doubling constructions is not only analysisinternally motivated. The relevant data in this case are drawn from the socalled non-clitic doubling dialects which hardly allow any DO doubling with non-pronominals. Strikingly, there are some cases of clitic-doubled quantifiers in these dialects in which the absence of the clitic yields ungrammatically, as exemplified in (13): (13)

Superman ??/*(lo¡) puede todo¡. (Castilian Spanish) Superman ACC-CL3Sg. can everything 'Superman can do it all/anything.'

To our advantage, under my analysis, the obligatory presence of the clitic in (13) does not come as an exception to the grammar of non-clitic doubling dialects. That is, since clitic-doubling with pronouns is mandatory in all Spanish dialects the presence of the clitic would be required in order to license a pro in the canonical object position. In addition, the possibility for the clitic to check off its features against a pronominal in a spechead agreement relation is enough to meet the syntactic conditions on clitic doubling. Notice that this licensing mechanism is independent of whether the pronominal refers to a specific entity or not, as shown by (14a) and (14b): (14) a. Juan lo¡ sabe todo prOj. Juan ACC-CL3Sg. know everything 'Juan knows it all' b. Ciertas personas lo¡ saben todo prOj. Certain people ACC-CL3Sg. know everything 'Some people know everything.' In (14a), Juan has some specific knowledge of a subject or an affair, for instance. In (14b), the correct reading would be that there are certain people who know all about everything and a sarcastic meaning is intended. At first sight, this could be an exception to the presuppositionality requirement. However, the reason why clitic-doubling is sanctioned in

On the doubling of overt operators

93

(14b) is because the doubled element is a pronoun and, in principle, pronouns, regardless of their semantics, behave like all presuppositional elements. That is, following Diesing (1992ab), Franco and Mejias-Bikandi (1997) and Suñer (1999) they get scoped out of the VP and enter into agreement relations in some functional category, 5 as shown in the mapping of (14a) onto the syntactic tree in (15): (15)

CP

todo pro,

AGR' lOj

VP

sabe

t,

Yet, the data in (13) and (14) are challenging in more than one way, namely, in these instances, clitic doubling takes place with an inanimate element, that is, todo. In light of the proposal defended here, this construction is accounted for without further amendment by assuming that the doubling initially takes place with the implicit pro, but not with the quantifier todo. That is, the clitic directly licenses the null pronominal which in this case I consider to be the head of the D P object. 6 Recall once again that in Standard Spanish all non-arbitrary object pros require a clitic. However, this solution brings to the arena the question of why D O clitic doubling cannot occur with this hypothetical implicit pro, when the whword or negative quantifier has inanimate reference, as exemplified in the contrasts in (16):

94

Jon Franco

(16) a. *¿Qué, lo¡ trajiste? what ACC-CL3Sg. brought-2sg. 'What did you bring (it)?' b. ¿ A quién¡ le¡ trajiste en coche? to whom ACC-CL3Sg. brought-2sg. in car 'Who did you bring (him) by car?' c. * N o lo¡ traje nada¡. not ACC-CL3Sg. brought-lSg. nothing Ί didn't bring (it) anything' d. N o le¡ traje a nadie¡ en coche, not ACC-CL3Sg. brought-ISg. to nobody in car Ί didn't bring (him) anybody in the car' To account for these contrasts, a natural solution that comes to our mind is that the word todo in (14) and the quantifiers in (16) bear a different structural relation with the implicit pro. In short, we could say that the w/i-word qué in (16a) is the head of the object phrase, or that it has raised to the D head of the DP, for that matter,7 and crucially, this head is inanimate and underspecified with respect to presuppositionality. Now, even though the phi-features from the implicit pro abstractly incorporate into the quantifier,8 the inanimate status of the D head of the object phrase cannot be changed. Therefore, the checking of features between the D O clitic and the wh-word in (16a) collapses since clitic doubling with overt inanimates is highly infelicitous in most Spanish dialects.9 On the other hand, in (14) pro is the head in the toJo-phrase. When the whole object D P phrase moves to spec of A G R P D O (Chomsky 1991, and Chomsky and Lasnik 1993), it does not matter whether this pro, as head of the DP, is animate or not in order for agreement to take place since null pronominals are not sensitive to the animacy distinction and are by default presuppositional. Actually, the main obstacle for a uniform analysis of universal quantifiers and other quantifiers (and w/z-words) in Spanish is that the data with iodo-phrases are obscured by the existence of two kinds of todo elements which, in rough, we can say correspond to English all and every. Basically, English all has characteristics in common with definite determiners, demonstratives, and w/z/c/i-phrases, whereas everything exhibits the properties of a regular quantifier. Because of the homonymy of all and every in Spanish, the occurrence of todo by itself—especially in null object dialects such as Quiteño Spanish—yields ambiguity, as pointed out in Suñer (1988). Thus, vimos todo can mean 'we saw it all', or 'we saw everything'.

On the doubling

of overt operators

95

Along the lines of Jaeggli (1982), under the first reading, todo would be of a modifier type, whereas under the second, todo would be the head type which resembles a true quantifier or a w/z-word. Interestingly, when todo co-occurs with overt nomináis, only the modifier-type can be clitic doubled. This can be easily seen in the contrast in (17) below: (17) a. ???/*María le¡ odia a todo¡ hombre con corbata María ACC-CL3Sg. hates to every man with tie 'Maria hates every man with a tie.' b. María les¡ odia a todos los hombres¡ con corbata María ACC-CL3Sg hates to every the men with tie 'Maria hates every man with a tie (all men with ties).' Once the possibility of occurrence of an implicit pro is removed by the presence of the D O nominal elements occupying the position of that pronominal, as in (17), ambiguity is not possible anymore. Now the facts are more clear. In (17a), the quantifier todo is the head of the DP object and, as a defective category for phi-feature checking, it fails to enter in an agreement relation with the clitic. In contrast, todos is not the head of the D P object in (17b), but a premodifier, and the primary object agreement relation takes place between the clitic and the phrase los hombres 'the men'. To recapitulate: (i) clitic-doubled bare quantifiers, when allowed, are referential and, (ii) some dialects can interpret bare quantifiers as discourse bound and some cannot. Moreover, I have proposed that the grammatical occurrence of these particular clitic-doubled operators follows straightforwardly from the existence of an accompanying pronominal element which is often phonologically null. In this way, the clitic doubling construction under study, which is ultimately an agreement relation, is sanctioned since the clitic can check its features against this implicit pronoun, and the pronoun itself counts as a presuppositional element. Thus, the pronominal element satisfies the two main requirements of D O clitic doubling constructions, namely, proper matching of features and that the doubled element be presuppositional. In this initial approach, we can reduce the asymmetry between (1) and (2) to the following: some dialects can easily license null 3rd person pros accompanying D O clitic-doubled quantifiers, whereas others require an overt realization of this pronominal, in the form of a partitive, along with the quantifier, for the clitic doubling construction to hold.

96

Jon Franco

5. A step beyond: Discourse bound pro and clitic doubling From the data examined in this paper, and from a descriptive point of view, we can say that the presuppositional status of the object plays a crucial role as far as clitic-doubled DPs, ννΛ-words and quantifiers are concerned (see Suñer 1988, Franco 1993, Franco and Mejias-Bikandi 1997, and Franco and Mejias-Bikandi 1999 for a similar view of Spanish DO clitic doubling in general). That is to say, the referent of a clitic-doubled element may or may not be a previously uttered DP, but it never fails to be presuppositional. Notwithstanding, independently of whether they refer to presupposed entities or not, all pronouns can qualify as presuppositional due to their inherent composition which is strictly made up of phi-features. In this way, an implicit pronoun rescues the clitic doubling construction in the sentence in (14b) Ciertas personas lo¡ saben todo i pro 'some people know everything' in which the doubled object is non-referential. The solution presented so far opens the issue of ways to license pro in general, and in examples such as that of (11) and illustrated below again for convenience: (11)

¿A quiénes pro¡ noSj/oSj/leSj deportarán? to which-Pl ACC-CL1P1/2P1/3P1. deport-Fut.3Pl 'Which (ones) of us/you/them will be deported?'

If the clitic agrees with a null pronominal element in (11) above, for instance, it is legitimate to ask where this pronoun gets its features from. 10 Given the wide range of agreement options in (11), it does not seem that the phi-features of the clitic can be predetermined in the lexicon (contra Chomsky 1993)11, quite on the contrary, these features seem to acquire their specification from the discourse. With respect to this issue, Runner (1994:171) expands former work by Borer (1989) and claims that "AGR can also be like a discourse anaphor, that is, have pronominal features, like a pronoun it must be bound but within its discourse rather that within its sentence, (sic)" I am going to depart from Runner's analysis in that in my proposal, it is the pro category, and not AGR, that is bound (or free) in the discourse, this being a property of true pronominals. Now if pro is discourse bound and complement of a quantifier, the discourse binder provides this element with values for the pertinent phi-features so that in (11) for instance, the clitic can check off its features and surface as les/nos 'them/us' or os 'you'

On the doubling of overt operators

97

accordingly. Conversely, if pro is discourse free we get the default third person for the clitic as in (14b). 12 In fact, it is the lexicalization of phifeatures in the form of an agreeing clitic that identifies this pro in both cases.13 Furthermore, in Runner's system, the specifity requirement for the agreeing phrase with the clitic is derived via this binding relation between "some discourse referent" and AGR, provided that the agreeing phrase and AGR are in a Spec-head relation. However, the occurrence in Spanish of discourse free novel nomináis in clitic doubling constructions as the one exemplified in (18) constitutes a challenge for this system:14

(18)

Le¡ he visto a un estudiante! ACC-CL3Sg have-lSg seen to a student en la playa in the beach Ί have seen a student in the beach.'

(Basque Spanish)

The sentence in (18) can be uttered, informally speaking, out of the blue. The only requirement is that the speaker knew of the existence of that student before the moment of speech. Runner (1994:171) avoids this problem by stating that a discourse referent is "a previously uttered DP or a Presupposed one". Going back to examples (2) and (7), this distribution of the data pushes us to focus our research on a new inquiry, that is, we have to determine how presupposed entities in the speaker's mind can become actual discourse referents for clitic doubled-elements. Let us begin by analyzing the syntactic derivation of (2) step by step. The wh-word or the quantifier moves first to spec of the AGR D O head, before it moves to [Spec, CP], This movement is triggered by the strong nature in minimalist terms of the features of the AGR D O head, which in Spanish are lexicalized in the form of a D O clitic as shown in (19) (see Benedicto 1994). Moreover, following a suggestion in Rouveret (1996), I am going to propose that presuppositionality is a categorial feature of strong AGR D O . Be that as it may, these strong features of A G R D O demand the raising of the D O element out of the VP to their specifier for their feature checking satisfaction. This operation is highly reminiscent of Diesing's (1992a,b) account of presuppositional versus existential entities.

98

(19)

Jon Franco

CP C' c

TP Τ' Τ

AGR DO P

A quién,

AGR'

le¡ viste,

VP V'

The situation at this point of the derivation is the following: there is a quantifier/w/z-phrase in spec of A G R D O against which the clitic head is going to check its features. In addition, by raising the object DP outside the VP, this DP has a better access to a discourse referent. From this mapping, there are two possibilities: (i) if there is no discourse referent available the derivation crashes for the reasons stated above with respect to the defective nature of quantifiers for feature checking; and (ii) if there is a discourse referent that can be associated with the raised quantifier DP a pro element inside this DP can be licensed and the feature checking with the clitic will go through. This second possibility takes us back to the original problem, namely, how presuppositions in the human mind can create a discourse referent. At this stage of the argumentation, I am going to adopt Rizzi's (1997) structure of the left periphery of the sentence. In this way, illocutionary force and finiteness are realized in different projections, For(ce)P and Fin(ite)P There is also a TOP head projecting a TOP(ic) phrase (TopP) above CP, Foc(us)P in Rizzi's system. Relevantly, under my analysis this TOP head, among other features, has the feature [+prominent] in clitic doubling constructions. This TOP head licenses the pro category accompanying the quantifier sitting downstairs in spec of A G R D O under c-com-

On the doubling of overt operators

99

mand and coindexation. 15 In turn, the A G R clitic checks its features with this discourse licensed pro and again renders its actual identification, as illustrated in (20): (20) ForP

For

TopP

A quién¡pro^AGR^ le, vistek

VP

tk

t,

In the flavor of Chomsky (1995), I would also like to state that the residual features of the clitic-doubled element would raise to spec of T O P at the LF component in order to satisfy the weak features of the target T O P (cf. Lasnik 1993 in regard to the satisfaction of the target features). This would be the topic counterpart of Rizzi's (1990) W/i-criterion. It is worth noting that at the same time, this movement accounts for the wide scope interpretation of clitic-doubled elements and for the high topicality that null pronominals have too. In sum, it is the T O P phrase that mediates the creation of a discourse referent for presuppositional entities.

100

Jon Franco

6. Final remarks: The micro-parameter In this paper, I have discussed a set of data on clitic-doubled quantifiers that at first sight seemed to be exceptions to the regular patterns of Spanish DO clitic doubling. I showed that the construction in question was epiphenomenal, in the sense that clitic-doubled w/i-elements and quantifiers are crucially of a referential nature and "hide" a null pronominal. Thus, the conditions on Spanish DO clitic doubling in these constructions are simply satisfied by the existence of quantifiers involving the occurrence of the pro element that I posit here. To elucidate which property(ies) of the grammar of Basque Spanish or of the Spanish data discussed in Borer (1984) allows us to interpret bare quantifiers as having a discourse bound null pronominal, is a long term project that falls out of the scope of this paper. In any event, one line of thought I would like to suggest is that the possibility of having DO cliticdoubled bare quantifiers carrying along discourse bound null pronominale correlates to the fact that the dialects represented in (2) allow plain referential null objects pros without any identifying clitic,16 as shown in Franco & Landa (1991), and Landa (1993, 1995), and illustrated in the sentence from Basque Spanish in (21): (21)

No tenemos el ordenador¡ porque María not have-lPl the computer because Maria dijo que necesitaba pro¡ para el fin de semana, said that needed-3Sg for the weekend 'We don't have the computer because Mary said she was going to need it for the weekend'

If this observation is on the right track, the asymmetry in (1) and (2) boils down to whether a grammar can license referential third person null object pro via discourse binding or not. In other words, the asymmetry between (1) and (2) is geared on the selection of the TOP/AGR parameter as pro licensers, along the lines of Saltarelli (1987:814)(see also Cole 1984, and Huang 1982). Thus, whereas the grammars of Porteño Spanish and of many other Spanish varieties uniquely select clausal AGR as the licenser of null pronominals, Basque Spanish, or Portuguese for that matter, uses a dual strategy and selects two licensers, namely, TOP and AGR. Significantly, it is the TOP head that sanctions third person pro in quantifier phrases.

On the doubling of overt operators

101

Notes 1. The original source of the intellectual stimulation for the study of this phenomenon goes back to discussions with Osvaldo Jaeggli in the Fall of 1989 at USC. Subsequently, the paper started taking shape and benefitted from informal conversations with Joseph Aoun, Alfredo Arnaiz, Alazne Landa, Juan Martín, Errapel Mejias-Bikandi, Mario Saltarelli and Margarita Suñer. The actual writing of the paper was done during my stay as a visiting scholar at U C L A in the Spring Quarter of 1998. The assistance of Javier GutiérrezRexach in the latest version of the paper is also highly appreciated. All the usual disclaimers apply. 2. This phenomenon is also known as anti-agreement effects (Cf. Brandi and Cordin 1989, and Ouhalla 1993). 3. Evidence for the defective status of quantifiers with respect to their phi-feature make up can be drawn for their inability to occur in the plural. For example, the forms *nadies 'nobody+Pl.' or *alguienes 'somebody+Pl' are non-existent. Also, it is not clear whether whwords are inherently specified for third person at all. For instance, subject w/i-words may agree with first or second person morphology on the verb: (i) ¿Quiénes saldremos/saldréis primero? which ones leave-lPl/ leave-2Pl first 'Which ones of us/of you will leave first?' 4. In this paper, my usage of the term referential quantifier, for lack of a better word, is not related to that of Cinque's (1990) to whom w/z-phrases such as which books are referential w/i-phrases. Thus, in this work, the term referential quantifier is understood as an item that refers to the members of a set of definite elements. Notice that in its full form, the referential quantifier takes only definite complements: (i) ¿A quién de los estudiantes? 'Who of the students?'

vs. *¿A quién de unos estudiantes? 'Who of some students?'

In any case, the notion of referential quantifier will become clear in the examples to follow in the main text. 5. To be faithful to the data, it should be pointed out that the pronominal overt/covert alternation does not take place in the sentences in (13) or (14). Still, this does not constitute counterevidence to my analysis. The main reason why we do not get an overt manifestation of the pronominal in these sentences is simply because the inanimate third person pronoun in Spanish ello 'it' has a very restricted distribution and hardly ever occurs in the canonical object position (cf. Jaeggli 1982 and Franco 1993), as shown below: (i) *Lo¡ vi ellOj ACC-CL3Sg saw-lSg it Ί saw it'. (ii)??Lo¡ vi todo ello; muy sucio. ACC-CL3Sg saw-lSg all it very dirty Ί saw it all very dirty'. Actually, the improvement in (ii) might be due to an additional reading that one can also get, namely, Ί saw it was dirty throughout'. In any event, we could safely state that in the bulk of data on clitic doubling which come from animate objects, the pro associated with universal quantifiers in my hypothesis may surface overtly:

102

Jon Franco (iii) Les¡ conocía a todos cllos/pra,. ACC-CL3Sg knew-ISg. to all them Ί knew them all'.

6. Also, these data shed direct light on apparent violations of the Weak Crossover Constraint (hence W C O ) in Spanish clitic doubling constructions. Thus, following the rationale of my analysis, the sentence in (i) below would never constitute a W C O violation since there would be no offensive variable but a trace of referential nature: (i)

Su¡ madre los¡ quiere a todos¡ pro /(ellos ¡). His mother Acc-CL loves to everybody them. 'His mother loves them all'.

7. Evidence from the complementarity between the definite article and the seems to support this claim:

wh-word

(i)

¿A qué (*el) hombre viste? to which the man saw-2Sg. 'Which man did you see?' (ii) ¿Qué (*el) libro trajiste? which the book brought-2Sg. 'Which book did you bring?' 8. The fact that we cannot have singular w/¡-elements when the doubling clitic is plural can be considered prima facie evidence that the features from the pronominal incorporate into the ννΛ-word: (i)

*¿A quién¡ pro¡ nos¡ viste? to whom ACC-CLlpl. saw-2Sg. 'Who (of us) did you see?' (ii) ¿A quiénes¡ pro¡ nos¡ viste? To whom-Pl. ACC-CLlpl. saw-2Sg. 'Who (of us) did you see?' 9. Even in the few cases in which we can count on the presence of an overt inanimate pronominal partitive, the inanimate wh-word by virtue of being the head of the object phrase bans the clitic doubling structure: (i)

*¿Qué de ellOj lo¡ cogiste? what of it ACC-CL3Sg. took-2Sg. 'Which part did you take?'

10. Incidentally, this takes us back to the long-standing debate regarding whether it is the head or the phrase that is the source of features in agreement relations (cf. Barlow and Ferguson 1988 for the directionality of agreement). 11. Chomsky (1993) assumes that the verb comes from the lexicon to the syntax fully dressed, that is, with all the inflectional morphology attached to it. 12. From our analysis of todo-phrases versus w/î-phrases in section 3, we could argue that in (11), pro is embedded in the D P phrase, so the discourse referent is going to be its licenser, whereas in (12) and (14b) pro as the head of the D P is directly licensed by the

On the doubling of overt operators

13.

14. 15.

16.

103

clitic in a Spec-head relation. Significantly, the empty pronominal in (14b) is discourse free. At this point, it becomes clear that as far as clitic doubled w/i-words/quantifiers are concerned there is a divorce between the licenser of pro and its identifier (cf. Rizzi 1986 in this regard). Moreover, there stands the phenomenon of non-anaphoric A G R heads as a piece of counterevidence to the discourse binding of A G R heads across the board. To our advantage, having a T O P head as a pro licenser makes it feasible to conceive formal ways to control the overt/covert alternation of pronominals in null subject/object languages (cf. Montalbetti's 1984 Overt Pronoun Constraint). See Kany (1969) for the raw data on null objects in Southern Cone Spanish dialects.

References Barlow, Michael and Charles Ferguson 1988 Introduction. In Barlow, M. and Ferguson J., ed. Agreement in Natural Language. CSLI. Standford. pp. 1-22. Benedicto, Elena 1994 AGR, Phi-features, V-movement: Identifying pro. In Functional Projections, ed. by Benedicto E. and J. Runner. GLSA UMass, Amherst. Borer, Hagit 1984 Parametric Syntax, Dordrecht: Foris. 1989 Anaphoric A G R . In Jaeggli O. & K. Safir (eds.) The Null Subject Parameter. Kluwer, 69-110. Brandi, Luciana and Patrizia Cordin 1989 Two Italian Dialects and the Null Subject Parameter. In Jaeggli O. & K. Safir (ed.) The Null Subject Parameter. Kluwer, 69-110. Chomsky, Noam 1982 Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1991 Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation. In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, Freidin R. (ed.), 417-454. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1993 A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In Hale K. and S.J. Keyser (ed.) The View from Building 20, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1995 The Minimalist Program. MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik 1993 Principles and Parameters Theory. In Jacobs J., A. van Stechow, W. Sternefeld, and T. Vennemann, ed. Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Cinque, Guglielmo 1990 Types of A '-Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cole, Peter 1987 Null Objects in Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry. 18, 4:597-612. Diesing, Molly 1992a Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1992b Bare plural Subjects and the Derivation of Logical Representations. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 353-380.

104

Jon Franco

Fernández-Soriano, Olga 1989 Rección y Ligamiento en Español: Aspectos del Parámetro del Sujeto Nulo. Doctoral Dissertation, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, Spain. Franco, Jon 1988 Indirect Objects as NPs in Castilian Spanish. Paper presented at the First Symposium on Hispanic Linguistics held at the University of Illinois at Chicago, November 1-3,1988. 1991 Spanish Object Clitics as Verbal Agreement Morphemes. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 99-114, Cambridge, Mass. 1993 On Object Agreement in Spanish. GSIL Publications. Dissertation Series. Department of Linguistics. University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Franco, Jon and Alazne Landa 1991 The Syntax and Semantics of Null Objects in Basque Spanish. In Hunt Katharine, Thomas Perry and Vida Samiian (ed.), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, WECOL 1991. Published by the Department of Linguistics CSU, Fresno. Franco, Jon and Errapel Mejias-Bikandi 1997 Overt and Covert Raising to (Spec) AGR D O and the Interpretation of Objects. Linguistic Analysis 27:1-2. 1999 The Presuppositionality Condition and Spanish Clitic-Doubled Objects. In J.Marc Authier, Barbara Bullock and Lisa Reed (ed.), Formal Perspectives on Romance Languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins pp. 107-119 Huang, James 1982 Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Hurtado, Alfredo 1985 The Unagreement Hypothesis. In Selected Papers from the XIHth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. L. King and C. Maley. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Jaeggli, Osvaldo 1982 Topics in Romance Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht. 1986 Three issues in the Theory of Clitics: Case, Double NPs, and Extraction. In Hagit Borer (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 19, The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Academic Press, Orlando Florida, pp. 15-42. Kany, Charles E. 1969 Sintaxis Hispanoamericana. Gredos. Madrid. Landa, Alazne 1993 Los objetos nulos determinados del castellano del País Vasco. Lingüística 5, 131-146. Madrid. (ALFAL). 1995 Conditions on Null Objects in Basque Spanish and their Relation to Leísmo and Clitic-Doubling. GSIL Publications. Dissertation Series. Department of Linguistics. University of Southern California. Los Angeles. Lasnik, Howard 1993 The Minimalist Theory of Syntax: Motivations and Prospects. Paper presented at the Second Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, 1993. Montalbetti, Mario 1984 After Binding. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

On the doubling of overt operators

105

Ouhalla, Jamal 1993 Subject Extraction, Negation, and Anti-Agreement Effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11. Rizzi, Luigi 1986 Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of Pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 501-557. 1990 Residual Verb Second and the W/i-criterion. Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics 2. Université de Geneve. 1997 The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.). Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer 281338. Rouveret, Alan 1996 Lecture notes from the Girona International Summer School of Linguistics. Runner, Jeffrey 1994 A Specific Role for A G R . In Elena Benedicto and Jeffrey Runner (ed.) Functional Projections. GLSA UMass, Amherst. Saltarelli, Mario 1987 The Acquisition of Agreement. In Bahner, W., J. Schildt and D. Viehneger (ed.). Proceedings of the International Congress of Linguistics. Akademie Verlag. Berlin, pp. 810-815. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen 1981 The Diffusion of Object-Verb Agreement in Spanish. In Heles Contreras and Jürgen Klausenburger (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Symposium on Romance Linguistics, Papers in Romance, Supplement II, pp. 163176. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen 1984 Semantic and Pragmatic Factors in Syntactic Change. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical Syntax. Amsterdam: Mouton. Suñer, Margarita 1988 The Role of Agreement in Clitic-Doubled Constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 391-434. 1992 Two Properties of Clitics in Clitic-Doubled Constructions. In James Huang and Robert May (ed.), Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 1999 Clitic Doubling of Pronouns in Spanish: an Instance of Object Shift. In Franco Jon, Alazne Landa and Juan Martin (ed.) Grammatical Analyses in Basque and Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 233-256.

Interface conditions and the semantics of argument clitics Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach

1. Introduction In this paper, I present an analysis of third person argument clitics in Spanish that attempts to integrate a strictly minimalist feature-based analysis with a formal treatment of the semantic properties of this class of expressions. I will pay special attention to data related to clitic doubling phenomena. I will defend the hypothesis that clitics are syntactically specified as determiners and, correspondingly, are semantically determiner functions inherently restricted to context sets (Westerstâhl 1985.) In the next section, I will develop a minimalist syntactic proposal for the generation of pronominal clitics. This requires that we briefly survey some of the basic ideas on the syntax of clitics in advance. Discussions about the nature of clitics in the seventies and eighties can be classified in two theoretical positions: (i) a movement analysis (Kayne 1975) and (ii) a base-generation analysis (Strozer 1976, Rivas 1977, Jaeggli 1982, 1986, Borer 1984, etc.) The movement analysis proposed that clitics are pronominal arguments of the verb generated in their canonical argument position and displaced by an application of the operation Move-α to a position adjunct to the verb. (1)

V PRON ^ CL + V

Therefore, in the French sentence in (2), the clitic les is base-generated in its argumentai position after the verb, and it raises later to its surface position as an adjunct to the verbal head. (2)

Jean les aime Jean them loves 'Jean loves them'

108

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

There were several important theoretical and empirical inadequacies of the movement hypothesis. First, as the following examples from Spanish illustrate, this hypothesis does not predict why in certain constructions verbs occur with clitics but those clitics do not seem to be saturating any argument (3) or are obligatory (4,5): (3)

Arréglatelas como puedas sin mi ayuda manage-you-them-fem.pl. as can-you without my help 'Do your best without my help'

(4)

*(Me) falta poco para llegar a presidente me lack little for become to president Ί am about to become president'

(5)

*(Me) gustan las películas de Sergio Leone me like the films of Sergio Leone Ί like Sergio Leone's movies'

The existence of clitic doubling phenomena in certain languages (Spanish, Greek, Berber, Arabic, Romanian, Hebrew, etc.) was even stronger counter-evidence that led to the realization of the inadequacies of the movement hypothesis. If clitics are base-generated as arguments and they move afterwards, the question becomes how can the occurrence of a full DP in argumentai position be explained. (6) a. Le di el libro a Pedro to-him gave the book to Pedro Ί gave the book to Pedro' b. Li vaig comprar el llibre al Pere to-him PAST-I buy the book to-the Pere Ί bought Pere the book' c. L-am vazut pe Popescu him-have-I seen PE Popescu Ί have seen Popescu'

(Spanish)

(Catalan)

(Romanian)

The alternative proposed by Strozer (1976) and Rivas (1977) was that clitics are base-generated as adjuncts to the verb. Later, this line of analysis was refined to incorporate insights from the theories of case and government. For instance, Aoun (1981), Borer (1984) and Jaeggli (1986) proposed that clitics absorb case or government, explaining why Kayne's generalization holds in many languages.1

Interface conditions

and the semantics of argument clitics

109

In the late eighties and nineties, other approaches developed that analyzed clitics as elements associated to agreement features or projections (Suñer 1988; Franco 1993, 2000), stemming from evidence showing that clitics agree with doubled nominal arguments in gender, number, etc. There is also "semantic agreement" in the sense that the presence of the clitic forces a definite or a specific interpretation of the doubled NP. In the HPSG framework, Miller (1992) and Miller and Sag (1993) also defended the idea that clitics are inflectional elements.

2. Clitics as determiners. A minimalist approach 2.1. Clitics, heads and selection Two recent theories have tried to reconcile the movement and the basegeneration approaches. Sportiche (1996) proposes the existence of agreement projections that he calls clitic voices where clitics would be generated. The interpretative association between the clitic and an overt or covert Determiner Phrase (DP) is achieved through movement of the associated D P to the specifier of the agreement phrase headed by the clitic at LF to satisfy the Clitic criterion? Torrego (1995) and Uriagereka (1995) propose assimilating clitics to determiner heads. This common assumption leads to somewhat different theories, depending on the empirical facts discussed. Torrego (1995) assumes a Larsonian-type structure in which a higher light verb selects for a D P headed by the determiner which in turn selects for the main verb. Uriagereka (1995) postulates the existence of a higher functional projection FP that acts as a host for clitic movement in certain languages. 3 Torrego and Uriagereka's proposals have some intuitively appealing elements, details of implementation aside. The core insight can be traced back to Postal's (1966) claim that many of the properties of so-called pronouns can be better characterized and explained if these grammatical elements are conceived of as articles. Quoting from Postal (1966: 203): "My basic claim is that the so-called pronouns I, our, they, etc. are really articles, in fact types of definite articles." Postal's claim is supported by the fact that nouns can sometimes occur with pronouns forming a single constituent, as in (7). (7) a. Did you see us guys? b. Who insulted you men?

110

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

c. He didn't like us Americans d. They never agreed with us planners In Gutiérrez-Rexach (1997) it is argued that this view, syntactically implemented in a minimalist grammar4 and fully developed to give the adequate semantic characterization of its import, can help us explain some of the semantic properties of clitic pronouns and clitic doubling in Spanish and other languages. If clitic pronouns are treated syntactically as determiner heads, the following should hold: (8)

If an expression α is a clitic, then the category of a is Determiner (CAT(a) = D) and α is a head.

In Gutiérrez-Rexach (1997), it is proposed that the difference between Spanish-type languages—which allow clitic doubling—and French-type languages—which do not allow clitic doubling—resides in the following lexical property: Spanish-type clitics are specified as selecting for an argumentai DP (the doubled element), whereas French or Italian clitics lack this specification. This selection property of clitics is grammatically encoded via a selectional feature (Gutiérrez-Rexach 1997,1999a, Stabler 1997), something consistent with Chomsky's (1998,1999) proposal that the operations Merge, Move and Agree are driven by the selectional features of the probe (the selector). This element, in the case under consideration the clitic, selects or seeks for a feature in the selected (goal) syntactic object. In this case, the goal is the doubled quantificational element. Consequently, Spanish-type clitics may merge first with an overt DP (the doubled element). In both languages, the clitic is of category D. The rest of the features are identical. This contrast in feature specification predicts that examples (9a) and (9b), from French and Italian respectively, are ungrammatical. (9) a. *Jean lui a donné des livres a Isabelle 'Jean has given books to Isabelle' b. *Mario gli ha dato una macchina a Steffano 'Mario has given a machine to Steffano'

2.2. Clitic movement as a linearization requirement One of the interpretable features (Chomsky 1995) of clitics is that they are prosodically weak, i.e. they are marked as +W , where the subscript φ

Interface conditions and the semantics of argument clitics

111

indicates that this feature in the set INTERP (interpretable features) is a phonologically interpretable feature and not a semantically interpretable feature.5 The presence of the φ-feature forces that clitics and the first element with which they concatenate after movement belong to the same prosodie phrase (Zee and Inkelas 1990) and the clitic is not the head of that prosodie phrase.6 The prosodie weakness of the clitic is what conditions its most salient PF properties (Kayne 1975, etc.): (i) Clitics cannot be coordinated; (ii) they cannot be stressed or occur as a prosodie constituent—for instance as constituent answers to a question; (iii) they cannot be focused or modified; etc. The prosodie feature of the clitic is strong and consequently it will trigger movement and attachment to a host that will be the prosodically strong element or anchor head of the prosodie phrase (Nespor and Vogel 1986, Hayes 1989, etc.) The idea that there is prosodically conditioned movement in the case of clitics has been recently proposed by Halpern (1995) to deal with prosodie inversion and second position phenomena, 7 and the hypothesis presented here can be considered an extension of this analysis. The core of the proposal is to motivate syntactic movement of clitics as a PF linearization requirement. This is compatible with minimalist assumptions, but implies a certain dependence between phonology and syntax. An arbitrary connection between syntax and phonology faces important problems, as pointed out by Zwicky and Pullum (1986). It seems undesirable to have a syntactic rule that "obligatorily moves to the beginning of the sentence the highest constituent that begins phonetically with a bilabial consonant" (Zwicky and Pullum 1986: 75). Nevertheless, following Zee and Inkelas (1990), I assume that segmental information is indeed not accessible to the syntactic computation, but prosodie information is accessible. In a minimalist model of grammar, this means that lexical elements may carry features that trigger movement to a designated position —left or right concatenation to the host —and a particular prosodie interpretation at the PF component. The clitic and its host form a prosodie constituent and the clitic is the prosodically weak element (see Nespor and Vogel 1986, Hayes 1989 for more details on this issue). In a nutshell, special clitics must be specified with a feature that will be associated with a prosodie rule interpreting them as the prosodically weak elements of a prosodie phrase (the clitic group). In addition, and following Halpern's treatment of prosodie inversion in Serbo-Croatian, it can be claimed that clitic movement is a PF requirement because prosodie rules impose restrictions on the categorial feature of the host. For instance, as is well known, in Spanish third person clitics or clitic clusters only attach to

112

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

verbal hosts. On the other hand, adverbial clitics may also cliticize to prepositional phrases (Gutiérrez-Rexach and Silva-Villar 1998): (10) a. [Ahi viene] Pedro there comes pedro b. Puse el libro [ahi sobre la mesa] put-I the book there on the table Ί put the book on the table' c. Pedro está [ahi'bajo] con los demás Pedro is there down with the others 'Pedro is down there with the others'

(colloquial Spanish)

There are other interpretable features in the feature specification of a clitic that are semantic in nature. As argued by Keenan (1989), Keenan and Stabler (1997) and Gutiérrez-Rexach (1997,1999a,c), case features in general are interpretable contra Chomsky (1995).8 The question now becomes how these features are interpreted in the clitic domain. This will be the topic of the next section. Clitics are also specified as definite determiners. The feature [+def] indicates that clitics have the same semantics as prosodically strong pronouns. They denote principal filters and are restricted to context sets, in a way that will also be clarified in the next section. Consider now the minimalist derivation tree of the clitic doubling construction in (II): 9 (11)

María le dio el libro a Pedro Maria he-dat. gave the book to Pedro 'María gave the book to Pedro' MERGE: < María le dio el libro a Pedro ... >

1: < Maria >

MOVE: < le dio el libro a Pedro ... > MERGE: < dio el libro le a Pedro ... > MERGE: < dio el libro ... >

MERGE: < le a Pedro ... > 1: < le > MERGE: < a Pedro >

The derivation proceeds in a bottom-up fashion. In the first step, the clitic merges with the PP a Pedro. Afterwards, the merged expression dio el li-

Interface conditions

and the semantics

of argument clitics

113

bro 'gave the book' merges with the syntactic object le a Pedro 'CL to Pedro', and finally le moves to discharge its strong feature and the subject merges with the expression output of the movement operation. 10 The derivation of the non-clitic doubled variant (12) would be similar, except that in the initial multiset of lexical resources there are no lexical items that merge forming a PP. The result is a convergent derivation because the selectional feature D of the clitic is optional. (12)

María le dio el libro María he-dat. gave the book 'María gave the book to him' M E R G E : < María le dio el libro ... >

1: < María ... >

MOVE: < le dio el libro ... >

M E R G E : < dio el libro le ... >

M E R G E : < dio el libro ... >

1: < le ... >

Deriving (13) would require that the dative string le a Pedro 'to-him to Pedro' merges first with the verb and the direct object merges afterwards with the resulting string:11 (13)

Maria le dio a Pedro el libro María he-dat. gave to Pedro the book 'Maria gave the book to Pedro' M E R G E : < Maria le dio a Pedro el libro >

1: < María ... >

MOVE: < le dio a Pedro el libro >

M E R G E : < dio le a Pedro el libro >

M E R G E : < dio le a Pedro > < el libro >

< dio > < le a Pedro >

114

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

I am thus defending that in both types of constructions—with and without doubling—the clitic saturates an argument of the verb. This property is semantically essential and corresponds to the semantic property of being an arity reducer function (Keenan and Westerstâhl 1997). The general hypothesis goes against Fontana and Halpern's (1994) claim that the distinction between Xo and X max is twofold: (i) Minimal clitics are inflectional affixes subject to morphological and phonological attachment to a particular host of a particular type whereas maximal clitics are phrasal categories; (ii) minimal clitics are inflectional elements and realize agreement features, whereas maximal clitics are arguments, and therefore reduce the valency of the verb by one. In terms of this classification, Spanish clitics would be X min clitics. The derivations that we have proposed entail that Spanish clitics cannot be considered as purely minimal, since they exhibit a property of X max : they saturate one argument of the verb (they check a selectional feature of the verb). On the other hand, clitics have to attach to a verbal host, a typical property of Xmin. The dual character of this type of clitics has been also defended by Chomsky (1994: 402-403), who states that: "Under the DP hypothesis, clitics are Ds. Assume further that a clitic raises from its theta-position and attaches to an inflectional head. In its theta-position the clitic is an XP; attachment to a head requires that it be an X o on fairly standard assumptions. Furthermore, the movement violates the Head Movement Constraint, indicating again that it is an XP, raising by XP-adjunction until the final step of Xo adjunction." The properties of being minimal or maximal are phrase-structural (Xbar theoretic) properties. Therefore, they should not play a relevant role in a minimalist grammar. 12 The computational behavior of clitics is incompatible with a pure X-bar theoretic characterization, but raises no problems in this respect for a feature-based account of the sort we are pursuing here.

2.3. Feature structures Doubling of direct object clitics, in the languages and dialects where it is possible, takes the following form: 13 (14) a. La vi a tu hermana la noche pasada her saw-I to your sister the last night Ί saw your sister last night' b. Los compré los libros en cuanto tuve tiempo them bought-I the books in much have-I time Ί bought the books as soon as I had some time'

Interface conditions

and the semantics of argument clitics

115

The potential feature specifications for the accusative clitic la 'her' are as follows: 14 (15)1. LEXICAL ITEM: CATEGORIAL FEATURE: SELECTION AL FEATURE: INTERPRETABLE FEATURES:

la D ( D [ +anim ] ) [+W +acc, +def, +sg, +fem]

2.

LEXICAL ITEM: CATEGORIAL FEATURE: SELECTION AL FEATURE:

la D (D)

INTERPRETABLE FEATURES: [+W

+acc, +def, +sg, +fem]

3. LEXICAL ITEM: CATEGORIAL FEATURE: SELECTIONAL FEATURE: INTERPRETABLE FEATURES:

la D 0 [+W

+acc, +def, +sg, +fem]

The specification in 1 corresponds to a dialect where only direct objects preceded by the animacy marker a 15 may be doubled, so (14b) above is ungrammatical in this dialect. The clitic la 'her' is in this dialect an expression with categorial feature D. The optional selectional feature (D[+anim]) indicates that la may optionally select for an expression of category D with the feature [+animate], i.e. the doubled element. The set of interpretable features of this lexical resource includes prosodie weakness (+W ), the semantic features [+def], [+fem], [+sg] and the case feature. 16 The case feature of la is [+acc]. The feature specification in 2 corresponds to a dialect where any direct object may be doubled. The only difference with specification in 1 is that the feature [+anim] is not selected. The selectional feature is (D), so la will optionally select for a maximal element of category D. Finally, the specification in 3 corresponds to a dialect where the value of the selectional feature of the object clitic is 0. In this dialect, doubling of accusative clitics is not allowed.

116

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

Let us consider the derivation of (16) in a dialect in which la is specified as in 2 above. (16)

La compré la casa her bought-I the house Ί bought the house'

In the first step, the clitic la merges with the doubled element la casa 'the house', and checks its selectional feature. In the second step, the expression formed by the clitic plus the doubled element merges with the verb. Finally, the operation MOVE applies and the result is a convergent derivation. The strong prosodie feature +W of the clitic triggers movement and attachment to the verb in the final step. Obligatory doubling is characteristic of three classes of verbs: (i) Verbs occurring in "inalienable possession" constructions or "part/ whole" constructions, such as (17). The doubled element is the "possessor" or noun phrase denoting the whole. The variant without the clitic is ungrammatical. The constituent denoting the possessed element or part in the part/whole relation, cannot be doubled by an accusative clitic (18). (17) a. *(Le) duele la cabeza a Pedro to-him hurts the head to Pedro 'Pedro's head hurts' b. *(Le) falta una pata a la mesa to-it lacks a leg to the table 'The table lacks a leg' (18)

*La duele la cabeza a Pedro her hurts the head to Pedro 'Pedro's head hurts'

(ii) verbs with a complement bearing a benefactive thematic role, as in (19). In this group of cases the contrast in grammaticality is not as strong as in (i), but the doubled construction is certainly preferred. (19) a. ??(Le) preparé una sorpresa a Maria to-her prepared-I a surprise to Mary b. ??(Le) entregué el libro a el alcalde to-him gave-I the book to the mayor Ί gave the book to the mayor'

Interface conditions

and the semantics of argument clitics

117

(iii) psychological verbs. The doubled element is the experiencer of the action denoted by the verb. (20) a. Tu actitud *(le) desagrada a Juan your attitude to-him bothers to Juan 'Your attitude bothers Juan' b. Tu visita *(le) dio una gran alegría a Juan your visit to-him gave a big happiness to Juan 'Your visit made Juan happy' The common ingredient in the constructions in (i)-(iii) is that the absence of doubling makes the sentences ungrammatical or deviant at best. The way in which this group of cases can be dealt with straightforwardly within a minimalist grammar is by implementing the obvious assumption that the verb subcategorizes for a dative clitic. In minimalist terms, if subcategorization properties are encoded in the selectional feature of syntactic objects, then one of the coordinates of the selectional feature of the verbs in the above mentioned classes is specified as a clitic determiner. 17 Thus, the lexical entries of the verbs doler 'hurt' and preparar 'prepare' have this specific peculiarity. For example, the entry of doler 'hurt' specifies that it is an expression of category V that combines first with an expression of category D specified as [+nom]. Afterwards, the resulting merged expression combines with a clitic determiner satisfying the required specification: [SEL.F: (D); INT.F: +dat, +W V ...]. Since this clitic is in turn specified as having the optional selectional feature (D), the possibility of doubling exists. Therefore, both sentences in (21) are well formed. The derivation of (21b) is identical to the previous derivation except for an additional step, in which the clitic saturates its optional argument, the doubled DP. (21) a. Le duele la cabeza to-him hurts the head 'His head hurts' b. Le duele la cabeza a Pedro her hurts the head to Pedro 'Pedro's head hurts' In sum, in this section I have proposed that, in consonance with the determiner hypothesis, clitics are determiner heads subcategorizing for a determiner phrase and split from their complement by movement triggered by the presence of a PF interpretable feature forcing them to be attached to a

118

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

verbal host at Spell-Out (where prosodie legibility conditions will apply). It is important to notice that the goal of this movement operation is to derive a Spell-Out linearization satisfying the input requirements of a prosodie rule but its nature is syntactic. Therefore, the movement operation obeys standard locality constraints in this case (Kayne 1975). From the semantic point of view, the clitic is associated with its complement (the doubled element) in a compositional fashion. As is shown in the following section, a compositional semantics can be provided that does away with the need for a coindexing mechanism linking the clitic and its associate (see also Gutiérrez-Rexach (1999c) for more specific details on this issue).

3. The semantics of third person argument clitics 3.1. Introduction After the discussion of the basic minimalist syntax of clitics presented in the previous section, we are in a position to explore how to provide a compositional semantics for argument clitics and clitic constructions. If we assume, first, that the functions denoted by pronominal expressions in general have a context set (Westerstâhl 1985) or resource domain argument (von Fintel 1994) and, second, that clitics are weak pronouns, then a general semantic schema along the following lines emerges. Pronominal clitics denote functions mapping sets—the context set argument—to arity reducers (Keenan and Westerstâhl 1997). A nominative clitic denotes a function from context sets to functions from properties (sets) to truth values. An accusative clitic or, using Keenan's (1989) terminology for generalized quantifiers and applying it to pronominal clitics, the accusative extension of a pronominal clitic function, denotes a function from sets— again, the context set—to functions from binary relations to properties. Finally, a dative clitic or the dative extension of a pronominal clitic function denotes a function from context sets to functions from ternary relations to binary relations. The following definition states these ideas formally, where [+/] C INT.F(a) indicates that the feature [+/] is an interpretable feature of the expression a; [A -> ß ] denotes the set of functions from the set A to the set B; and E is a universe of individuals: (22)

Let α be a clitic expression. Then, (i) if [+nom] C INT.F(a), [a] is a function F G \V{F) [V(E) 2]] (ii) if [+acc] ç INT.F(a), flaj is a function F e \V(E) -» [VÌE?) ?(F)}} (iii) if [+dat] £ INT.F(a), [a] is a function F G [?(E) -> \V{H?) -> p(£2)]j

Interface conditions

and the semantics of argument clitics

119

For a start, consider a simple example with an accusative clitic: (23)

Pedro la vio Pedro her saw 'Pedro saw her'

The semantic content of la in (23) is the accusative extension of a pronominal generalized quantifier function. The clitic la denotes a function mapping a contextually determined set C to an arity reducer, i.e. a function from binary relations R to sets, as follows: 18 (24)

Let R C P , C C £ , f l , l ) e £ . Then, LA(C)(R) = [a\C Ç {b\ < a, b > G R & b G SAW & b G FEMININE} & |C| = 1} = 1 iff ρ G {a\C Q{b\e SAW & è G FEMININE) & \C\ = 1}

Indirect object/dative clitics le and les denote functions in the set in (22iii). There is no gender difference morphologically encoded in these clitics.20 They only differ along the number dimension. Dative clitics denote functions from context sets to arity reducers—specifically, functions from ternary relations to binary relations—as follows: (28)

Let R ç £ 3 , C Ç Ε, α, ö, c G E. Then, LE(C)(R) = {< a, b > | C ç {c| < a , b , c > G R) & |C| = 1}

(29)

Let R Q E\CQ E,a,b,cG E. Then, LES(C)(R) = {< a, b > | C Ç {c| < a, b, c > G R} & |C| > 2}

The stepwise interpretation of sentence (30) is as shown in (31): (30)

Juan les dio algunos libros Juan them gave some-pl. books 'Juan gave them some books'

(31) 1. Let C ç E. Then, LES(C)(GAVE) = {< a, b > I C Ç {c| < a, b, c > G GAVE} & \C\ > 2} 2. LES(C)(GAVE))(SOME p l B O O K ) = SOME p l BOOK({< a,b>\CQ\c\& GAVE) & \C\ > 2}) {α||ΒΟΟΚ Π {b\ C Ç {c| < a, b, c > G GAVE} & \C\ > 2}} | > 2} 3. J U A N ((LES(C)(GAVE))(SOME p l B O O K ) ) = 1 iff I;({fl||BOOK η [b\ C Ç {c\ G GAVE} & |C| > 2}} | > 2}) = 1 iff j G {a|| B O O K Π {b\ C Q {c| G GAVE} & |C| > 2}} | > 2}

4. The semantics of clitic doubling In all the examples we have considered so far, the context set is determined by discourse principles, such as linear precedence in a text, salience

Interface conditions

and the semantics of argument clitics

121

and focal or stress prominence. 21 Nevertheless, in clitic doubling constructions the determination of the context set is not only conditioned but completely determined syntactically in the following way: (32)

In clitic doubling constructions the context set is retrieved from the denotation of the doubled expression.

The above claim, if true, will help us resolve the existing mismatch between the syntactic specification of accusative and dative clitics and their respective denotation. The mismatch is as follows. I have previously stated that in languages with doubling, such as Spanish, the selectional feature of clitics is (D). Thus, clitics optionally select for an expression of type « e, t >, t >. On the other hand, the semantics of clitics has been defined in a way such that the first argument of the function denoted by a clitic is a set, so the corresponding tyoe would be < e, t >. How can this syntax/semantics mismatch be resolved? In principle, in standard constructions where the clitic is just the prosodically weak form of a pronoun, the value of the selectional feature is 0, and the context set is determined at the discourse level. In clitic doubling constructions, the selectional feature takes the value D and syntactically the expression merges with a maximal object of that category, namely a DP expression. According to the hypothesis in (32), this initial syntactic operation is not semantically vacuous. A clitic expression combines with a DP expression and semantically retrieves a set from it. The mechanism that allows doubling is precisely an operation that performs this task. Therefore, the denotation of the merged expression cl ~ β, where CATEGORY(ß) = D and β is maximal (SELECTION(a) = 0) should be the same as the standard denotation of the clitic except for the fact that now the value of its first argument has been determined. This idea is formalized as follows: (33)

The denotation of doubling clitics: If α is a clitic and a merges in γ with an expression β such that CATEGORYiß) = D and SELECTIONiß) = 0, then: for d= [?(£) ^ 2], and all Q E Q, Η is the function F e [Q_-> [p(£) [P(£ n ) P(£ n ^)]]] such that F(Q) is the function F e [?(£) [P(£") P(£"-')]] denoted by a when SEL(a) = 0 restricted to A E WITNESS(Q)

Let us explain the definition in more detail. The two different values of the selectional feature of the clitic, 0 or D, are related to two different de-

122

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

notations. In the first case, when there is no doubling, the denotation of the clitic is as explained before. In the second case, the clitic denotes a function F mapping generalized quantifiers to pronoun/clitic denotations F'. The value of F at a generalized quantifier Q is a function F' G [V{E) -> [P(£2) -»· P(£)]] if α is an accusative clitic, or F' G [P(£) [P(£ 3 ) 2 P(E )]] if α is a dative clitic. The function F' satisfies the following constraint: Its domain is the restriction of ?(E) to the collection of sets that are witnesses (Barwise & Cooper 1981) of the quantifier. Equivalently, the domain of F' is the collection of sets that are mapped to True by the generalized quantifier function and that are a subset of the restriction of the quantifier. Consequently, the relevant restriction of the function F' is characterized as follows: (34)

For D G [P(£) [P(£) 2]], Β C E and Q = D(B), the domain of F' is: P(£) r [A\ A G D(B) &AQB}, that is, {A\ A G D(B)

&AQB}

Noun phrases associated with a doubling clitic do not behave alike, and obey the following constraint in Spanish (Gutiérrez-Rexach 1997; 1999b; 1999c): (35)

The principal filter constraint: The generalized quantifier associated with an accusative clitic has to be a principal filter.

We say that a generalized quantifier Q over E is a principal filter iff there is a non-empty set ACE, such that for all Β Ç. E, Q(B) = 1 iff A Ç. B, or equivalently Β G Q iff A Q B. The set A is called the generator of Q. The examples in (36) are grammatical, whereas those in (37) are ungrammatical. This is due to the fact that the noun phrases esos estudiantes 'those students', todo 'everything', and cada una de las niñas desaparecidas 'each one of the disappeared girls' denote principal filters. On the other hand, muchos estudiantes 'many students', varias niñas desaparecidas 'several missing girls' and the bare plural alcaldes 'mayors' do not denote principal filters. Thus, from the principal filter constraint, the ungrammaticality of the examples in (37) follows.22 (36) a. Los engañaron a esos estudiantes Them fooled to those students 'They fooled these students'

Interface conditions

and the semantics of argument clitics

123

b. Lo comieron todo it ate-they all 'They ate everything' c. Las encontraron a cada una de las niñas desaparecidas them-fem. found-they to each one of the girls disappeared 'They found each one of the missing girls' (37) a. *Los engañaron a muchos estudiantes them fooled to many students 'They fooled many students' b. *Las encontraron a varias niñas desaparecidas them-fem. found-they to several girls disappeared 'They found several missing girls' c. *Los eligieron a alcaldes them elected to mayors 'They elected mayors' Intensional or vague quantifiers such as muchos 'many' and pocos 'few' (Keenan & Stavi 1986) do not denote principal filters and cannot be accusatively doubled, except when the quantifier is interpreted either as partitive or the principal filter reading is forced when the speaker is referring to a particular group. This latter case is very marginal with this class of quantifiers, probably because vagueness prevents the identification of a group. (38)

*Las quiero a muchas mujeres them-fem. love-I to many women Ί love many women'

5. The case of doubled existential quantifiers Determiner phrases headed by indefinite and numeral determiners may receive a specific or a non-specific interpretation (Fodor & Sag 1982, Enç 1991, etc.). As noticed by Suñer (1988,1992) among others, when a noun phrase of this type is doubled by an accusative clitic, only the specific interpretation is possible:

124

(39)

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

Los enojó a unos profesores them-pl. annoyed to a-pl. professors 'He annoyed some professors'

Sentence (39) is interpreted as 'He annoyed a specific group of professors.' The specificity of the indefinite may be epistemic, as in (40a) or discourse related, as in (40b). (40) a. Los enojó a unos profesores que yo conozco them-pl. annoyed-he to a-pl. professors that I know 'He annoyed some professors I know' b. Los enojó a unos profesores que ha mencionado Juan them-pl. annoyed-he to a-pl. professors that has mentioned Juan 'He annoyed some professors mentioned by Juan' The fact that clitic doubling triggers the specific interpretation of the associated indefinite quantifier lead Suñer (1988) to propose that the relevant feature in the licensing of doubling constructions is the presence of the [+specific] feature in the doubled noun phrase. Assuming that accusative clitics are lexically specified as [+specific], the Matching Principle stating the identity of features between a clitic and the doubled NP seems to predict the facts correctly. Both the clitic and the doubled element must agree in the feature [+specific]. In what follows I will argue two main points. Firstly, definiteness and not specificity is the relevant feature in doubling constructions in general—including those cases in which the doubled element is an indefinite quantifier—. Secondly, the syntactic process of "matching" that takes place is feature selection: The clitic requires that the expression it merges with have the feature [+def]. The property of specificity overlaps but is not equivalent to the property of being a principal filter. The principal filter property is a property of generalized quantifiers or noun phrase denotations. Thus, it holds at the denotational or truth-conditional level. Concretely, according to Keenan (1995) this is the characterizing property of definite determiners, defined as follows: (41)

A determiner function F is definite iff F is non-trivial and for all A C E, F(A) = 0 or F(A) is the filter generated by some non-empty C C A .

Syntactically, if a determiner expression has the (interpretable) feature [+definite] then, when it combines with a nominal expression, the merged expression denotes a principal filter.

Interface conditions

and the semantics of argument clitics

125

(42)

There are quantifiers that are inherently principal filters (universale, definites and proper names), because they always denote a principal filter. O t h e r quantifiers, such as so-called indefinites, numerals and to a lesser extent "vague" quantifiers like many and few may denote principal filters in certain situations. For instance, Ben Shalom (1993)—following the empirical findings in Liu (1990)—claims that existential quantifiers may take wide scope when they occur in the object position only if they are principal filters. The sentences in (43) are ambiguous. (43) a. Three students read two books b. Every poet bought a book In the preferred reading of (43a) and (43b), the subject scopes over the object and books vary with respect to students and poets respectively. In the object wide scope reading of (43a), there is a group of two books such that three students read those books. Therefore, the quantifier T W O B O O K S in (43a) is generated by the set corresponding to that group. Similarly, when A B O O K in (43b) is a principal filter, the singleton that generates it is the book that every poet bought: The specificity property is more complex. It seems to involve purely semantic properties and others that belong to pragmatics, so there is no agreement on how it should be understood semantically or on how it should be implemented in the grammar. A recent influential theory proposed by Enç (1991) states the specific/non-specific distinction in terms of Discourse Representation Theory. Specificity implies a linking of the newly introduced discourse referent to a discourse referent already present in discourse. Non-specificity implies that there is not such a linking. Therefore, indefinites and numerals are specific if and only if the construction rule associated with them introduces a new discourse referent and a linking condition relating this discourse referent to another discourse referent already present in a Discourse Representation Structure (DRS). There are three possible types of linking conditions, depending on the nature of the linking relation: (i) the identity relation, by which the con-

126

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

dition is of the form a = β, for α, β discourse referents; (ii) the subset or inclusion relation, by which the condition is of the form a Q ß , for α, β discourse referents; and finally (iii) the proper subset relation, which is related to a condition of the form a C β. The difference between definiteness and specificity can be cast in terms of Discourse Representation Theory as well. Specific and definite noun phrases have in common that they establish a link between discourse referents. What distinguishes these two notions is the different nature of the linking between discourse referents that is established. Definite noun phrases establish a link of type (i) above, whereas specific noun phrases establish a link of type (ii) or (iii). As we have explained before, pronouns in general are definites in a denotational sense—they denote principal filters—and also understanding the term as related to discourse interpretation, because the DRS construction rule associated to pronouns links the newly introduced discourse referent to a discourse referent already present in discourse by an identity condition. Since the identity relation entails the inclusion relation (i.e. if a = β then a Ç β), it follows that pronouns are also specific. Thus, in principle, pronouns could match with specific and with definite noun phrases. Nevertheless, imposing an identity condition on discourse referents renders interpretations that are very different from those rendered by an inclusion-type linking. A clear case of specific indefinites or numerals, in Enç's (1991) terms, are those that have a so-called partitive interpretation. For instance, in the discourse in (44), the noun phrase three congressmen may be interpreted as 'three of the democratic congressmen'. (44)

There is a democratic convention in town. I have just seen three congressmen in a limo.

The type of linking required in clitic doubling constructions is stronger than the linking needed for the interpretation of partitive existentials. Mere inclusion does not suffice. Thus, what is needed is definiteness, not mere specificity. Consider the Spanish translation of sentence (44) above with and without a clitic pronoun—(45a) vs. (45b): (45) a. Una convención demócrata se está celebrando en la ciudad. a convention democrat SE is celebrating in the city. Acabo de ver a tres de los congresistas/ Finished-I of see to three of the congressmen/

Interface conditions and the semantics of argument clitics

127

tres congresistas en una limusina three congressmen in a limo b. Una convención demócrata se está celebrando en la ciudad, a convention democrat S E is celebrating in the city. Los acabo de ver a tres de los congresistas/ Them finished-I of see to three of the congressmen/ tres congresistas en una limusina three congressmen in a limo Sentence (45a) is semantically equivalent to (44). The noun phrase tres congresistas 'three congressmen' is interpreted as a partitive existential quantifier. Thus, the function denoted by tres congresistas is restricted to a context set: The set of the participants in the democratic convention. Sentence (45b) is not exactly equivalent to (44). The presence of the clitic forces the associated existential quantifier to behave as a definite. The speaker is referring to a unique group of individuals. Denotationally, this corresponds to the behavior of the doubled existential quantifier as a principal filter generated by the relevant group (set). In sum, from a semantic point of view the presence of a doubling accusative clitic forces the associated existential quantifier to be a principal filter, in other words, to behave like a definite in that context. How can these ideas be implemented in the syntactic side of the picture? According to Suñer's (1988) theory, matching or agreement in the specificity feature is sufficient for the licensing of an accusative doubling construction. We have just claimed that specificity is not enough, and definiteness is the relevant feature. A second difference is that the categorial import of her theory is that the process of licensing of a doubled constituent is a symmetric process. The specificity/definiteness feature is encoded in the clitic and in the associated phrase and clitic licensing requires matching or agreement in features. The relationship between the clitic and the associated phrase is asymmetric in our proposal. The clitic selects for the phrase. When the clitic merges with the expression of category D it selects, the merged expression inherits the [+def] feature from the head. This process is in all respects identical to the case in which a definite determiner merges with a noun. Therefore, the expression las + dos niñas 'the + two girls'—corresponding to the derivational step in which the clitic merges with the doubled determiner phrase in the generation of sentence (46) —inherits the feature [+def] from the determiner las.

128

(46)

Javier

Gutlérrez-Rexach

Las vi a dos niñas/dos de las niñas them saw-I to two girls/two of the girls Ί saw two (of the) girls'

It seems obvious that the features in the expressions that merge should match in the sense that they should not be inconsistent. In the case of (46), this would lead to the hypothesis that the feature [+def] inherited from the clitic head and the feature [+existential] inherited from the cardinal quantifier dos niñas 'two girls' have to be compatible, forcing a principal filter interpretation of the existential quantifier. But this type of explanation has the unintended consequence that dative clitics are also predicted to force a principal filter interpretation of their associates, since they also encode the feature [+def]. The above paradox is eliminated if it is assumed that the relevant feature is also selected. Observe that the determiner la selects for a noun with the specification [+fem, +sg]. This makes it impossible that the grammar generate expressions such as (47a,b), where there is lack of agreement between the two merged expressions: (47) a. *la niño the-fem.sg. boy-masc. b. *la niñas the-fem.sg. girls The merger operation cannot apply to the expressions above because the nouns lack the features that are selected for by the determiner. Applying this line of reasoning to the case of clitics, the lexical entry of the accusative clitic should be modified as follows: (48) LEX.IT.: CAT.F.: SEL.F.: INT.F.:

la D (D[+def,+fem]) [+W , +acc, +def, +sg]

The clitic determiner has the optional selectional feature (D[+def\) and, consequently, it selects for determiner phrases with the interpretive feature [+def]. Sentence (49) is out because the generalized quantifier denoted by the DP pocas niñas 'few girls' is not a principal filter so it does not

Interface conditions

and the semantics of argument clitics

129

encode the feature [+def] in the initial numeration. As a matter of fact, the sentence improves if one is able to construe the sentence in a way such that the decreasing quantifier denotes a group. The only acceptable reading of (49a) would be Ί saw a group consisting of few girls'. This interpretation is better rendered in Spanish as (49b), where the noun phrase unas pocas niñas 'a-pl. few girls' forces the group (definite) interpretation. The contrast is similar to the one observed in English between the determiners few and a few. (49) a. ??las vi a pocas niñas them saw to few girls b. las vi a unas pocas niñas them saw to a-pl. few girls This line of reasoning is unproblematic when the doubled element is a definite DP, but how about when it is an existential DP? Recall that we are claiming that the feature [+def] in a noun phrase is semantically interpreted as the property of being a principal filter and at the discourse level as the property of introducing an identity condition on discourse referents. As a consequence, in the case of existential quantifiers what is required is something stronger than mere specificity. The generalized quantifier denoted by dos niñas has to denote a principal filter, and the construction rule associated with it at the discourse level has to introduce a condition of the form a = β and not of the form a C β. Putting together the idea that the feature [+definite] is the lexical encoding of the semantic property of principal filterhood and that existential quantifiers may denote principal filters in some contexts, leads to the conclusion that the feature [+definite] may or may not be present in lexical resources corresponding to existential determiners—of expressions a of category D and such that [+exist] G ΙΝΤ(α). This idea may be implemented in two ways: (i) Positing two different lexical entries for existential determiners—inasmuch as differing only in one feature makes two entries different—or (ii) designing some mechanism of feature insertion that allows features to be inserted in the course of the syntactic derivation. The latter option is the one taken by Chomsky (1995) in general, and features that have this property are called optional features and opposed to intrinsic features. Thus, the relevant generalization is that the feature [+def] is optional for existential determiners. 23 Increasing and decreasing cardinal determiners that are positive 24 are accusatively doubled only when they are interpreted as principal filters.

130

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

In this case, they are non-monotonic, and their increasingness/decreasingness property is cancelled. The following examples are correct only if the speaker has a concrete group in mind containing more than four students that he has seen. (50)

Los he visto a más de cuatro estudiantes them have seen to more of four students Ί have seen a group of more than four students'

Overt partitives can be doubled and the examples in (51) are grammatical. In all the cases, the partitive is interpreted as a principal filter. (51) a. Los engañaron a muchos de los estudiantes them fooled to many of the students 'They fooled many of the students' b. Las encontraron a varias de las niñas desaparecidas them-fem. found-they to several of the girls disappeared 'They found several missing girls' Anagnostopoulou and Giannakidou (1995) claim that partitivity is the essential requirement for doubling in Spanish. Nevertheless, this is not the correct generalization because of a subtle fact. The above sentences are only acceptable when the quantifier, in addition to being partitive, is a principal filter. Partitivity requires linking to a previous discourse referent (Enç, 1991) or, in different terms, that the quantifier following the partitive marker—the preposition de 'of —is presupposed. Satisfaction of this requirement is compatible with the quantifier not being a principal filter. Consider sentence (52): (52)

Quiero que me traigas varios de los libros want-I that me bring-you several of the books Ί want you to bring me several of the books'

Sentence (52) has two readings. Under one reading—in which varios de los libros 'several of the books' does not denote a principal filter—the sentence would be true in situations in which the speaker wants the addressee to bring him a subset of a presupposed group of books, and the only requirement is that this subset contains several books. Thus, there is more than one of these subsets that could satisfy the speaker's requirement. Under the second, and more marginal reading, the speaker wants

Interface conditions

and the semantics

of argument clitics

131

the addressee to bring him a particular subset of books, and not any subset containing many books qualifies. Only a concrete subset satisfies the speaker's requirement. In this reading, the quantifier denoted by varios de los libros 'several of the books' is a principal filter. It is generated by the subset of books in question. Going back to the sentences in (51), my intuitions are that a construal in which muchos de los estudiantes 'many of the students' or varias de las niñas desaparecidas 'several of the missing girls' are partitives —the complement of de 'of' is presupposed—but not principal filters is not possible. The quantifiers have to be principal filters to allow doubling. As a consequence, the sentences in (53) do not exhibit a scope ambiguity: the interpretations in which the students vary with the professors and the girls with the explorers are not possible. (53) a. Tres profesores los engañaron a muchos de los estudiantes three teachers them fooled to many of the students 'Three teachers fooled a group consisting of many of the students' b. Dos exploradores las encontraron a varias de las niñas two explorers them-fem. found-they to several of the girls desaparecidas disappeared 'Two explorers found a group of several of the missing girls' c. Quiero que me los traigas varios de los libros want-I that me them bring-you several of the books Ί want you to bring me several of the books' Spanish bare plurals cannot trigger a specific/principal filter reading. 25 The bare plurals in the following examples can only receive an existential non-definite/non-specific reading. (54) a. Juan ha comprado libros Juan has bought books 'Juan has bought books' b. La casa fue construida por obreros the house was built by construction-workers 'The house was built by construction workers' The prediction that follows from this property of bare plurals and the characterization of clitic doubling so far is that accusative clitic doubling of bare plurals is impossible, because this would force them to be princi-

132

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

pal filters. This is indeed the case. The partitive bare plural alcaldes de las ciudades costeras 'mayors of the coastal cities' cannot be doubled by an accusative clitic. (55)

*Los eligieron a alcaldes de las ciudades costeras them elected to mayors of the cities coastal 'They elected mayors of the coastal cities'

6. Dative doubling Dative clitic doubling is not subject to the Principal Filter Constraint. Both filter denoting and non-filter denoting noun phrases are allowed in doubling constructions with le. Consequently, the sets of examples in (56) and (57) are grammatical. Remember that what contrasts these two sets of sentences is that the generalized quantifiers in (56) are principal filters whereas those in (57) are not. (56) a. Les dieron un libro a esos estudiantes to-them gave a book to those students 'They gave a book to those students' b. Le pusieron objeciones a todo to-it put objections to all 'They raised objections to everything' c. Le/les dieron regalos a cada una de las niñas to-him/to-them gave presents to each one of the girls desaparecidas disappeared 'They gave presents to each one of the missing girls' (57) a. Les dieron regalos a muchos estudiantes to-them gave-they presents to many students 'They gave presents to many students' b. Les dieron algunos libros a varias niñas to-them gave-they some-pl. books to several girls desaparecidas disappeared 'They gave some books to several missing girls' c. Les hicieron promesas a algunos alcaldes to-them made promises to some-pl. mayors 'They made promises to some mayors'

Interface conditions

and the semantics of argument clitics

133

d. Les ofrecieron queso y leche a familias de pocos to-them offered-they cheese and milk to family of few medios resources 'They offered cheese and milk to low-income families' The behavior of existential and numeral determiners under dative clitic doubling follows the expected pattern. The principal filter and the standard (non-definite) interpretation are possible, so the sentences in (58) are ambiguous. (58) a. Les he dado una carta a tres monjas to-them have-I given a letter to three nuns Ί have given a letter to three nuns' b. Les envió saludos a unos profesores to-them sent greetings to a-pl. teachers 'He sent greetings to some teachers' The contrast between dative and accusative doubling can be explained in a minimalist grammar as a lexical difference. Concretely, as a difference in the feature specification of dative and accusative clitics in Spanish. While the selectional feature of accusative clitics is D[+def\, the selezionai feature of dative clitics is D. Thus, the crucial difference is that dative clitics do not select for a definite argument, so the denotation of the determiner phrase complement does not have to satisfy the Principal Filter Constraint. Further evidence in favor of the denotational difference between accusative and dative clitics is the following contrast in scope observed by Suñer (1988,1991): (59) a. Todos los electores los eligieron a algunos de los candidatos all the voters them elected to some of the-pl. candidates b. Todos los candidatos les han dicho la verdad a algunos all the candidates to-them have said the truth to some-pl. electores voters Suñer observes that in sentence (59a) only the object wide scope reading is allowed, whereas in sentence (59b) the object may take wide or narrow scope. Sentence (59a) is construed as 'there is a group of candidates such

134

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

that all the voters elected them'. Sentence (59b) is ambiguous between this reading and the object narrow scope reading, paraphrased as 'every candidate has told the truth to some electors'. The above contrast follows immediately from a theory of the sort we are defending, details of implementation aside. Syntactically, definite arguments are assumed to take wide scope. In more technical terms, principal filters are known to be scopeless (Zimmermann 1987), so they cannot have an interpretation in which they are dependent of the universal quantifier.

7. Doubling and intensionality As is well known (Montague 1969, etc.), indefinite or existential quantifiers trigger an ambiguity when they occur as objects of intensional verbs such as look for, want, etc.: (60) a. I am looking for a unicorn b. I want two secretaries The existential quantifiers in (60) can be construed as being principal filters or as not being principal filters (non-definite readings). The presence of an accusative clitic doubling the quantifier in the Spanish correlates of the above sentences forces the specific reading of the quantifiers, i.e. the quantifier expressions un unicornio 'a unicorn' and dos secretarias 'two secretaries' denote principal filters obligatorily in (61). By contrast, the variants without clitic doubling in (62) display the same ambiguity as (60). (61) a. Lo busco a un unicornio him look-for-I to a unicorn Ί am looking for a unicorn' b. Las quiero a dos secretarias then-fem want-I to two secretaries Ί want two secretaries' (62) a. Busco a un unicornio look-for-I to a unicorn Ί am looking for a unicorn' b. Quiero a dos secretarias want-I to two secretaries Ί want two secretaries'

Interface conditions

and the semantics of argument clitics

135

The above contrast follows without further assumptions from the Principal Filter Constraint. An accusative clitic forces the generalized quantifier it combines with to be a principal filter, so the ambiguity disappears. When an existential quantifier is modified by a relative clause, the mood of the verb in the relative clause determines the definite or non-definite interpretation of the quantifier. In sentence (63a), the existential quantifier dos secretarias 'two secretaries' can be only construed as definite. There is a group of two secretaries who speak French and the speaker is looking for them. The generalized quantifier function DOS SECRET A R I A S 'TWO S E C R E T A R I E S ' maps to True a unique set of two individuals in a certain situation, the above mentioned group. In this respect, indicative mood forces principal filterhood of the generalized quantifier. In (63b), subjunctive mood forces a non-definite interpretation of the existential quantifier, in other words, the quantifier cannot be true of a unique set of individuals. (63) a. Busco a dos secretarias que saben francés look-for-I to two secretaries that know-ind.-they French Ί am looking for two secretaries who speak (indicative) French' b. Busco a dos secretarias que sepan francés look-for-I to two secretaries that know-subj.-they French Ί am looking for two secretaries who speak (subjunctive) French' As expected, an existential generalized quantifier expression modified by a relative clause can be doubled by an accusative clitic only when the verbal mood is the indicative: (64) a. Las busco a dos secretarias que saben them-fem. look-for-I to two secretaries that know-ind.-they francés French Ί am looking for two secretaries who speak (indicative) French' b. *Las busco a dos secretarias que sepan them look-for-I to two secretaries that know-subj.-they francés French Ί am looking for two secretaries who speak (subjunctive) French'

136

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

8. Conclusion In this paper, a minimalist theory of the syntactic and semantic computation of argument clitics is proposed that attempts to account for some of the restrictions on the co-occurrence of this type of expressions with doubled elements in clitic doubling constructions. Clitic pronouns are viewed as lexical resources with categorial feature D and optionally selecting for another syntactic object of category D (the doubled element). The matching problem between the doubling clitic and its associate is explained as a by-product of feature selection. Concretely, an accusative clitic determiner selects for a matching definiteness feature in the doubled element. Thus, it is argued that definiteness and not specificity is the relevant factor in Spanish clitic doubling structures, and a rigorous semantic implementation of this property is also given. The [+def] feature corresponds to the semantic property of principal filterhood, as understood in Generalized Quantifiers Theory. In this paper, we have considered the essential data pertaining to the proposed analysis. A more exhaustive analysis of the semantics of clitic doubling, which includes the additional conditions that explain clitic doubling of negative quantifiers and in questions in a crosslinguistic setting, can be found in Gutiérrez-Rexach (1999c).

Notes 1. Kayne's generalization states that only noun phrases introduced by a case marker (the preposition a) can be doubled. 2. Sportiche's formulation of the clitic criterion follows Rizzi's (1991) reformulation of May's (1985) wh-criterion, and states the following: At LF, (i) a clitic must be in a spec/head relationship with a [+F] XP, (ii) a [+F] XP must be in a spec/head relationship with a clitic. Thus, at LF clitics license a feature [+F] of the phrases they are associated with. This property may be specificity and the associated element may be a null pro. 3. Some of the syntactic evidence given in Uriagereka (1996) for the claim that clitics behave as determiner heads is related to determiner-verb incorporation facts in Galician, such as the ones illustrated in (i). Nevertheless, the theoretical interpretation of these facts is controversial, since they can be viewed as an instance of a phonologically conditioned attachment process (Otero 1996). (i) a. Comemos o caldo ate-we the soup 'We ate the soup' b. Comemo-lo caldo ate-we-the soup 'We ate the soup'

Interface conditions and the semantics of argument clitics

137

c. *Comemo-lo o caldo ate-we-it the soup 'We ate the soup' 4. The system developed in Gutiérrez-Rexach (1997,1999a) is called a generalized minimalist grammar because it is a lexically driven derivational system in which syntactic and semantic derivations go in parallel. 5. Here and in Gutiérrez-Rexach (1999a), I conceive of a f e a t u r e / o f a lexical item I as semantically interpretable if the presence of / i n / is associated with a semantic rule. The notion of phonological interpretability can be viewed as the mirror image with repsect to the phonological component. 6. See Klavans (1982), Zwicky (1985), Zwicky and Pullum (1983) for a more detailed overview of the morpho-phonological mechanisms affecting cliticization. 7. See also Anderson's (1993) treatment of special clitics, which stresses the similarity with morphological clitics. 8. If DPs in general denote generalized quantifiers (arity reducers), the case feature of a D P indicates what type of generalized quantifier function is associated with that DP. For example, nominative DPs tipically denote functions from sets to tructh values, accusative DPs denote functions from binary relations to sets, etc. See section three for more details. 9. See Gutiérrez-Rexach (1997, 1999a) for a formal definition of the operations M E R G E and M O V E and a precise characterization of how these operations affect the feature matrices of the merged/moved expressions. 10. The label / of an expression indicates that it has been selected from the lexicon and is not the output of any syntactic operation. 11. I am ignoring here some complexities in the derivation of ditransitive constructions, which would require additional movement/checking steps. 12. The correlate of this distinction in a generalized minimalist grammar (Gutiérrez-Rexach, 1997,1999a) is whether the value of the selectional feature of the expression is t i the expression is maximal—or the value is not 0 and the expression is a head—then, it is minimal. 13. Doubling of non-prepositional direct objects in Spanish is less common even in those dialects that admit doubling of direct objects preceded by a. Jaeggli (1982) claims that in Standard Spanish doubling of non-pronominal direct objects is impossible, whereas in River Plate Spanish doubling of animate specific direct objects is possible but doubling of inanimate direct objects is still impossible. River Plate Spanish includes Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and some areas of Chile. I think that the facts are more complicated and probably not reducible to this contrast between dialects. My intuition about the examples in (14) is that they are both perfectly grammatical given the proper contexts. When doubling is optional, it tends to convey some additional emphatic content. In certain cases, the construction is only felicitous or strongly preferred under very specific pragmatic circumstances. For instance, echo contexts, such as the one in (i), tend to facilitate the presence of the clitic doubling a non-animate object. (i) -¿Has movido las sillas? -¿Have-you moved the chairs? '-Did you move the chairs?' -Sí, las he movido las sillas, qué pasa -Yes, them-fem have-I moved the chairs, what happens '-Yes, I moved them. So what?'

138

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

This is one of the reasons why it seems more accurate to talk about different dialects as ideal abstractions instantiating different options for the specification of clitics. Thus, I will refrain from making any correlation with geographic dialects. In order to be able to make claims about concrete geographic dialects, more detailed dialectal studies are needed. It would also be necessary to distinguish between what is plain ungrammaticall y and relative markedness due to specific pragmatic factors. See Fernandez-Soriano (1999) for a recent overview of the issue and Gutiérrez-Rexach (1999c) for an analysis based on semantic constraints. 14. Variation in the features [+fem]/[+mac] and [+sg]/[+pl] would give the entries for lo 'it/ him', las 'them-fem', los 'them-masc.'. 15. I take a to be also a marker of animacy (person features) and probably other semantic features such as specificity (Brugè and Brugger 1996), and not only a "case assigner" (Jaeggli 1982, etc.). The narrow characterization based o case was designed to square with Kayne's generalization. The entry for accusative a would be the following: LEX.IT.: a CAT.F.:

D

SEL.F.:

D[+anim, +acc]

From the above specification it follows that a will only merge with DPs that carry the features [+anim] and [+acc]. 16. As stated above, I am adopting here Keenan's (1989) semantic case theory, according to which morphological case has semantic import. This goes against the assumptions in Chomsky (1995), where case is taken to be an uninterpretable feature. A more detailed study of clitics and semantic case is undertaken in Gutiérrez-Rexach (1999c). See also the relevant explanation in the next section. 17. The selectional feature of an expression I is a list of the form , where a¡ is the category of the i-th selected item. Argument saturation corresponds to selectional feature checking and amounts to eliminating the members of the list. 18. The set F E M I N I N E is the set denoted by those expressions morphologically specified as [+feminine]. 19. The denotation of Pedro is the individual generated by p: the function [ p such that Ip( A) = 1 iff ρ,,t >). Therefore, the proform ahi is not restricted to a context set but rather to a higher order context function. The modifier function has to be 'compatible' with the denotation of the verb (with the property P). The mechanism that guarantees this is claimed to be a coercion operation along the lines proposed by Pustejovsky (1995). The semantics of the locative proform ahi that will be proposed here is more compatible with the semantics proposed for nominal clitics in Gutiérrez-Rexach (1999b,c, 2000) and simplifies the semantics given in (50) above. Clitic proforms are taken to denote functions inherently restricted to context sets (they have an obligatory context argument). Adverbial proforms are also dependent on context sets, but these sets are of a special sort. They are sets of events or event properties. Ahi denotes a function from context sets to functions from event properties to truth values defined as follows: (52)

Let E be the domain of entities of the event sort and A, C Ç E. Then, A H I G [P(E) -»- [P(E) 2]], and A H I ( C ) ( A ) = 1 iff {e\e G A & CUL(e, tnfíW)\ Í 1 C / 0

Consider sentence (53): (53)

Ahi llega Pedro there arrives Pedro 'Here is Pedro/Pedro is arriving'

Adverbial

weak pronouns:

Derivation

and interpretation

163

Let us assume that arrive denotes a relation between events and individuals. The computation of the meaning of (54) involves two steps. These steps are two instances of function application, corresponding to the two applications of M E R G E that derive the string in (53): (54)

AHI((LLEGA)PEDRO„„J

AHI

(LLEGA)PEDRCLJ LLEGA

PEDRO,,

First, the nominative extension (Keenan 1989) of PEDRO 1 4 applies to the binary relation denoted by llegar 'arrive'. (55)

Let a, ρ E E, e E E. Then, (LLEGA)PEDRO_ = ({< a, e > I < a, e > E LLEGA})(Ip)nom {e[p Ε {α|< a,e> E LLEGA}}

=

Therefore, llega Pedro 'arrives Pedro' denotes the set of events in which Pedro is arriving. In the second and final step the pronominal function AHI 'there' applies to this property of events: (56)

Let C be a context set of the event sort; AHI(C)((LLEGA)PEDRO„ o m ) = 1 iff AHI(C)(|e|p Ε {α|< a, e > E LLEGA}}) = 1 iff \e'\e' E [e\p Ε {α|< α, e > G LLEGA}} & CUL(e\

a, ρ EE. Then,

O l

n C / 0

Sentence (53) is true if and only if the intersection of the set of events e' in which John arrives and such that e' culminates at the speech time and the set C of events satisfying a contextually determined property is not empty. For instance, one interpretation of (53) is 'Pedro is arriving at that place'. In this case, the context set of (53) is the event property of being spatially situated at a particular location /. Formally: (57)

C = {e\Location{e) = 1}

In a specific discourse, if the context set is fixed to C in (57), the truth conditions of (53) would be:

164

(58)

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

A H I ( C ) ( ( L L E G A ) P E D R O „ o m ) = 1 iff AHI(C)({eb G {α|< a, e > e LLEGA}}) = 1 iff {e'\e' e {e[p E (a|< a, e > E LLEGA}} & CUL(e\ \e"\Location{e") = 1} * 0

tnow)} Π

In that context, sentence (53) is true if and only if the intersection of the set of events e' in which John arrives is such that e' culminates at the speech time and the set of events located at I is not empty or, simplifying, the sentence is true if there is an event e culminating at the speech time and such that John arrives at a contextually determined location in e. A second interpretation of (53) is just simply 'John is arriving now'. This can be considered a context neutral interpretation, because there are no contextually determined event conditions. The only requirement is that there is an event e such that Pedro arrives in e and e culminates at the speech time. This reading is entailed by the reading analyzed previously but the reverse entailment does not hold. Consider now the variety of interpretations associated with ahi in the sentences in (59). (59) a. [áj] hay mucho de que hablar there HAY much of that talk 'There is much to say about that subject' b. Por [áj] se llega a una solución by there SE arrive to a solution 'Doing that we arrive at a solution' c. Por [áj] de ancho vs. *de ancho por [áj] by there of wide vs. of wide by there 'Approximately of that width' d. Ya sabía yo que [áj] vendríamos a parar Already know I that there would-arrive-3p.pl. to stop Ί knew that we would get into that' e. [áj] me saludas a tu padre there me greet to your father 'Give my greetings to your father' f. [áj] verás que no miento there will-see-2p.sg. that not lie-lp.sg. 'You see that I am not lying with respect to that issue' g. [áj] esta llegando Pedro there is arriving Pedro 'Pedro is arriving now'

Adverbial

weak pronouns:

Derivation

and interpretation

165

h. [áj] vengo there come-lp.sg. Ί am coming (now)' For instance, in (59d) ahi denotes the internal argument of ir a parar 'get into', namely the contextually relevant subject or topic of the conversation. In (59g) ahi acts almost like a pure temporal deictic expression, which has to be necessarily ahora in order to satisfy the temporal condition in its definition, namely CUL(e, tnow). The same happens in (59h) where ahi vengo 'there come-I' is semantically equivalent to ahora vengo 'now come-I'. The contextual variability of ahi 'there' is to some extent similar to the variability observed in nominal clitics. The difference between an adverbial clitic and a nominal clitic is that the context set for an adverbial clitic is a property of events. In a neo-Davidsonian framework, thematic roles are conceived of as properties of events (Parsons, 1990, etc). 15 Therefore, it makes perfect sense to claim that thematic roles (the thematic properties of the event denoted by a verb) may be associated in some way to the context set of the adverbial proform. According to standard intuitions about the meaning of a sentence such as (59d), ahi 'there' saturates the argument of ir a parar 'get into' bearing the thematic role Theme. The theoretical issue at stake is to determine how that meaning transfer is possible, in other words, where to locate the interpretive variability or adaptability of the weak proform. The central idea will be that an adverbial pronoun such as ahi has the same quantificational properties as a nominal pronoun. It saturates an argument of the verb. In Keenan and Westerstâhl's (1997) terminology, it is an arity reducer. In addition, an adverbial proform has the capability of saturating arguments bearing different thematic roles: Theme, location, direction, instrumental, etc. (the agent role is always excluded). Since thematic roles are properties of events, the thematic variability of the weak proform can be viewed as related to its resource domain or context set argument, as defended above. In other words, it is the context that determines which thematic role or property of events has to be accommodated to satisfy the thematic requirements of the verb. Thus, the interpretive variability of adverbial proforms can be explained as emerging from the conspiracy between the thematic properties of the verb and the ability of the clitic to accommodate some of these properties through its context set argument. Consider sentence (60):

166

(60)

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

Ahi va a ir a parar Juan there goes to go to stop Juan 'Juan is getting into that'

The verb phrase ir a parar 'get into' subcategorizes for a nominative argument bearing the thematic role Agent and a second argument bearing the thematic role Theme. The first step in the computation of the meaning of (60) is the interpretation of the merger of va a ir a parar 'get into' (lit. 'goes to go to stop') and Juan 'Juan': (61)

Let a, b, j E E\ e E E. Then, (IR A PARAR)JUAN„ o m = ({< a, e >|< a, b, e> E IR A PARAR)(/ ; )„ om ) = \e\j E {fl|< a, b, e > E IR A PARAR))

In the second step, the function AHI ' T H E R E ' applies to the set of events in (62). The context set is a property of events and in this case corresponds to one of the entailments of the verb associated with the thematic role corresponding to the argument that ahi 'there' saturates: (62)

C = {e\Theme{e)

= x)

The idea that thematic roles correspond to entailments of a verb is defended by Dowty (1991). The additional assumption that is needed here is that when an argument is not directly asserted, then the thematic entailments associated to it have to be accommodated as discourse presuppositions in order to ensure that the sentence is felicitous. This presupposed information becomes part of the context set. The interpretation of (60), given the context in (62), is: (63)

AHI(C)((IR A PARAR)JUAN„ o m ) = 1 iff AHI(C)({é>Lj E |fl|< a, b, e > E IR A PARAR})) = 1 iff [e'\e' E [e\j Ε {α|< α, b, e> E IR A PARAR}} & CUL(e\ {e"\Theme{e")=x)

*

tnow)}

Π

0

Informally, (60) is true if and only if there is an event e in which John gets into something b, such that b is the theme of the event and χ is contextually determined: b may be the topic of a conversation, a problem or difficult situation, etc.

Adverbial

weak pronouns:

Derivation

and interpretation

167

The second essential ingredient in the semantics of weak proforms is that the culmination point of the event denoted by the verb has to be the speech time. To capture this property, the predicate CUL, introduced by Parsons (1985), will be used in the semantic representation. 16 The modifier denoted by ahi can take the verb denotation as its argument if and only if the culmination property holds between the event denoted by the verb and the speech time. The event described by the verb culminates at tnow. As was stated in the previous section, the empirical data show that ahi can co-occur with unaccusative verbs. Let us explain why this is so. The majority of the verbs comprised into the syntactic class of unaccusative verbs denote achievements. Unaccusative verbs describe events where the internal argument or theme undergoes some kind of change. Vendler's (1967) classification of verbs in states/activities/accomplishments and achievements can be partitioned along the culmination dimension. Achievements and accomplishments have a culmination point whereas states and activities do not have a culmination point. The distinction between culminated/ non-culminated events is captured in most event typologies. Achievements have a definite terminus but no duration (they are instantaneous). Accomplishments have duration (they are not instantaneous). The combination of event type and tense determines the licensing of ahi. An achievement verb in the present form describes an event whose culmination point coincides with the speech time. Therefore, the denotational requirement imposed by the weak proform is met, and it becomes licensed. The sentences in (43), repeated here as (64), become ungrammatical if the present tense is interpreted as generic or habitual. They are also incompatible with adverbs of quantification such as siempre 'always' a veces 'sometimes', a menudo 'often', etc (65). In all these cases, the quantificational force of the adverbs of quantification always, often, etc. or the generic operator requires the existence of several events that, as expected, do not culminate at tnow. (64) a. *[áj] viene/corre/llega ella there come/run/arrive-3.p.sg. she *'There she uses to come/run/arrive' b. *[áo.ra] viene/corre/llega ella now come/run/arrive she (65) a. *[áj] viene/corre/llega siempre ella there come/run/arrive-3.p.sg. always she 'She always comes/runs/arrives there'

168

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

b. *[áo.ra] viene/corre/llega ella siempre now come/run/arrive she always c. *[áj] viene/corre/llega a menudo ella there come/run/arrive-3.p.sg. to often she 'She often comes/runs/arrives there' d. *[áj] viene/corre/llega a veces ella there come/run/arrive-3.p.sg. to times she 'She sometimes comes/runs/arrives there' Similarly, if the tense of the verb is shifted to the past form, or the pluperfect form, etc. the sentences become ungrammatical. It is clear that in all these cases the condition on the event that its culmination point is identical to the speech time cannot be satisfied. (66)

*[áj] llegó/había llegado ella there arrived/had arrived she 'There she arrived'

The latter is a property which is apparently absent in some dialects of Spanish, such as Northwestern Spanish (especially Galician Spanish) or Mexican Spanish. These dialects lack the present perfect form haber-pres. + past participle 'have-pres.+ past participle' and some uses of the simple past cover what is the interpretation of the present perfect in Castilian Spanish. Therefore, in these dialects sentence (66) above is grammatical since the construal of the simple past form as present perfect allows that the culmination point of the event described by the verb be the speech time. In most dialects, there exists a construal of the future form under which this tense behaves like the present (future for present interpretation). For example, sentence (67), which is ungrammatical in the interpretation of verás 'you will see' as a future tense, can be also interpreted as 'now you see that I am not lying' rather than as 'there you will see that I am not lying'. (67)

[áj] verás que no te miento there will-see-you that not you lie-I 'Now you see that I am not lying to you'

Transitive verbs describe events in any of the four Vendlerian types. Consider (68), where the VPs comer patatas 'eat potatoes' and dar las gracias 'thank' describe activity events.

Adverbial

weak pronouns:

Derivation

and interpretation

169

(68) a. *[áj]/*[áo.ra] comen patatas tus amigos (cf. V [a.í]/[a.ó.ra]) there/now eat potatoes your friends 'Your friends are eating potatoes now/there' b. *[áj]/*[áo.ra] (les) dan las gracias a los invitados there/now (to-them) give the thanks to the guests (cf. V [a.í]/[a.ó.ra]) 'They are thanking the guests there/now' In both cases, the events are non-culminating. Sentence (68a) describes the activity of eating potatoes, which is being performed by your friends. (68b) describes the activity of thanking the guests for having attended the party. Therefore, the denotational requirement of ahi is not satisfied and the sentence becomes ungrammatical. The property of events that requires that the culmination point coincide with the speech time is not satisfied by the descriptions in (68), because activity descriptions are nonculminating. Consider now the contrast between sentence (68a) and sentence (46a), repeated here as (69). The example illustrates the fact that when the verb is in the progressive form the sentence becomes grammatical. (69)

[áj]/[áo.ra] están comiendo patatas tus amigos there/now are eating potatoes your friends 'Your friends are eating potatoes there/now'

This phenomenon is due to the action of the progressive operator. This operator, as characterized by Dowty (1979), etc., allows for culmination of compatible subevents of the event described by the verb. As a consequence, the denotational requirement of the weak proforms is satisfied, and the resulting sentence is not ungrammatical. For instance, (69) entails that there is a subevent e of the event of eating potatoes such that e culminates at the speech time. The culminativity requirement of weak proforms makes them specially sensitive to negation. The verb llegar 'arrive' denotes an achievement, but when it is negated no llegar 'not arrive', the event described loses its culminativity or termination property, in other words, it can no longer be characterized as an achievement but rather as a state. This explains, why whereas sentence (64a) is well-formed, sentence (70) is not. (70)

*Ahi no llega Pedro there not arrives Pedro

170

Javier

Gutiérrez-Rexach

As we have seen with respect to all the cases considered in this section, the reason for the ungrammaticality of the sentences or the existence of the contrasts seems to be that the presence of negation triggers a violation of the denotational requirements of the weak proform.

6. Conclusions In this paper, a unified account of the derivation and interpretation of sentences in which adverbial weak proforms, especially the clitic ahi, occur has been offered. A minimalist derivation is proposed which matches the compositional process of interpretation of locative doubling constructions. It is also argued that weak adverbial proforms denote functions of a kind similar to nominal clitics. They are arity reducing functions restricted to a context set. The difference between nominal and adverbial clitics resides in the contrasting nature of the context set. Adverbial clitics are restricted to properties of events and, in consequence, they are dependent on the eventive properties of the verbal projection they attach to.

Notes 1. For instance, Badia (1947), Corominas and Pascual (1985), Cuervo (1886), Espinosa (1946), Menéndez Pidal (1904), Navarro Tomás (1926), Place (1930), Tiscornia (1930), etc. 2. These criteria have been used recently by Cardinaletti and Starke (1994) to propose a tripartite distinction between strong pronouns, weak pronouns and clitics. The distinction between weak pronouns and clitics will be ignored here. 3. Spanish is one of the world's languages with a system of three deictic adverbials: aquí 'here (close to the speaker)', allí'there (close to the addressee)' and ahí'there (neutral)'. 4. The analysis proposed by Freeze is actually compatible with the status of locative proforms as clitics, since, as was explained in the previous chapter, some theories of clitics conceive of them as realizing inflectional features. 5. An adjunct is a syntactic object which does not change the category of the expression it attaches to. In derivational terms, it selects for an element of category χ and the output of the merged expression is also of category x. Since the category of the element that contains the selectional feature is the one that projects, they have to be specified as having the same category as the output (Gutiérrez-Rexach 1999a). This obviously resembles the treatment of adjuncts in categorial grammar. 6. Actually both Hoekstra and Mulder and Freeze postulate that when the locative proform and a full locative phrase co- occur in a sentence, they have to be coindexed to guarantee identity of reference. 7. The particular mechanics of this attachment process and the linearizations that are derived will not be considered in this paper.

Adverbial weak pronouns: Derivation and interpretation

171

8. If we were to mirror the standard Principles and Parameters line of analysis, the corresponding claim would be that ahi, ahora raise to Aspect Phrase and/or Tense Phrase, whereas nominal clitics raise to an Agreement projection —Agreement Object in the case of accusative clitics and Agreement Indirect Object in the case of dative clitics. Sportiche (1996) outlines this argument with respect to nominal clitics. 9. Merger is driven by the selectional feature of the selector, which targets an element satisfying the selected category. When the selectional feature is a list, merger eliminates one member of the list. 10. Actually, it may be claimed that instead of three applications of the unary M O V E operation, there is a single ternary movement operation prefixing the clitic cluster: (i) 5. MOVE: SYN.OBJ CAT.F.: SEL.F.: INT.F.:

ahi te lo pongo sobre la mesa ν 0 [...+w

PRO

τ' se

(= 22a)

VP

186

Víctor M. Longa and Guillermo

Lorenzo

AgrOP AgrO' Structural Case Positions

AgrO'

[...]

xP Inherent Case Positions

PRO

τ' se

VP V'

V

(= 22b) τΡ PRO

τ'

Inherent Case Positions e

(= 22c)

V'

Universal constraints on 'superfluous'

elements

187

4. Out of control We have suggested in section 1.2. that 'Arb CHE' projects a phrase in whose specifier a PRO element with an arbitrary reading is generated. Following Kayne (1991), we can consider this element an instance of the [+pronominal, -anaphoric] version of PRO.11 A prediction of this proposal is that sentences including an 'Arb CHE' element should not be accepted in control contexts. The prediction is clearly borne out, as shown by the contrast between (24a) and (24b): (24) a. As circunstancias permitiron [que o ministro che regalara the circumstances allowed that the minister arb complimented xoias a todo deus] jewels to everybody 'The circumstances allowed the minister to compliment everybody with pieces of jewelery' b. As circunstancias permitiron ó ministro [regalar(*ché) the circumstances allowed to-the minister to-compliment-(*arb) xoias a todo deus] jewels to everybody 'The circumstances allowed the minister to compliment everybody with pieces of jewelery' Note that permitir 'to allow' is used in (24a) as selecting a full propositional complement; 'Arb CHE' is o.k. within this proposition. But as soon as we use permitir as an Object Control' verb, as in (24b), the clitic is rejected. The same phenomenon can be observed, for instance, in the context of purpose clauses. Within these clauses, PRO would be controlled from the upper subject. As a consequence, 'Arb CHE' is excluded from these sentences, as shown in (25b). (25a) offers a sentence similar in meaning, but with 'Arb CHE' out of the influence of a controller: (25) a. O moi caradura cobrábac&e os seguros das the very barefaced collected-arb the insurances of-the naves queimadas storehouses burnt 'The barefaced man collected the insurance of the burnt storehouses' b. O moi caradura queimaba as naves the very barefaced burned the storehouses

188

Víctor M. Longa and Guillermo

Lorenzo

[para cobrar(*c7ie) os seguros] to collect-arb the insurances 'The barefaced man burned the storehouses to collect the insurance' Under the current proposal, 'Arb CHE' is expected to appear within 'raising-to-subject' contexts, where no control is registered. The prediction is again borne out, as shown in (26): (26)

A nena semella estar che de acordo en todo the girl seems to-be-arb in agreement in everything 'The girl seems to agree on everything'

It is worth remembering that the very same restrictions which apply to 'Arb CHE' regarding its exclusion from control contexts, also apply to 'Arb SE', in impersonal sentences, as noted by Cinque (1988).12 Consider the contrast between (27a), where 'Arb SE' relates with a finite verb, and (27b), where it relates with an infintive: (27) a. As circunstancias permitiron [que se regalara xoias the circumstances allowed that imp cumplimented jewels a todo deus] to everybody "The circumstances allowed that everybody be complimented with pieces of jewelery' b. As circunstancias permitiron [regalar(*se) the circumstances allowed to-cumpliment-imp xoias a todo deus] jewels to everybody 'The circumstances allowed complimenting everybody with pieces of jewelery' As in the case of 'Arb CHE', 'Arb SE' is also permitted within 'raising-tosubject' contexts, as shown in (28): (28)

Nesta reunión semella estarse de acordo en todo in-this meeting seems to-be-imp in agreement in everything 'In this meeting, everybody seems to agree on everything'

Mendikoetxea (1990) explains that (27) follows straightforwardly from her idea of considering 'Arb SE' as an AgrS head. She assumes that AgrS does

Universal constraints on 'superfluous'

elements

189

not project in the case of infinitival clauses, which determines that in sentences such as (27), there is not a proper head within the infinitival complements for 'Arb SE' to be attached to. Nevertheless, notice that her idea does not have a straightforward application to sentences such as (28). However, once we observe that identical restrictions hold for an item located in a head different from AgrS, namely 'Arb CHE', we have to conclude that the restriction has nothing to do with 'Arb SE' in itself, but maybe with a PRO element located in the Spec of its projection, an aspect of Mendikoetxea's analysis which can be traced back to Otero's (1985) work on arbitrary subjects. According to our analysis, this PRO is a pronominal element which must remain free, and it is actually the property shared by both 'Arb SE' and 'Arb CHE' projections, according to our proposal. Therefore, it seems reasonable to relate it with the exclusion of both items from control contexts.

5. Conclusions In this article, we have proposed to locate Galician 'Arb CHE' as the head of a TP projection, which is also the base position of the anaphoric clitic 'SE'. This explains their complementary distribution, as well as certain restrictions which affect both items. Namely, we have seen that both 'Arb CHE' and 'anaphoric SE' block the movement operation that experiencer datives must undergo for case reasons in the context of a psych-verb of the preoccupare class. We have explained it as a consequence of a minimality effect in the crossing of case positions of the same sort. We have also proposed to locate a pure pronominal PRO element in the Spec position of the rP headed by 'Arb CHE', which explains why this item is incapable of appearing under the influence of a controller and captures its affinity with the impersonal clitic 'SE'. With all this in mind, we can firmly conclude that the behavior of a seemingly peripheral element such as 'Arb CHE' is actually strongly conditioned by central aspects of Universal Grammar.

Notes 1. This use is also characteristic of Asturian and the Spanish varieties spoken in Galicia and Asturias, to which we will refer sometimes as Northwestern Spanish. 2. See, for instance, Lasso de la Vega's (1968:573-574) general description and study of Classical Greek. For Spanish, see Alcina and Blecua (1975:868). 3. It can be used, however, with a polite form equivalent to the 3rd person:

190

Víctor M. Longa and Guillermo

Lorenzo

(i) Esta robaliza estál le moi fresca this sea-bass is-arb(pol) very fresh 'This sea bass is very fresh' But even in these cases, the dative pronoun does not refer to the addressee of the utterance. It still introduces the idea of a generic concern on the content of the sentence, which only adapts its shape to a formal context. 4. See the qualifications to this observation in section two. 5. See also Mendikoetxea (1993). 6. This sentence is also incorrect reversing the order of the clitics, as shown in the sentence below: (i) Diante un fracaso da policía, disque o ministro criticába(*che)se con dureza 7. This idea is not surprising at all attending to the examples of morphological reflexive marking in languages like Kannada, provided by Lidz (1995). Kannada lacks a SELF anaphor, but it has a 'verbal reflexive' which, attached to the verb, makes it possible for a reflexive SE-type pronoun to have a local antecedent. For a different approach see Torrego (1995). 8. It is not surprising that a '2nd person, singular' pronoun is the one chosen to appear as the head in this construction. '2nd person, singular' pronouns are also used in other construction with an arbitrary reading, as in the following sentences: (i) Para llegar In-order reach-inf cambias a change-2p-sing to 'In order to reach

a la Facultad, coges la línea 5 y luego to the Faculty, take-2p-sing the line 5 and then la 8 the 8 campus, one takes line n. 5 and then changes to n. 8'

About this issue see Hernanz (1991). 9. See Martin (1993). 10. On the issue of inherent case being checked within functional projections, see Lasnik (1995). 11. We have previously located a [-pronominal, +anaphoric] in the Spec position of the phrase headed by an 'anaphoric SE'. Thus the features of the P R O element in τΡ differ whether headed by 'Arb C H E ' or by 'anaphoric SE'. 12. See also Mendikoetxea (1990: 320-325).

References Alcina Franch, José & José M. Blecua 1975 Gramática Española. Barcelona: Ariel. Baker, Mark C. 1985 "The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation", Linguistic Inquiry 16, 373-416. Belletti, Andrea & Luigi Rizzi 1991 "Notes on Psych-Verbs, 0-Theory, and Binding". In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.

Universal constraints on 'superfluous'

elements

191

Branchadell, Albert 1992 A Study on Lexical and Non-Lexical Datives. UAB, PhD Dissertation. Cinque, Guglielmo 1988 "On Si Constructions and the Theory of Arb", Linguistic Inquiry 19,521-581. Hernanz, María L. 1991 "En torno a los Sujetos Arbitrarios: la Segunda Persona del Singular", en Violeta Demonte & Beatriz Garza Cuarón (ed.) Estudios de Lingüística de España y México}, México, El Colegio de México-UNAM. Kayne, Richard S. 1991 "Romance Clitics, Verb Movement, and PRO", Linguistic Inquiry 22,647-686. Lasnik, Howard 1995 "Case and Expletives Revisited: On Greed and Other Human Failings", Linguistic Inquiry 26, 615-633. Lasso de la Vega, José 1968 Griego Clásico. Madrid: CSIC. Lidz, J. 1995 "Morphological Reflexive Marking: Evidence from Kannada", Linguistic Inquiry 26, 705-710. Martin, Roger 1993 "On the Distribution of the Case Features of P R O " . Ms, UConn at Storrs. Mendikoetxea, Amaya 1990 "On the Syntax of Constructions with Arb SE in Spanish". In José A. Lakarra & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (ed.), Syntactic Theory and Basque Syntax Supplements of the Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca 'Julio de Urquijo'. International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology XXVII, San Sebastián: Diputación Forai de Gipuzkoa. 1993 "Los Clíticos como Categorías Subléxicas de Concordancia". In O. Fernández Soriano (ed.), Los Pronombres átonos, Madrid: Taurus. Otero, Carlos P. 1985 "Arbitrary Subjects in Finite Clauses". In Ivonne Bordelois, Heles Contreras & Karen Zagona (ed.), Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax, Dordrecht: Foris. Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland 1993 "Reflexivity", Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657-720. Rizzi, Luigi 1986 "On Chain Formation". In Hagit Borer (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, New York: Academic Press. 1990 Relativized Minimality. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. Roca, Francese 1993 "The analysis of Accusative and Dative Clitics in Spanish and Catalan". Ms, UAB. Torrego, Esther 1995 "From Argumentai to Non-Argumentai Pronouns: Spanish Doubled Reflexives", Cuadernos de Linguistica III, 1-17.

Clitic-doubling and the acquisition of agreement in Spanish Marta Luján and Claudia Parodi

To Noam Chomsky, with enduring gratitude

1. Introduction Clitic-doubling(CD) of a lexical Direct Object (DO) is found in the Spanish of many (Latin)American areas besides the commonly reported 'Rioplatense' environs. 1 In fact, in the large Andean area, where Spanish coexists with Quechua and many other native languages, pronominal clitics of variable Case freely 'double' different kinds of DO's with which they do not generally agree in Gender and Number (G/N), as shown in (1) (Luján 1987). Surprisingly, this type of C D also occurs in Los Angeles Spanish (LAS), as spoken by bilingual English speakers of Hispanic descent, and illustrated in (2). 2 (We give the clitics in bold and the doubled lexical DO's in Italics.) (1)

Andean Spanish (AS): Me la han roto mi cometa 'They've ruined my comet' No lo vi a sus hermanitos Ί didn't see his brothers' Se lo llevó una caja 'S/he took a box' Le lavo la olla Ί wash the pot'

(2)

LA Spanish (LAS): Lo veo la niña Ί see the girl' La dejó el coche en la esquina 'S/he left the car at the corner' ¿Me lo das el dinero? 'Can you give me the money?' Lo leí el periódico en LA Ί read the newspaper in LA'

The atypical non-agreeing clitics double pronominal and lexical DO's not marked by the Accusative (ACC) preposition a. This generalized use of

194

Marta Lujan and Claudia Parodi

clitics contrasts with that in Standard Spanish (SS), where doubling clitics observe agreement, require the ACC marker, and are obligatory with a definite object pronoun, as in (3a) vs. (3b), but optional with an 'animate' DO, as in (3c): (3)

Standard Spanish (SS): a.*(Lo) conoces a él 'You know him' b. (*Lo) conoces a uno 'You know one' c. ¿(Lo) conoces a Juan? 'Do you know Juan?'

Andean Spanish (AS) shares few structural features with LAS. The latter is, by and large, a prepositional VO (Verb + Obj) variety, which differs from English mainly in the Pro-drop phenomenon, and from SS in its empoverished agreement and its preferred fixed SVO (Subj + Verb + Obj) order for clause constituents. In contrast, AS shows head-final phrases, omission and variable use of prepositions, absence of G/N agreement, most of which features are found in Quechua, a Pro-drop postpositional V-final language. The question is, then, why contact of Spanish with such divergent languages as Quechua and English can give rise to a parallel use of object clitics. An adequate account should seek to generate the data as well as to explicate the language acquisition process. While Government-Binding (GB) analyses of object clitics formalize traditional grammar notions about Case, which exclude CD in structures with no ACC marker (Jaeggli 1986), earlier versions of the Minimalist Program (MP) (Chomsky 1993) do not fare much better in the analysis of CD. In early MP, an object clitic is a functional agreement (AGR) head which checks the Case and AGR features of the DO when this moves into a Spec(ifier)-Head configuration with the object clitic, just as a separate higher AGR head checks the Case and AGR features of the Subject. 3 Given that the relevant lexical head (e.g. V(erb) in TP = IP domain) adjoins the various AGR affixes, word order differences can be derived without appeal to an independent parameter about Head position. Despite obvious gains, CD structures remain intractable, as the relation between Spec type and AGR head remains a one-to-one relation. However, Chomsky's (1995) new MP checking and movement theory overcomes the problem presented by structures with multiple manifestations of the same Case and/or AGR. In the modified MP, Case and AGR are 'Strong' or 'Weak' formal features (FF) of the functional categories in the vocabulary of a language. On the basis of the 'interpretability' of FF, and the type of movement (overt vs. covert) they trigger, according to

Clitic-doubling

and the acquisition

of agreement in Spanish

195

whether they are strong or weak, AGR and Case of a term may be checked separately at different points and sites in a derivation. Thus, 'apparent' doubling of structural Case, other than ACC, as in CD structures, is in fact predicted to occur, particularly, in areas of language contact where speakers get to learn a language that has an explicit system of AGR inflections, as in SS. In what follows, we present an analysis of doubling in the new MP terms which accounts for CD in the Spanish dialects under consideration, and at the same time derives their word order and Prodrop characteristics.4 Consequently, the notion of 'transfer' commonly used to describe these language contact data is not only unnecessary, but it also misrepresents the nature of the language faculty and the acquisition process. Moreover, 'transfer' is clearly useless when it comes to accounting for the innovative features, such as doubling structures in AS and LAS, which are either highly restrictive or nonoccurrent in SS, as well as in Quechua or English. Language variation and acquisition in the MP perspective involves a determination of the 'strength' values (Strong vs. Weak) of FF in the functional categories included in the vocabulary of a language. Thus, if CD in AS and LAS relates to the acquisition of the strong explicit AGR morphology in SS, then it must result from the resetting of FFs' values, among them those that derivatively define Pro-drop in SS.5 The appearance of CD and other types of doubling is thus derived from UG. Our analysis explains why the atypical clitics are not restricted to OV > VO transitional dialects, such as AS, but are in fact expected in the speech of bilinguals whose native language has the type of weak AGR that requires overt Subject, as in English, regardless of whether the OV > VO change is also involved.

2. General characteristics of Andean Spanish (AS) AS has been described mainly under the notion that it has massive transfer of Quechua's word order (Cerrón-Palomino 1976, Escobar 1978, Mendoza and Minaya 1975, Muysken 1981, among others). Indeed, the Spanish of bilingual Quechua speakers typically shows head-final phrases, and infrequent use of prepositions, features shared by Quechua, a postpositional head-final language. The following table from Luján, Minaya and Sankoff (1984) shows AS (Initial or Early Stage) side by side with Quechua and SS, as compared for clausal and NP word order, and type of adposition, in the terms of Greenberg's (1966) typology. (V: Verb; O: Object; PREP: preposition; POST: postposition; G: genitive; and A: adjective.)

196

(4)

Marta Luján and Claudia

QUECHUA

ov

POST GN AN

Parodi

EARLY STAGE AS OV (PREP) GN AN

S. SPANISH

vo

PREP NG NA

If there is massive word order transfer from Quechua to AS, then it makes an obvious exception of POST, nominal inflections commonly found in Vfinal languages (e.g. Japanese, Turkish, Korean, etc.). Clearly, the irregular/infrequent AS prepositions do not seem to replace the missing Quechua postpositions. They also differ from SS prepositions in being frequently omitted and lexically diverse. The examples that follow (from Minaya and Luján 1982) illustrate word order in the early stage of acquisition of AS by Peruvian Quechua-speaking children who average five years of age. (5)

Word

order:

a. ... [ 0 b j verduras] [ v están cultivando] 'they're growing vegetables' b. [Adv En ahí] [y dormíamos] 'We used to sleep there' c · iobjTu Ldj chiquito] [ N oveja]] [ v véndeme] 'Sell me your little sheep' d · lobi icen D e u n a señora] [,v su frazada]] [Sub¡ mi papá] [y sacó] 'My dad took a woman's blanket' In the process of learning SS, the bilingual children's speech goes through intermediate stages that exhibit co-existing alternative orders, such as OV/VO, GN/NG, and AN/NA. That is to say, the children use the new sequences without immediately or completely abandoning the earlier ones. Similar data are given by Muysken (1981) for Ecuatorian adult bilinguals. The quantitative analysis of the alternative AS word orders establishes two necessary intermediate stages which mediate the Early or Initial Stage AS and SS, so that at every stage the children's speech corresponds to some attested language type in Greenberg's classification (Luján, Minaya and Sankoff 1984). The first Intermediate Stage shows the OV > VO change, the second one GN > NG, while AN > NA bridges Intermediate Stage 2 and SS. This is represented in:

Clitic-doubling

(6)

INITIAL AS ov (PREP) GN AN

and the acquisition

INTERM. AS 1 ov/vo (PREP) GN AN

of agreement in Spanish

INTERM. AS 2 vo PREP GN/NG AN

197

S.SPANISH vo PREP NG AN/NA

The two Intermediate AS stages roughly correspond to ages 7 and 9 years-old and they show pre- and postnominal GEN, as well as V-final and V-initial phrases. Innovations, roughly spanning 5 to 9 years of age in Peruvian children, are shown in the increasing frequencies of the headinitial phrases in contrast to the decreasing frequencies of the early headfinal sequences. Similar frequency patterns as in the older Peruvian children are found in the speech of Ecuatorian adult bilinguals, as corroborated by Muysken's (1981) data. The following are examples of Intermediate AS: (7)

Word order: a. [ Subj Un chico] lo ha matado] [ 0èy a una paloma] 'A kid has killed a dove' b. [ v Murió] [ Subj su [ N primo] [ G m de mi mamá]] 'My mother's cousin passed away' c. [ Subj Un señor] le [ v ha quitado] [ 0 b / [ Gen de la señora] su Ά man has taken the woman's quinua'

quinua]]

d

- [subj U n a [n P u e r t i t a ] [a chiquita]] no [ v es] [A mía] Ά small door is not mine' D e ese e · isubj icen chiquito] su [ N perro]] [ A d j diferente] [ v es] 'That little kid's dog is different' Ahl f · Ldv 1 \-Subj e l Lv P a t i t ° ] lidj chiquito]] [y está] 'Over there is the small duck' Quechua speakers show difficulty in learning the P R E P vocabulary in SS, as indicated by the frequent omission of prepositions, redundant use and different lexical choice as compared with SS. The examples that follow illustrate the irregular prepositions of AS. We indicate in parenthesis an omitted preposition, as well as a redundant one, by giving the SS equivalent in each case: (8)

Prepositions: a. ... La chacra hay palos {en) 'There are sticks in the farm'

198

Marta Lujárt and Claudia

Parodi

b. Hay veces vengo ... mi chai (con) 'There are times I come with my shawl' c. Llegamos ... mi colegio (α) 'We arrive at school' d. Han llamado ... la policía (a) 'They've called the police' e. ... Juan Aguila han agarrado (a) 'They've caught Juan Aguila' (9) a. En adentro hay cuchillo (0) 'There's knife inside' b. Ahí juegan de los escolares (0) 'The school children play there' c. He ido en bastante parques (a) 'I've gone to enough parks' d. Estaba de favor de Juan (α) 'S/he was in Juan's favor' e. La llamaba de teléfono {por) 'S/he would call her over the phone' AS has, moreover, other unusual features, which are not found in SS or in Quechua. One such is the hybrid pattern of duplicated verbs, adverbs and clitics, as in the following examples from Minaya and Luján (1982). (10)

AS: a. De Puno traemos hartas ocas traemos 'From Puno we-bring many ocas.' b. Está gordo está 'S/he is fat.' c. En acá nomás es su pension en acá 'Here's his/her boarding place.' d. Otros se están peinándose 'Lit. Others are combing themselves'

SS: Traemos hartas ocas de Puno Está gordo Acá nomás es su pensión Otros se están peinando

Another innovative feature, which has not yet been fully investigated and is the focus of study here, is the general use of pronominal clitics of variable form as for Case and G/N agreement, which double a lexical D O usually not preceded by the ACC preposition. We illustrate with the following examples (Luján 1987), showing in parenthesis the alternative SS form for each underlined clitic:

Clitic-doubling

(11)

and the acquisition

of agreement in Spanish

199

A typical clitics: a. Lo ha matado a una palomita (0) 'S/he has killed a little dove' b. Se lo llevó caramelos (0) 'S/he took away candy' c. Lo botó su pistola (0) 'S/he discarded his gun' d. Se lo tomó su leche (0) 'S/he drank up the milk'

Minaya and Luján (1982) give an account of the duplicated categories in the verb phrase, on the basis of X-bar theoretic properties of UG, while Luján (1987) shows that AS doubling clitics cannot be dealt with in the GB theory of Case Absorption. However, on the basis of an alternative Minimalist analysis, Luján, Minaya and Flynn (1995) argue that the word order acquisition stages in Luján, Minaya and Sankoff (1984) are derivative from the acquisition of SS inflectional morphology, specifically, its strong explicit A G R system of which the clitic pronouns are a part. We now want to sharpen and extend this account to the LAS parallel object clitics and at the same time derive both word order and Pro-drop differences between AS and LAS, whose general characteristics we consider next.

3. General features of LA Spanish (LAS) The Spanish spoken in Los Angeles by English speakers of Hispanic descent is, like SS and English, a prepositional VO dialect, which differs from AS in that it has no V-final phrases, although it shows a minority of N-final sequences. In Greenberg's typological terms, a comparison of Quechua, SS and English with LAS and AS (both highlighted in the table below) shows the following:

QUECHUA ov POST GN AN

A SPAN. ov/vo

S.SPAN. VO

LA SPAN. VO

ENG. VO

(PREP) GN/NG AN/NA

PREP NG NA

PREP GN/NG AN/NA

PREP GN AN

Other relevant features of LAS that distinguish it from AS, however, do not show in this typological classification. One such is its use of explicit

200

Marta Luján and Claudia Parodi

subject pronouns, illustrated in the examples below, which co-exists with the Pro-drop option that it shares with SS. We give in parentheses the alternative SS form that would be used in place of the underlined element in each example. (13)

Explicit subject: a. Tú tenías 12 años cuando tú viste tu primera película de terror (0) 'You were 12 yrs. old when you saw your first terror movie' b. Los abuelos eran ricos y ellos vivían en España (0) 'The grandparents were rich and they (= the grandparents) lived in Spain.' c. Cuando Pedro trabaja, él no bebe (0) 'When Pedro works, he (= Pedro) doesn't drink'

Another distinguishing feature, which seems to go along with the use of overt subject pronouns, is an overall tendency to use fixed SVO order for clause constituents, much as in English, which in turn renders superfluous the use of the ACC preposition, as in: (14)

Juan vio ... Prince en el teatro (a) 'Juan saw Prince at the theatre'

However, LAS shares with AS, as well as English and Quechua, a scant variable use of G/N agreement. This can be seen in a variety of structures that include predicate sentences and doubling clitics, as illustrated below: (15)

Agreement: a. El padre los visitó a ellas en San Francisco (las) 'The father visited them in S. F.' b. No encontraba mi tarea y lo necesitaba (la) Ί couldn't find my homework and I needed it' c. Yo lo reconocí a ustedes (los) Ί recognized you (pl.)'

(16)

Subject-Predicate agreement: a. Las luces estaban apagados (apagadas) 'The lights (fem.) were turned off (masc.)' b. Ellas no parecían disgustados (disgustadas) 'They (fem.) seemed upset (mase.)'

Clitic-doubling

(17)

and the acquisition

of agreement in Spanish

201

Doubling clitics: a. Yo lo creo que ha pasado conmigo (0) Ί think it has happened with me' b. Lo puse el libro en la mesa (0) Ί left the book on the table' c. La quiero ver a esta obra de teatro (0) Ί want to see this theatre play'

Since explicit Object agreement, as expressed by the clitics, co-occurs with lexical and nonlexical D O ' s not generally marked by the ACC preposition, parallel to the manner in which Subject agreement co-occurs with overt and non-overt subjects, it is reasonable to conclude that the relation between explicit A G R morphology and the form and position of the agreeing argument is less tight than has been previously assumed.

4. Object clitics as object agreement features Clitic doubling (CD) of a lexical D O that lacks the ACC marker is excluded in the Government-Binding (GB) framework, where object clitics are considered Case-absorbing affixes in the verbal inflection (Jaeggli 1986). There is, in principle, no way to derive such structures in any version of the Principles-and-Parameters approach that incorporates Case-Absorption, since a lexical D O that co-occurs with a Case-absorbing object clitic infringes the Case Filter if it has no Case-marking of its own (Luján 1987). The G B accounts merely translate traditional grammar notions about Case, and these obviously discriminate against such CD structures. However, since these structures are widely attested in many different areas of the Americas, analyses that preclude them are simply inadequate. Chomsky's (1993) initial version of the Minimalist Program (MP) does not provide a better alternative for the analysis of CD. In such framework, an object clitic is a functional A G R head which checks the Case and A G R features of the D O when this moves into a Spec-Head configuration with the object clitic, in the same way as a corresponding A G R head checks the Subject's Case and A G R features. The leftward movement of V to adjoin the A G R affixes defines various word order possibilities. Likewise, similar alternatives are derived by head movement internal to D P (= NP) domain. Hence, an independent parameter about Head position is not needed to define word order differences. Notwithstanding this advantage, CD structures cannot be dealt with adequately

202

Marta Luján and Claudia Parodi

in early MP, as the relation between Spec type and AGR head remains a one-to-one relation. However, Chomsky's (1995) latest MP version, specifically, the new checking theory provides the means to construct an interesting unifying account of the Andean and LA CD structures which predicts their existence in areas where SS is in contact with languages that have a meager system of AGR inflections, such structures being, in fact, the result of the acquisition of the strong explicit AGR morphology in SS. Word order and Pro-drop facts are also derivative, and do not result from independent parametric values about Head position or Pro-drop option. In fact, other apparent doublings of structural Case are predicted and borne out by language contact data, particularly, those proceeding from areas where speakers get to learn a language with an explicit rich system of AGR inflections. Chomsky's (1995) checking and movement theories provide a solution for structures with duplicate manifestations of the same Case and/or AGR, as in the CD structures. In the latest MP, Case and AGR are 'Strong' or 'Weak' formal features (FF), «- and v-features, in the functional categories of a language's vocabulary, whose function is to check the Case and AGR features of an argument that enters into a checking relation in SpecHead or F-Head configuration with a functional head. The Strong vs. Weak distinction in the value of FF determines whether the movement of the relevant element(s) into the checking domain of a functional head must be overt or covert, respectively. Following the principle of Full Interpretation (FI), strong FF must be checked before Spell-out for a derivation to converge at Phonetic Form (PF). Weak FF are not 'visible' at PF, but they must be checked covertly (after Spell-out) for convergence at Logical Form (LF). Thus, while the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) in English results from overt NP movement to Spec of T(ense) to erase T's strong «-feature, the opposite Pro-drop in Spanish derives by covert Fmovement to erase T's weak «-feature. Hence, the need for an independent parameter to account for Pro-drop is also successfully eliminated. In the new MP terms, object clitics, as overt manifestations of Object agreement, are checked against FF of the 'light' verb ν that embeds VP, much as verbal inflections (or Subject agreement) are checked by FF in T(ense). Now, there are two ways in which checking may be done. An argument that moves overtly into the checking domain of a H(ead), attracted by a strong «-feature in H, may also have its Case (or AGR) feature checked by H as a 'free rider'. For instance, NOM Case is a free rider on the EPP-feature in English, but on the AGR features in Spanish. Since

Clitic-doubling

and the acquisition

of agreement in Spanish

203

free-riding allows for all the features of an argument to be checked at the same site, this checking mode defines a one-to-one relation between Spec's and functional heads. However, the fact that FF differ in their 'interpretability' also allows for an argument's Case and A G R features to be checked separately in different checking domains. This type of feature checking follows from the fact that FFs that are not interpretable, such as Case, or the phi-features of T, must be erased once checked, so that they are inaccessible to further operations. In contrast, features that are interpretable, such as categorial ones, and the phi-features of a nominal, cannot delete, and must remain accessible after checking. Hence, a nominal can move into a checking relation more than once for A G R or the EPP, but not for Case (Chomsky 1995: 283-285). Consequently, split feature checking may put a nominal into a checking relation with more than one functional head. Alternatively, a functional head may be in a checking configuration with more than one Spec. Presumably, this type of feature checking is what is required to derive typical doubling structures, as we shall see in a subsequent section. FF's Strong vs. Weak distinction renders superfluous the A G R heads of earlier MP versions, so that the structure for the minimal clause (= TP/IP) is now as given in (18a), where Τ embeds vP, and Spec, is the checking site for Subject. (18b) shows vP with V adjoined to v, and with Spec 2 , the checking site for Object; while (c) gives the multiple Τ head resulting from adjunction of the various FF sets (Chomsky 1995, chap. 4): (18) a.

CP

TP

C Spi

Τ

ν ν'

Subj ν

VP V

Obj

204

Marta Luján and Claudia Parodi

The question that we must next address is this. What FF in the functional categories determine the overt and covert movements that define the word order and Pro-drop characteristics of the dialects/languages under consideration?

4.1. Formal features (FF) Let us now focus on the functional categories' strong FF, which define basic parametric variation and drive the derivation through the overt movements that must take place before Spell-out for convergence at PF. In order to define the various types of agreement and the contrast of presence vs. absence of Spec (EPP vs. Pro-drop) in a head's projection we set up the following specifications: (19) A.Subj/Obj AGR = strong v-features in T, and ν Β. EPP = strong η-features in T, D, v, and η C. G/N AGR = strong v-features in D, and η Notice that AGR and Case are indistinctly associated to v- and «-features. (A) pertains to TP domain, (C) to DP domain, and (B) to both. Although (A) and (C) are formally nondistinct, and collapsible under 'AGR', we

Clitic-doubling

and the acquisition

of agreement in Spanish

205

keep them apart as they involve concretely distinct morphology. The relevant functional categories are, T, D, v, and n, tentatively assuming the 'light' η for DP to replace Num(ber), the AGR head generally assumed to embed NP. Furthermore, we generalize the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) in (B), which accounts for the overt Subject, to the prenominai GEN, the preverbal DO, the prenominai Adjective, and so forth. In other words, EPP here covers any spelled-out Spec. Therefore, Pro-drop, the postnominal GEN and Adjective, and the postverbal DO must all involve weak FF; that is, the FF that drive the derivation covertly for convergence at LF. In (20) we give T's FF for each of the dialects involved, indicating the Strong vs. Weak contrast in n-/v-features with caps and noncaps, respectively: (20)

FF in T: English

T's strong N-feature in English requires the Subject to move to Spec of Τ before Spell-out, in contrast to SS and Quechua, where T's weak n-feature is checked covertly at LF; hence Pro-drop. On the other hand, strong F-features in SS (expressing Subject AGR) must be checked by overt Vbadjunction to Τ for convergence at PF, before Spell-out. In contrast, Quechua and English's weak v-features trigger this adjunction, but covertly at LF. Contact of English or Quechua with SS in the context of English speakers or Quechua speakers learning SS, indicated by the connecting lines in (20), involves the change in strength value ν > V. However, English speakers need the additional change Ν > η in T. Next consider FF (ν), shown in (21). The sets of FF are as in (20), but reversed for English and Quechua. SS and English weak «-feature in ν motivates covert EPP checking at LF, hence their postverbal DO, also shared by LAS. Instead, Quechua's strong TV-feature in ν must be checked in Spec2 of v, shown in (18b), before Spell-out, giving the preverbal DO, also found in AS.

206

(21)

Marta Lujan and Claudia

Parodi

FF in ν: English

SSpanish

Quechua

[v-rc]

I [V-n]

[v-N]

[V-n]

[V-N]

LAS

AS

I

On the other hand, V-features in ν correspond to Object AGR (= object clitics) and they are similar to the ones in Τ that define Subject AGR. They must be checked (but not erased) by V-adjunction to ν before Spellout for SS, but not for English and Quechua, where checking is done covertly at LF. Therefore, both English speakers and Quechua speakers learning SS must reset the strengh value ν > V. However, now it is Quechua speakers who must also reset N>nin FF(v), in order to get the postverbal DO in AS (Intermediate Stages), as in SS. Consider now the strength of FF involved in G/N AGR. The details are murky regarding DP structure. Recall that Number is now a FF rather than an AGR head, hence our tentative postulation of a functional light η (parallel to ν in TP), and the corresponding nP separating DP and NP. The relevant FF in DP are: (22)

FF in D/n: English

Here, the weak v-feature in D and η for the absence of G/N AGR in both Quechua and English would trigger covert N-adjunction to η at LF, as opposed to SS, whose strong V-feature would drive an overt N-to-rc adjunction before Spell-out, as required by its overt G/N AGR. With regards to EPP, Quechua and English would again be similar, with their strong Nfeature accounting for the prenominai GEN and Adjective, as these would overtly raise to Spec of D and Spec of n, respectively, for FF checking. In contrast, SS would have FF checking covertly at LF, hence its post-

Clitic-doubling

and the acquisition

of agreement in Spanish

207

nominal G E N and Adjective. Thus, with regards to acquisition of G/N A G R , both Quechua and English speakers learning SS must reset the strength values v> V and Ν > η for FF(D/n).

4.2. Split-feature checking and doubling structures Object clitics in SS fall under the checking domain of v's strong K-features. They are checked in ν to erase A G R FF(v), and in Τ to erase their Case feature, when Vb overtly adjoins to T, triggered by its strong V-features. Recall that FF(T) attract FF(v), as shown in (18c). Whether FF(v) are pronounced in Τ depends on the D O being pronominal. If it is not, then it erases v's Case feature when it checks its Case in Spec 2 of vP. Hence a co-occurring object clitic would bear an uninterpretable (unchecked) Case feature and the derivation fails to converge at PF. If the D O is a weak pronoun (i.e. null in SS), it does Case-checking covertly at LF (Chomsky 1995:265), while the co-occurring object clitic checks its FF when V adjoins v. Now, C D structures in SS, as in (3), are better dealt with under the view that the D O may be optional rather than the object clitic: (23) a. Lo conoces (a él) 'you know him' b. Lo conoces ( a Juan) 'you know John' Then, both types of explicit D O (23a, b) can be analyzed as focused constituents. An overt Subject/Object pronoun in SS is a strong form, in fact, an emphatic (or contrastive) one, comparable to a stressed pronoun in English. It is spelled out in A-position, but it must be interpreted in Spec of C as an operator, just as any emphatically stressed lexical D P that receives a focused interpretation (Larson and Luján 1992, Luján 1999). We may surmise that when it moves to Spec 2 for Casechecking, it does not erase v's A G R FF, so that a co-occurring object clitic may check its A G R features when V adjoins ν on its way to T. The derivation then proceeds at LF by covert movement of D O to Spec of C to check the Operator feature. The same derivation applies to a focused lexical DO, except that when it is [3 person, -human], the Operator feature in C is strong and must be checked by overt movement. 6 By contrast, CD structures in AS and LAS do not involve focal contrast.

208

Marta Luján and Claudia

Parodi

They are simply defined by the new split-feature checking theory, based on the 'interpretability' of FF, which allows the AGR and Case features of a term to be checked separately at different checking sites (Chomsky 1995: 279-86). Thus, a seemingly double NOM structure, as in (24), is allowed in Spanish, on the assumption that the Subject first checks its AGR features in the embedded T, and then overtly raises to matrix Τ to check and erase its Case feature. 7 (24) a. Tú pareces que t tienes miedo lit.: 'you seem that you're afraid' b. Parezco que voy de compras lit.: Ί seem that I go shopping' Likewise, CD structures in AS and LAS, e.g. lo leí el libro (lit. Ί read it the book'), may be viewed as apparent double ACC structures. They are derived as follows. First, while the D O checks its Case feature in Spec 2 of vP, the object clitic checks its own Case feature in Vb. Thus, the two elements are together in the checking domain of FF(v), but do not overlap because the D O is in Spec-Head relation and the clitic in F-Head relation. Then, the clitic checks for AGR when Vb raises to T, and FF(Subj) in Τ attract FF(Obj), as shown in (18c). A similar derivation with split-feature checking can be applied to the double GEN structures, e. g. su primo de mi mamá ('her cousin of my mother'); de mi mamá su primo ('of my mother her cousin'). Accordingly, the GEN phrase is first checked for Case by FF(n), and then, together with the possessive, they are both checked for AGR by FF(D). The Headinitial/-final difference results from covert or overt raising of the GEN phrase to Spec of D, according to whether it checks a weak n- or a strong TV-feature, respectively, parallel to the Pro-drop vs. EPP contrast in the clause domain.

4.3. Summary To summarize, we give below the FF sets, in their strength values, indicating the EPP, Pro-drop, word order, and clitic- and GEN-doubling characteristics they go with in each of the Spanish dialects. For the sake of simplicity, we show AS and LAS only with their earlier strong TV-feature in v/ D, and in T/D, respectively.

Clitic-doubling

(25)

1. SS: Tv : [V-n]

DIn : [V-n]

and the acquisition

of agreement in Spanish

209

Pro-drop (Subj/Obj) Postverbal DO Restrictive CD (focal structure) Postnominal GEN/Adj No GEN doubling

2. AS: Τ : [V-n] ν : [V-iV]

Pro-drop (Subject) EPP (Obj) = preverbal D O Not restrictive CD Ό/η : [V-7V] Prenominai GEN/Adj GEN doubling

3. LAS: Τ : [V-N] ν : [V-n] Dη : [V-N]

EPP (Subj) = obligatory subject Pro-drop (Object) Not restrictive CD Prenominai GEN/Adj GEN doubling

As can be easily verified, later AS and LAS stages with weak n-feature in v/D, and in T/D, respectively, define the alternative postverbal DO and post-nominal GEN/Adjective in AS Intermediate stages, and the alternative Pro-drop subject and postnominal GEN/Adjective in LAS.

5. Consequences for language learning Several gains stand out in this analysis. First, the FF in the specified strengths given in section 4.1 are sufficient to capture Pro-drop and word order differences among the dialects under study. Moreover, they also suffice to derive language-specific word order and Pro-drop alternations occurring in the acquisition process. Third, given that word order regarding head-initial/final position is not parametrically defined in MP, it follows that language learning studies seeking to incorporate the new insights should do well to turn their focus on the acquisition of morphology, specifically, the strength of the FF that characterize it language-specifically. The same conclusion applies to Pro-drop, which is also eliminated as an independent parameter in MP, being derivative and falling together with other epiphenomena of the PF inter-

210

Marta Luján and Claudia

Parodi

face, such as word order. Furthermore, it follows that the notion of 'transfer' often cited to account for the way in which a language is acquired in the bilingual context is rendered superfluous, being, from our perspective, seriously misleading in regards to the syntactic parameters that underlie linguistic variation and the process of language acquisition. The present MP analysis brings into question not only the traditional word order typologies, but also descriptive acquisition or variation studies that restrict their attention to word order changes or Pro-drop differences. By contrast, in the present approach such structural changes and differences are merely derivative, and as regards the acquisition of SS by Quechua and English speakers, what lies at the core of the learning process is getting command of the explicit AGR inflections for Person/Number (P/N) in the clause, and G/N in the DP domain.

5.1. The acquisition of agreement Since our syntactic analysis emphasizes the role of explicit AGR morphology as a determinant of word order, as well as Pro-drop characteristics, the different AS stages initially characterized as word order changes for V, the Genitive and the Adjective, in that order, must now be taken to indicate the acquisition sequence of the various subsystems of AGR and Case. Accordingly, the findings in Luján, Minaya, and Sankoff (1984), establishing the chronological sequence VO > NG > NA in the word order changes of AS, should be consistent with the premise that the learning of Subject/Object AGR, which derives the initial change OV > VO, precedes the acquisition of G/N AGR, which determines the change AN > NA: (26)

Subj/Obj AGR > Gen/Num AGR

Equivalently, using the more precise terms of the analysis, the acquisition of the strong V-features in Τ and ν precedes that of the strong K-features in D and n, as indicated in (27). In other words, clausal morphology is learned before nominal inflections. (27)

v>V,N>n\n

FF(T/v) »

ν > V, Ν > η

in FF(D/n)

If AS transitional stages result from acquiring the two AGR systems in SS, then the table given in (6), identifying the acquisitional changes that give rise to the already known stages, should be modified as follows:

Clitic-doubling

(28)

and the acquisition

INITIAL AS BNTERM. AS ov f ov/vo (PREP) (PREP) GN GN Í AN AN T=v>V,N>n(

of agreement in Spanish

INTERM. AS vo PREP GN/NG AN f

7 7 v ) ; î = v > V , N > n(Dln);

f = v > V , N >

211

S.SPANISH vo PREP NG AN/NA n(D/n)

Recall that the change in the strength value of the FF(T/v) involves the acquisition of Subject/Object AGR morphology (i.e. P/N verbal inflections and object clitics), while the modifications in the FF(D/n) concerns the learning of a new type of adposition (PREP) in 2, and of G/N nominal inflections in 3. The modification in GEN position in 2, which results from the strength value change Ν > η in D, is a logical progression following the acquisition of Subject/Object AGR in 1, since it indicates that the morphology is functional, licensing a Spec position that does not need to be spelled-out (i.e. a type of Pro-drop). Recall that the prenominai, but not the postnominal, GEN occupies Spec of D. Generalizing to any DP that is object of a Preposition, AS Intermediate Stage 1 signals the onset of POST > PREP, and can be identified as the stage in which the acquisition of SS PREP vocabulary begins. Regarding the acquisiton of Subject/Object AGR, our syntactic analysis makes some empirical predictions which can be easily verified by the quantitative analysis of the original AS data in Luján, Minaya and Sankoff (1984). One of them is that clitic doubling should emerge concomitant with the change in verb position. That is to say, the occurrence of CD structures can be located with a reasonable degree of certainty between the Initial Stage and Intermediate Stage 1. Recall that the advent of the postverbal Object is indicative of overt V-adjunction to T, and of covert FF(Obj) attraction by FF(Subj) in T, operations which characterize the presence of AGR inflections having strong v-features. Second, we claim that Subject AGR is simultaneously acquired with Object AGR. That is, P/N verbal inflections and object clitics are learned at the same time. In fact, the appearance of CD structures provides evidence of an effective learning of the strong explicit Subject AGR morphology. Recall that in our analysis an object clitic moves with Vb to Τ and into a checking relation with FF(Obj), which is consistent with the weak rc-features in Τ and the functional command of the explicit AGR morphology that partly defines Pro-drop in SS.

212

Marta Luján and Claudia

Parodi

At first sight our data seem to indicate that the verb's P/N endings offer no learning difficulty to the bilingual Andean and LA speakers. This contrasts with the generalized use of the invariant clitic lo with singular or plural DO's of either masculine or feminine gender. However, this contrast does not indicate a priority in the acquisition of Subject AGR in relation to Object AGR, nor an inefficient learning of the morphology of the latter. It simply happens that the latter's form cannot be differentiated in the Initial and Intermediate-1 stages of AS, due to the speakers' lack of acquaintance with G/N AGR at these stages. As G/N distinctions cannot be made explicit in the earlier stages, in contrast to SS, the use of the invariant object clitic lo in AS (as well as in LAS) avoids the details of G/N AGR, which are internal to DP. Consequently, this difference between Subject and Object AGR, in fact, is consistent with their simultaneous acquisition; in addition, it corroborates the chronological precedence of Subject/Object AGR with respect to G/N AGR, indicated in (26). Now, the question that arises is the following: Is the chronological sequence of (26)/(27) observed for AS also valid for LAS? More generally, does the acquisition of clause AGR inflections always precede the acquisition of nominal AGR inflections? We suspect that this sequence is universal, but at the moment we lack corroborating quantitative evidence from LAS or first language acquisition to pursue these questions beyond mere speculation.

5.2. The postnominal GEN and prepositions In our analysis double GEN structures follow from the same premises of checking and movement theory that define the occurrence of CD structures, and, in general, structures with duplicate manifestations of various types of structural Case. Thus, the Genitive phrase first checks for Case in the lower domain of FF(n), and then for AGR, along with the possessive determiner, in the higher domain of FF(D). The difference illustrated below derives from the strength value change Ν > η in FF(D), which determines the overt or covert F-checking by the Genitive phrase, that is, by overt movement into Spec of D, as in (29a), or by covert F-attraction to FF(D), as in (29b): (29) a. [5pec De la señora] [D su] [N quinua] = la quinua de la señora 'The lady's quinua'

Clitic-doubling

b.

and the acquisition

of agreement in Spanish

213

0] [ D Su) [ N primo] [ PP de mi mamá] = 'el primo de mi mamá' 'My mother's cousin'

Although we have no figures, these structures are also known to occur in LAS and Latin American variants of Spanish. In AS they are very common and we estimate that the change in GEN position marks the onset of the acquisition of SS PREP vocabulary. This notion has empirical consequences that can be verified by quantitative analysis of the original data in Luján, Minaya and Sankoff (1984). For instance, PREP omission, as in our earlier examples in (8), should predominate in the Initial Stage, while the redundant use of PREP, in particular, the generalized use of en with locatives, and of de with postverbal Subject or Object, as in the previously cited examples in (9), repeated below, should be characteristic of the Intermediate stages: (30)

AS: En adentro hay cuchillo 'There's a knife inside' En ahí dormíamos 'We slept there' Ahí juegan de los escolares 'The school children played there'

SS: 'adentro hay cuchillo' 'ahí dormíamos' 'ahí juegan los escolares'

These prepositions, which for the most part are redundant, indicate a phenomenon of overgeneralization, probably as a result of learning the new lexical categories. On the other hand, since they produce strings that recall doubling structures, they can conceivably be treated in a parallel fashion, once the analysis of the FF-checking of terms, such as locatives, is determined. In conclusion, in a syntactic analysis where Case is reduced to a checking Agreement configuration, the effective acquisition of SS prepositions by the AS speakers, which implies a basic change in type of adposition, is rendered a necessary component in their process of acquisition of SS strong explicit Subject/Object AGR morphology.

5.3. Gender/Number agreement The syntactic analysis allows us to chronologically locate the acquisition of G/N Agreement, which defines the nominal domain, with some precision, as the last structural innovation separating the AS Intermediate Stage 2

214

Marta Luján and Claudia

Parodi

and SS. This fact also has empirical consequences that need to be verified by detailed quantitative analysis of the AS data. At the same time new theoretical questions arise that need to be examined in the near future. 8 First, the learning sequence determined by our syntactic analysis suggests that G/N endings must be present only or mostly with N-initial phrases, while their frequency must be null or close to zero with N-final strings, and in general, also in the earlier stages that show high frequency of Headfinal sequences. Recall that V-initial sequences develop before N-initial ones. Thus, examples such as those below, illustrating the N-final in (31) and N-initial in (32), must be infrequent or practically non-existent: (31) a. ?Tu chiquita oveja véndeme your little sheep sell-me 'Sell me your little sheep' b. ?Vendeme tu chiquita oveja sell-me your little sheep 'Sell me your little sheep' (32) a. *Tu oveja chiquito véndeme your sheep little sell-me 'Sell me your little sheep' oveja chiquito b. *Véndeme tu sell-me your sheep little 'Sell me your little sheep' The sequence of learning holding between clausal and nominal Agreement poses the question of why such chronological order should exist. In other words, why are the two systems not incorporated simultaneously, or in a random order? The syntactic MP analysis suggests that the difference could be related to the fact that Subject/Object AGR interacts with a functional category of semantic content, such as Tense, being also crucial in the determination of a Complete Functional Complex, on which many important aspects of clausal interpretation depend. By contrast, Gen/ Num AGR can be seen as purely formal, since it only relates to a purely functional category, such as D. However, the consequences so far considered for language acquisition, and the new questions that arise about the acquisition of Agreement in the context of language contact, as well as in relation to second (or first) language learning, deserve to be further examined under the revealing light of the MP method.

Clitic-doubling and the acquisition of agreement in Spanish

215

6. Conclusions The present MP analysis of CD structures successfully characterizes previously intractable phenomena. The syntactic premises of MP checking and movement theory directly generalize to other types of doubling involving structural Case, such as the well-attested double GEN's in AS and other Latin-American Spanish dialects. We have been able to offer a new interpretation of the AS stages known to hold in the process of acquisition of SS without the aid of premises other than those that operate in a syntactic derivation and that account for language diversity on the basis of parametric strength values of FF in the functional categories of a dialect. The approach manages to integrate inflectional morphology with word order, type of adposition and Pro-drop characteristics in a principled manner. The new questions that arise need to be further examined against the background of other language acquisition contexts, while the empirical consequences that derive must be verified by appropiate quantitative analysis of the linguistic data.

Notes 1. A shorter version of the present article originally appeared as Luján and Parodi (1996). 2. The Andean Spanish data is drawn from Luján, Minaya and Sankoff (1981,1984), Luján (1987), Mendoza and Minaya (1975), Minaya (1976), etc. The LAS data proceed from Pérez and Lee (ms.), paper given at "Sujetos y objetos en el español de L. Α.", UCLA seminar on dialectology conducted by Claudia Parodi, 1995. Similar data are reported in areas removed from the Andean range, such as the rural areas in the northwest hills of the central province of Cordoba, as well as in the province of Santiago del Estero, Argentina. 3. Object clitics are analyzed as agreement morphemes in Suñer (1988), Fernández-Soriano (1989), Franco (1991,1993), among others. 4. The order of clause constituents depends on whether the Formal Features (FF) in the functional heads are 'Strong' or 'Weak', since this factor determines the overt and covert movements needed to check FF in Spec-Head configuration before and after Spell-out, respectively. In a derivation that converges at PF the overt movements preceding Spellout yield the word order of the sequence as 'pronounced' or 'spelled out'. Our account supports Kayne's (1994) notion that the directionality of head-final/initial word order is not a truly parametric property. 5. Pro-drop in Quechua is licensed in a manner similar to the anaphorically controlled null subject of infinitives, not by verbal AGR inflection, which is either lacking or nonfunctional in Quechua. In contrast, English lacks both explicit AGR and Pro-drop. Thus, both Quechua and English speakers that learn SS are faced with the same task of learning the explicit AGR morphology that in part defines Pro-drop in SS. 6. If such an argument were to undergo covert movement as the overt (contrastive) 3-person Obj pronoun, unlike this, it cannot be contrasted with l-/2-person arguments. Observe that overt 3-person pronouns in A-position are also derivatively restricted to [+hu-

216

Marta Luján and Claudia Parodi

man], despite of the fact that when such pronouns are objects of a preposition they freely refer to [human] (Luján 1999). 7. Rivero (1980) first discusses this type of example, known as left-dislocations, arguing against a raising analysis on the basis that it violates island-constraints. 8. Given our tentative assumptions about D P structure, and the generally unsettled question regarding the derivation of the adnominal Adjective (and, for that matter, that of the relative clause), we postpone any further claims about A G R and Case features internal to D P domain, as lack of space here will prevent us from giving it a careful and detailed consideration.

References Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo 1976 "Calcos sintácticos en el español andino", San Marcos 14, 93-101. Chomsky, Noam 1993 "A minimalist program for linguistic theory", The View from Building 20, Hale, K. and S. Jay Keyser (ed.), Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1-52. 1995 The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Epstein, Samuel, Suzane Flynn and G. Martohardjono 1995 "Explanations in theory of second language acquisition", to appear in Behavior and Brain Sciences. Escobar, Alberto 1978 Variaciones Sociolingilísticas del Castellano en el Perú, Lima, IEP. Fernández-Soriano, Olga 1989 Rección y Ligamiento en Español: Aspectos del Parámetro de Sujeto Nulo, PhD dissertation, Univ. Autónoma de Madrid. Franco, Jon 1991 "Spanish object clitics as verbal agreement morphemes", MIT WPL 14, 99114. 1993 On Object Agreement in Spanish, USC doctoral dissertation, GSIL Publications, Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966 "Some uni versais of grammar, with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements", Universals of Language, J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 73-113. Jaeggli, Osvaldo 1986 "Three issues in the theory of clitics: case, double-NP's, and extraction", The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Hagit Borer (ed.), Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 19,15-42. Kayne, Richard 1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Larson, Richard and Marta Luján 1992 "Focused pronouns", Unpublished ms. Luján, Marta ' 1987 "Clitic doubling in Andean Spanish and the theory of Case absorption", Language and Language Use: Studies in Spanish, Terrell Morgan, James Lee and Bill Van Patten (ed.), 109-121.

Clitic-doubling 1999

and the acquisition of agreement in Spanish

217

"Expresión y omisión del pronombre personal". Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española (Chapter 20), Violeta Demonte and Ignacio Bosque (ed.), 1215-1315. Luján, Marta, Liliana Minaya and Suzanne Flynn 1995 "Orden de palabras y concordancia de complemento en el español andino", Actas del V Congreso Internacional 'El español de América', Universidad de Burgos, Spain. Luján, Marta, Liliana Minaya and David Sankoff 1981 "El principio de consistencia universal en el habla de los niños bilingües peruanos", Lexis 5, 95-110. 1984 "The universal consistency hypothesis and the prediction of word order acquisition stages in the speech of bilingual children", Language 60, 343-371. Luján, Marta and Claudia Parodi 1996 "Clitic -doubling and the acquisition of agreement in Spanish", CLS 32, vol. I: The General Session, Michelle AuCoin (ed.), The University of Chicago, 237-250. Mendoza, Aída and Liliana Minaya 1975 "Variantes regionales: Su consideración en la enseñanza del castellano", Aportes para la enseñanza del castellano, 63-81, Lima: Retablo de Papel. Minaya, Liliana 1976 Descripción Sintáctica: La Frase Nominal en Doce Ciudades del País, Lima, INIDE. Minaya, Liliana and Marta Luján 1982 "Un patron sintáctico híbrido en el habla de los niños bilingües en quechua y español", Lexis 6, 271-293. Muysken, Peter 1981 "The Spanish that Quechua speakers learn: L2 learning as norm-governed behavior", Proceedings of the I Northamerican-European Workshop on Second Language Learning, Roger W. Andersen (ed.). Pérez, Sandra and Alejandro Lee 1996 "Sintaxis de los clíticos de objeto directo y los pronombres de sujeto en el español chicano de Los Angeles", Ms., U C L A . Rivero, María-Luisa 1980 "On left-dislocation and topicalization in Spanish", Linguistic Inquiry 11,363393. Suñer, Margarita 1988 "The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 391-434.

Yerbal and temporal properties, and the structure of the clause

The causee and the theory of bare phrase structure1 Luis López

1. Introduction Consider the sentences in (1) and (2). They represent two types of causative constructions that can be found in the Romance languages. The phrase in bold is usually referred to as "causee": (1)

Yo hice reparar mi coche por mi mecánico favorito. I made repair my car by my mechanic favorite Ί had my favorite mechanic repair my car'

(2)

Yo le hice reparar mi coche a mi mecánico favorito. (causee) I LE made repair my car DAT my favorite mechanic Ί made my favorite mechanic repair my car'

In the Romance tradition, there has been the constant intuition that the causee is somehow "shared" by the causative verb and the subordinate predicate. In (1) it is simply stated that I had my car repaired by a certain person; it is not necessarily the case that I actually talked to or otherwise acted upon the mechanic involved. In contradistinction, (2) does entail that I acted upon her to get her to fix my car. That is, the causee is an indirect object of hacer, receiving a 0-roIe that we can characterize as . Thus, causative hacer can be a one place or a two place predicate (assuming that the subject is not part of the argument structure of a lexical verb). At the same time, it is clear that the is also the agent of the repairing event. I represent this puzzle in (3), where the causee is at the same time within the domain of the causative verb and within the domain of the subordinate verb:

222

Luis López

caus ee..repara The empirical goal of this paper it to find a way to express the double role of the shared argument in syntactic terms. The solution that I will propose is that the causee is merged with the lower predicate and moves to Spec,hacer, where it receives a second 0-role. This paper also includes a broader theoretical concern. Chomsky (1995:312-6) restricts the operation Move, so that the head of a chain cannot be assigned a 0-role—only an argument merged directly from the lexicon (or the numeration) can. Chomsky argues that this follows under the assumption that 0-role assignment is a "base" property—however, it is unclear what role base properties play in a derivational theory of grammar (see López 1997,1999 for further discussion). Rather, it would seem that this sort of stipulated restriction on rule application does not agree with the general outlook of the Minimalist Program. Thus, in this paper, I propose as a hypothesis that the operation Move should apply freely whenever formal feature checking requires it and no semantic restrictions should restrict the operations of CHL. My analysis of the causee shows that a pleasant consequence can follow from this more minimalist assumption. Otherwise, I assume the core ideas of the Minimalist Program, as presented in chapter 4 of Chomsky (1995) and partially modified by Collins (1997). In particular, I assume that the phenomenon of displacement can be described in terms of movement triggered by feature checking. Further, I adopt Chomsky's (1995) theory of VP-structure in which a transitive predicate is built as a sequence of applications of the operation Merge in the following manner (see 4): the lexical verb merges with the object (OB), forming a VP. This VP is then merged with a light verb, which here I represent as v. This light verb is in charge of introducing the external argument, here depicted as SU. Merging v' with SU gives vP. For the purposes of this paper, I do not assume Chomsky's numeration but instead I assume that lexical items are copied directly from the lexicon into the computational space (as in Collins 1997).

The causee and the theory of bare phrase structure

(4)

223

a. (i) (ii)

copy V (out of the lexicon) copy D P (out of the lexicon)

(iii) merge ( V , D P ) = { V , D P } ( i v ) copy ν (out of the lexicon) ( v ) merge (v,{V,DP) = { v , { V , D P } ( v i ) copy D P (out of the lexicon) ( v i i ) merge (DP, {v,{V,DP} = { D P { v , { V , D P }

V

OB

Unaccusative predicates are composed of a lexical verb phrase without a light verb layer. I assume that unergatives include an incorporated abstract noun, as in H a l e and Keyser, among others, so their structure is like that of a transitive predicate. The arguments S U and O B need to have their formal features ( F F ) checked, within the framework of what is usually labeled Case theory. The S U checks them in the domain of Tense. Chomsky (1995) argues that ν is the accusative case checker. I depart from him in this and assume that O B checks its FF in the domain of the lexical verb, as represented in (5). L ó p e z (1999) presents some arguments for this change.

O n e consequence of assuming ( 5 ) as the configuration for F F ( O B ) checking is that Spec,V becomes a 0-and case position. This is going to be crucial for my analysis of the causee.

224

Luis López

2. Some properties of causatives in Spanish In this section I present a brief review of some of the properties that make causative constructions a phenomenon that has intrigued generations of linguists. Examples (6a-c) show some examples. The subordinate verb in these examples is intransitive. The causee alternates with a pronominal clitic in the accusative case, both of them shown in bold type. (6c) shows that the causee can appear interpolated between the causative verb and the subordinate predicate (a characteristic that differentiates Spanish from other Romance languages). For completeness, I show an example of a causative selecting for a Small Clause predicate headed by an adjective (6d): (6) a. La hizo llegar tarde (a María), her s/he-made arrive late (Maria) 'S/he made her/Maria arrive late' b. La hizo trabajar demasiado (a María), her s/he-made work too much (Maria) 'S/he made her/Maria work too much' c. Hizo a María trabajar demasiado, s/he made Maria work too much d. Supo hacerla feliz (a María), s/he-knew make-her happy (Maria) 'S/he was able to make her/Maria happy' Thus, hacer in (6) is a two place predicate with arguments , the affectee 0-role being assigned to the causee. I assume the event is the complement of the causative predicate and the affectee is its subject in spec. That is, Spanish causatives fit into Marantz's (1993) proposal for affected arguments and affecting events: (7)

VP cau hacer

XP

Later applications of Merge will build a vP layer on top of the VP headed by hacer, and the vP will eventually become a complement of T. If hacer, like ordinary Spanish verbs, raises to Τ overtly, we expect to have the word order ftacer-causee-subordinate verb. This is what we find in (6c),

The causee and the theory of bare phrase structure

225

but not in (6a,b), where the causee is sentence final. As an alternative to (7), the spec position of hacer can be branched to the right, to represent right periphery SUs in general and SUs of causatives in particular, an assumption sometimes adopted in the Romance tradition (see for instance Guasti 1993). Or we can assume (7), with a left branching subject, and the causee appears on the right edge as a consequence of massive constituent movement (Kayne 1975, Burzio 1986). I remain agnostic to all these possibilities: all I am concerned about is that the causee or its features be in the domain of hacer by LF. In all the examples in (6), the subordinate verb is intransitive. (8) exemplifies a causative construction in which the subordinate predicate is transitive. Now the causee appears in dative case and it is doubled by the dative clitic le. (8)

Le hizo comprar 2 kilos de pescado (a María). LE s/he made buy 2 kilos of fish (to María) 'S/he made María buy two kilos of fish'

I will not discuss causatives formed on transitive predicates in detail because we would need to get into an investigation on ditransitive predicates and dative case which goes beyond the scope of this paper. What is important at this point is that the causative construction behaves like one complex predicate, at least with regards to the distribution of cases: if the causative and the subordinate predicates remained distinct, we should be able to have two accusative cases; since there is only one, we conclude that they form one complex predicate (see Baker's 1988:122 Case Frame Preservation Principle). The next question is what XP is. Li (1990), Guasti (1993), and Treviño (1994) have argued that it is a VP (in a theory of VP structure in which there is no light verb v) that does not project higher layers of functional structure. For instance, they show that the subordinate predicate does not accept auxiliaries or sentential negation, which strongly suggests that it does not include any functional structure. (9) a. *La hizo no trabajar demasiado (a María). her-ACC s/he-made not work too much (Maria) 'S/he made her/Maria not work too much' b. *La hizo haber trabajado demasiado (a María). her-ACC s/he-made have worked too much (María) 'S/he made her/Maria have worked too much'

226

Luis López

Along the lines proposed by these authors, I assume there are no IPs or NegPs in the subordinate clause. Further, I argue below that hacer can select for a vP or a VP. If there is one thing that all the literature on Romance causatives agrees on it is that hacer+V form a compact structure that could be described as a complex predicate. One of the reasons for this assumption has already been discussed: the case of the causee varies according to the transitivity of the subordinate predicate, suggesting that hacer+V has the case valence of a simple predicate and not that of two independent predicates. Moreover, in other languages of the Romance family (and some Spanish dialects) the causee can't stand between the causative and the subordinate predicate, which further suggests the complex predicate hypothesis, at least for these languages. The most natural way of representing complex predicates within the Principles and Parameters approach is by means of incorporation, as first proposed by Baker (1988). This is represented in (10)

t(x)

where X = { v,V }

On the other hand, hacer and the subordinate verb can be separated by a few adverbs in all Romance dialects, including those that must have the causee in the right periphery. Thus, it looks like the formation of a complex predicate in Romance is a more abstract kind of process than in Bantu, for instance, where the causative verb and the subordinate verb clearly form one morphological word. Baker (1988) argues that incorporation in Romance causatives takes place in the mapping from S-structure to LF. Guasti (1993) and Hoshi (1996) argue that incorporation is followed by excorporation of the causative verb to raise to INFL. Again, I can remain agnostic with respect to all these possibilities, I simply assume that the subordinate predicate and the causative form a complex unit at some point of the derivation. Another well-known fact about causatives is that unergative and transitive predicates can be embedded within a causative construction with-

The causee and the theory of bare phrase structure

227

out a causee but unaccusatives can't (Bordelois 1988, Moore 1996, Zubizarreta 1985). (11a) and ( l i b ) exemplify unaccusative predicates, (11c) and ( l i d ) unergatives. ( l i e ) and ( l l f ) exemplify transitive predicates. Transitive predicates without a causee can have a ¿»y-phrase: (11) a. *E1 jefe siempre hace llegar tarde. 'The boss always makes arrive late' b. *E1 jefe nunca hace venir por las mañanas. 'The boss never makes come in the morning' c. El jefe siempre hace trabajar por las tardes. 'The boss always makes work in the afternoons' d. El calor hace sudar constantemente. 'The heat makes sweat constantly' e. Hice reparar el coche en el taller de la esquina (por mi mecánico favorito). Ί made repair the car in the corner's shop (by my favorite mechanic)' f. Napoleón hizo destruir Gerona (por los soldados). Napoleon made destroy Gerona (by the soldiers) To my knowledge, no satisfactory account of this phenomenon has been provided. 2 In the next section, I show how it follows quite naturally from my analysis of the causee.

3. A movement analysis of the causee I am going to discuss four possible ways of analyzing the causee and its "sharedness" property. My proposal is that it is merged with the subordinate verb and raises to the checking domain of the causative verb. Guasti (1993) proposes that it is adjoined to the maximal projection of the embedded predicate, which allows it to be governed by both predicates. Bordelois (1988) argues that causatives are control constructions. Marantz (1993) suggests a universal configuration for causative predicates, regarded as a sub-type of applicatives, in which the affected object is in the spec position of an applicative head and the affecting event is the complement of the applicative. Thus, I propose that the causee is simultaneously upstairs and downstairs, Guasti proposes that it is downstairs and Bordelois and Marantz propose that it is upstairs.

228

(12)

Luis López

-Proposal: [ VP causee hacer [ x p t(causee) .. .X...]] -Guasti (1993): [ VP hacer [ XP causee [ XP ...X...]] -Bordelois (1988): [ VP causee¡ hacer [ x p PRO¡ ...Χ...]] -Marantz (1993): [ VP causee hacer [xp ...Χ...]]

I discuss my proposal in the remainder of this section, and I argue against alternatives in the following one. The crux of my analysis is that when the causee raises to the checking domain of the causative verb, it receives a second 0-role from the latter, thus accounting for argument sharedness: (13)

[ w DP hacer [ PredP t D P Pred]] |_0_| 1—0—1

Movement from downstairs to Spec,hacer is motivated by case reasons. There is no doubt that the causee checks its case upstairs: if it is a pronominal clitic, it can't be attached to the lower verb (since Burzio 1986 it has been assumed that clitic movement is connected with case and not with Θassignment): (14) a. La hizo llegar tarde, b. *Hizo llegarla tarde 'S/he made her arrive late' There is really no case checker for the causee downstairs. There is no INFL node, so nominative is automatically excluded. If the verb is unaccusative, accusative case is not available either. 3 If the verb is unergative or transitive, the subject is generated in Spec,v, too high up for accusative case either. This explains why the causee must raise. In Spec,hacer the causee gets the case that it needs to be licensed; at the same time, the verb hacer assigns it a second 0-role, . This is how the causee is "shared" by the two predicates. Let us see the mechanics of the movement approach. First, I use an unaccusative predicate as an example, as in (15a). The derivation of (15a) is shown in (15b). The argument Maria is merged in the complement position of venir. I assume that there is no vP in clauses headed by unaccusative predicates (Chomsky 1995, Kratzer 1996). Additionally, I assume overt movement of the causee for simplicity, although this may not be true for most Romance dialects. For those dialects in which the causee can only appear on the right periphery, covert movement of FF(causee) could be assumed, without a fundamental change in the analysis:

The causee and the theory of bare phrase structure

(15) a.

229

Hizo venir a María. s/he-made-come María

b. (i) copy venir (out of the lexicon) (ii) copy Maria (out of the lexicon) (iii) merge (venir,María) = [venir,Maria) (iv) copy hizo (out of the lexicon) (v) merge (hizo,[venir,Maria}) = [hizo,[venir,Maria)} (vi) copy venir (out of (ν)) (vii) merge (venir,hizo) = [venir,) (viii)copy María (out of (ν)) (ix) merge (Maria, [hizo,[venir,Maria}}) = [Maria,

[hizo,

{venir,Maria}}}

For the sake of clarity, I present a tree structure in (16):

Unergatives are derived in a parallel manner. Now we have a more complex structure, in which the VP is selected by a v, and the resulting vP is selected by hacer. Head to head movement will adjoin the lexical verb onto the light verb and the conglomerate Vb = ν + V will raise to incorporate into the causative. Unergative subjects are generated in Spec,v, where they are assigned a 0-role but no case. Thus, the causee has to raise to Spec,hacer to have case. In Spec,hacer, the subject receives an role: (17) a. Hizo a María trabajar demasiado. S/he-made Mary work too-hard

230

Luis López

b.

VP

a Mí A hacer+V b •

* [ V b ν +trabajar ] vP

t ν

VP

t

demasiado

Transitive predicates are derived in manner essentially identical to (17b). Initial evidence for my proposal is provided by causee-less causative constructions which, as we saw, are ungrammatical with unaccusative predicates (see (11)). Recall my assumptions that the subordinate clause is just a predicate phrase without any layers of functional structure. The causee is generated within this predicate phrase as the subject of an ordinary clause: subjects of transitive predicates and of unergatives in Spec,v, subjects of unaccusatives in Compi,V: (18)

VP

hacer

vP

{a Ma ν

VP

trabajar demasiado comprar muebles venir a María So far we have assumed that the causative predicate selects for a VP—if the complement is unaccusative—or for a vP—if the complement is unergative or transitive. However, nothing prevents the causative predicate

The causee and the theory of bare phrase structure

231

from selecting for a VP, even if this VP is transitive or unergative. Therefore, we should expect to find structures like (19): (19)

VP

trabajar demasiado comprar muebles venir a María In other words, I simple-mindedly propose that when we do not see a causee it is simply not there, not even as an empty category, because the functional head that would introduce it has not been selected/copied from the lexicon. Given this analysis, it is obvious that there cannot be unaccusative causatives without a causee: the subject of an unaccusative predicate is not merged with v' but with V, so it is not affected by the absence of v. In order for the unaccusative subject to be absent, the VP should be absent too, a manifest impossibility. I conclude that (11) provides evidence that the causee is merged with the subordinate predicate, contra analyses that generate it upstairs (Bordelois 1988, Marantz 1993). Let us summarize the results of this section. I have argued that the causee is merged with the subordinate predicate, where is it is assigned a Θrole. The causee then raises to Spec,hacer where it receives case and the role. If the causative predicate selects for a simple VP, the causee is absent if it is an external argument introduced by v\

4. Alternative analyses In this section, I will first discuss Bordelois' control analysis, then I will move onto Guasti's proposal and I will finish with some remarks on Marantz's. Bordelois (1988) analyzes causatives as control constructions. Under this analysis, (20a), (20b) and (20c) would have the same structure (20d): (20) a. Susana le ordenó comprar muebles nuevos (a Juana). Susana her-DAT ordered to buy furniture new (DAT Juana) 'Susana ordered her/Juana to buy new furniture'

232

Luis López

b. Susana la forzó a comprar muebles nuevos. Susana her-ACC forced to to buy furniture new 'Susana forced her to buy new furniture c. Susana le hizo comprar muebles nuevos a Juana. Susana her-DAT made to buy furniture new DAT Juana 'Susana made Juana buy new furniture' d. Susana le hizo/le ordenó a [PRO¡ comprar muebles nuevos] a Juana¡ However, it is immediately obvious that (20a) and (20c) are not parallel structures. In Spanish, there are two types of object control structures (Kempchinsky 1991): we have accusative controllers with clauses introduced by a preposition (20b) or we have dative controllers with prepositionless clauses (20c). Except for causative predicates, the case of the controller does not vary according to the transitivity of the complement. Compare (20) and (21) with (6) and (8): (21)

Susana le ordenó trabajar todas las tardes (a Juana). Susana her-DAT ordered to work all the afternoons (DAT Juana) 'Susana ordered her/Juana to work every afternoon'

The fact that the case valence of ordenar is not altered by the properties of the subordinate predicate strongly suggests that we are not dealing with a complex predicate here. But then, what makes causatives different? Kempchinsky argues that the infinitival complement of ordenar receives accusative case from the matrix predicate, which explains why the controller must be in dative case. Additionally, she argues that accusative case is available to the controller in forzar because the sentential complement gets case from a preposition. Given this state of affairs, (6) is surprising: the presence of the infinitival complement should preclude the possibility of accusative case for the causee. And this is possible only if the relation between the causative predicate and its complement is one of incorporation: as Baker (1988) shows at length, an incorporated argument does not take up a case. Thus, hacer and ordenar seem to have different properties, which makes suspect an analysis that dumps them in the same bag. We can further detect the inadequacy of the control analysis if we look closely at causatives without an overt causee. Within the boundaries of the control analysis, it could be proposed that in (22) there is an object pro as a causee, with arbitrary or generic interpretation, along the lines of Rizzi (1986), and that this pro would control PRO. This possibility I represent in (22):

The causee and the theory of bare phrase structure

(22)

233

Susana hizo pro¡ [PRO¡ vender muebles nuevos] Susana made to sell furniture new 'Susana made sell new furniture'

However, in the famous examples by Rizzi, pro could actually control a P R O in a subordinate infinitival clause, as we can see in (23a), as Spanish example modelled after Rizzi's. This fact is precisely what motivates the presence of pro. Consider now (23b): the person who pays the insurance is Susana, not the hypothetical generic agent of furniture selling. If there were a pro, (23b) should either be controlled by pro or at least be ambiguous—subject control sentences with an object are rare, always of the 'promise' type. This strongly suggests that there is no such pro in causatives, which leads to the conclusion there is no control: (23) a. Esto lleva pro¡ [a PRO¡ concluir lo que sigue]. This leads to to conclude it that follows 'This leads to conclude what follows.' b. Susana hizo pro¡ vender los muebles nuevos Susana made to sell the furniture new [para PRO*¡ pagar el seguro] for to pay the insurance 'Susana made sell the new furniture in order to pay for the insurance.' There is more evidence that in sentences like (10) the causee is truly absent from the structure. Consider the binding relations represented in (24) and (25): when there is a causee, this binds a reflexive in the subordinate clause; when there is no causee, the reflexive is bound by the subject of the causative verb: (24)

Juan¡ lej hizo construirse^,¡ una catedral (a Carlos). Juan him-DAT made to build-himself a cathedral (DAT Carlos) 'Juan made him build himself a cathedral'

(25)

Juanj hizo construirse¡ una catedral (para satisfacer su vanidad). Juan made build-himself a cathedral (to flatter his vanity). 'Juan made build himself a cathedral (to flatter his vanity)'

The binding relation in (25) is not predicted by Bordelois' analysis. She would assume that the infinitive would have a P R O which therefore would act as an accessible SUBJECT for the anaphor. Since the anaphor

234

Luis López

is bound by the matrix subject, I conclude that there is no PRO that can act as an accessible SUBJECT. One more argument against control, borrowed from Zubizarreta (1985), concerns inalienable possessors. (26) is an example: a body part with a definite article in object position is interpreted as an inalienable object if it is coreferent with another argument of the same predicate that selects for the object (Guéron 1983); thus, the article behaves obligatorily as a bound pronoun. (26)

Juan¡ levantó la¡ mano. Juan raised the hand (= Juan's hand)

Kayne (1975) showed that in French inalienable possessors with an article can't be found in causatives without a causee (I use Spanish examples to make the same point): (27) a. * Pierre hará levantar la mano (por Juan). Pierre will-make raise the hand (by Juan) 'Pierre will make Juan put up his hand' b. Pierre le hará levantar la¡ mano a Juan¡. Pierre him-DAT will-make raise the hand to Juan 'Pierre will make Juan put up his hand' If there were an uncontrolled PRO in (27a), it should be able to bind the article. The ungrammaticality of (27a) again suggests that there is no causee in (27a) that can bind the article. (Pierre can't do it because the article must be bound by an argument of the same predicate that selects for the DP including the article, see Gueron 1983). Finally, a theory-internal point. As I mentioned above, the literature on causatives agrees that the subordinate predicate is a Predicate Phrase that does not project a TP or a CP. On the other hand, it has become current to assume that PRO is licensed in the spec of non-finite Tense, where it checks null case (Chomsky and Lasnik (1993)). This entails that a PRO in the subordinate clause cannot be licensed under current assumptions. Another interesting tack to account for the argument sharing property of Romance causatives is that of Guasti's (1993:98). She suggests that the causee is generated as an adjunct to a VP, forming a small clause (there is no upper vP in the phrase structure she assumes); thus, the causee gets to be head governed by both the cause predicate and the subordinate predicate:

The causee and the theory of bare phrase structure

(28)

235

VP

comprar muebles Notice that the causee is generated to the right of the VP. This is how she accounts for the VP+causee order, which is obligatory in Italian and French. Unaccusative predicates turn out to be recalcitrant for Guasti's analysis, however: since they are generated in a position internal to the VP, it is hard to see a straightforward way of having them governed by hacer. This is only possible if it is assumed that the subordinate subject raises upstairs, as I have done. Finally, let me consider Marantz (1993). His point of departure is that 0-roIes are assigned in certain configurations and, in particular, that affected objects get a 0-role in the configuration expressed in (29) (see also Hale and Keyser 1993): (29)

VP

predicate describing event affecting O B The class of affected objects includes the D P goal in double object constructions, beneficiaries like 'her' in Ί baked her a cake', as well as the causee in causative constructions. O n e could simply assume that an argument generated in spec,hacer is already in the right configuration to represent argument sharedness: since it is in spec,hacer, it can receive a 0-role f r o m the latter. Since the subordinate V P is the complement of hacer, it can affect the causee, as Marantz claims. This proposal is certainly close in spirit to mine. However, mine is empirically superior because by gen-

236

Luis López

erating the causee downstairs I provide an account of causee-less causatives, as shown above, which Marantz's approach can't do. In other words, Marantz can't explain why unaccusative predicates can't show up without a causee. Moreover, from a semantic point of view, it is not clear to me that the connection between the causee and the subordinate predicate can be reduced to that of an affected object and the event that affects it without further ado. Consider the sentence in (30): (30) a. Chris bought Pat a cake b. Chris Pat [ a bought a cake] In (30b), 'Pat' is the affected object (in this case the beneficiary) of the buying event. However, 'Pat' is not a participant in the buying event. In contradistinction, the causee is a participant of the event denoted by the subordinate clause. I account for the difference in interpretation between a simple beneficiary like the one in (30) and a causee by merging the causee initially downstairs and becoming an affectee derivationally. Beneficiaries and other are presumably merged directly in Spec,V in configuration (29).

5. Discussion. Theoretical implications Throughout the 1980s it was generally assumed that the 0-criterion was a fundamental principle of grammar, one of the filters that constrained representations: (31) Each argument a appears in a chain containing a unique visible 0-position Ρ and each theta-position Ρ is visible in a chain containing a unique argument a. Chomsky (1986:97). It is obvious that the analysis proposed violates the 0-criterion because the causee is in a chain that contains two 0-positions. However, Chomsky (1993) makes it clear that having something like the 0-criterion as a theoretical primitive is suspect, although he tries to keep its consequences by deriving them from Economy. The computational system should only include restrictions based on the overarching economy principles, on interface representations and on properties of lexical items. The 0-criterion, if it should exist, should be regarded either as an interface condition, i.e., as

The causee and the theory of bare phrase structure

237

a statement that ensures that the LF representations resulting from the computational system can be interpreted by the conceptual system(s) or as a constraint on the operation Merge. Given this, the 0-criterion, as stated in (31), is too strong because, no matter how the data is analysed, the fact is that natural languages do not have a problem with arguments being shared by two predicates. I suggest that, if all that LF requires is that its symbols be interpreted, LF requires that predicates discharge their Θroles and arguments receive 0-roles. Obviously, there is no problem interpreting an argument with more than one 0-role. In any case, Chomsky (1993) proposes eliminating the 0-criterion and replacing it with an economy condition: movement to a 0-position is out because an argument has no business being there: movement can only take place to specs of functional categories for feature checking. However, in Chomsky (1995) there is some overlapping between case and checking positions: Spec,ν is a position where 0-roles can be assigned and accusative case can be checked. As I mentioned, I have transferred the second role to spec,V, so the overlapping remains in this position. Therefore, nothing in the theory prevents moving an argument to spec,V where φfeatures can be checked and a second 0-role can be assigned. Greed, or whatever principle replaces it, is satisfied. Again, given the existence of causees, this seems like a good result. Other recent work tries to do away with the 0-criterion and allow for movement to link two 0-positions. For instance, Hornstein (1999) proposes to eliminate the distinction between obligatory control and raising predicates, reducing all of them to a raising analysis. Obligatory control P R O would simply be an NP trace—other instances of P R O are reduced to pro, in a manner that seems unclear to me. NP movement in obligatory control structures is triggered by 0-theory. Thus, the NP in (32) moves to the matrix predicate—to Spec,v, in our terms—in order to check some Θrole-feature: (32)

Joan tried t to win the race.

However, there are some well-known problems to treat control predicates as raising predicates that Hornstein does not discuss. In the first place, if 0-roles are syntactic features that trigger movement, nothing prevents (33) from being grammatical with the meanings indicated: (33)

John bought/hit/saw/reprimanded. John bought/hit/saw/reprimanded himself.

238

Luis

López

Some verbs, like 'shave', 'dress' do have this property, but it is a small class and not available in many other languages, so they should probably be treated as lexical exceptions. Moreover, as Brody (1999) points out, the difference between (34a) and (34b) is unaccounted for: (34) a. John tried to win the race. b. *John was tried to win the race. Notice that my proposal does not suffer from these problems. I retain the assumption that movement is triggered by formal features and not by semantic features like 0-assignment. When a chain ends up with two 0-roles it is because the place where a formal feature can be checked is also a place where a 0-role can be assigned. Therefore, I do not allow for movement to Spec,v, where there are no formal features to be checked. Consequently, (32) remains a control construction and I do not generate sentences like those exemplified in (33). Let us return to the theoretical issue raised in the introduction. Recall that Chomsky (1995) claims that 0-role assignment is a "base" property, so the head of a chain cannot receive a second 0-role. Only the result of direct Merge can lead to 0-role assignment. Recall that I discussed that this sort of restriction does not fit well with a minimalist approach to syntactic operations. A conceptual advantage of my proposal is that I eliminate this asymmetry between Merge and Move with respect to 0-theory. Recent work has emphasized the similarities between these two operations. In Chomsky's (1995) Bare Phrase Structure, syntax only includes these two structure building operations. Merge draws two terms a and β, one or both of which can be taken from a numeration, and concatenates them forming another element K, which is constituted of a and β and a label γ that identifies the type of K: (35)

Κ =

{γ{α,β}}

The label γ is either a or β, not the union or intersection of a and β (Chomsky 1995:244). Furthermore, in the Minimalist Program what used to be called "the transformational component", has been reduced to the operations Move and Delete. Let's focus on the former: Given Σ, a phrase marker, and a, a constituent of Σ, Move targets Σ, drags a and merges it with Σ, leaving behind a copy of a. Notice that Merge is part of the operation Move, which suggests that the latter is a sub-species of the former.

The causee and the theory of bare phrase structure

239

Particularly after the work of Collins (1997), the two operations seem to be almost identical: Merge copies items from the lexicon to combine them with other terms, Move copies them from the phrase marker to combine them with a node in the phrase marker. So, the only difference between Merge and Move is where you copy from. However, Chomsky stipulates a difference between these operations concerning their potential effects (see López 1997, 1999 for detailed discussion): an argument copied out of the lexicon can be assigned a 0-role, but an argument copied out of another position in the phrase marker cannot be. These stipulated restrictions go against the desirable tendency to reduce Merge and Move to just one operation and against the general purpose of Minimalism. By allowing movement to a 0-position, I eliminate a stipulated difference between Merge and Move. Thus, my proposal is not a weakening of the theory driven by the desire to cover a broader data base, but a move toward a streamlined theory of syntax. As is rarely the case, empirical and conceptual concerns converge.

Notes 1. This paper is part of a more encompassing research program on the interaction of phrase structure, 0-theory and Case theory still in progress (López 1999). I thank Margarita Suñer and Tom Stroik for suggestions on an earlier draft as well as the audience at the First Hispanic Linguistics Colloquium for their comments on my presentation. I also want to thank the anonymous reviewer for some valuable suggestions. 2. Bordelois (1988:82-90) discusses and contrasts unaccusative with transitive predicates without a causee in terms of the θ-criterion. She does not, however, mention unergatives at all, which makes her proposal hard to evaluate. 3. Belletti (1988) and Lasnik (1992) argue that unacusative predicates assign partitive case. Example (14) seems to counterexemplify this claim. Moreover, it leads to the wrong assumption that (i) should be grammatical: (i) *It arrived three men. In (i), the expletive 'it' would receive nominative case and 'three men' would receive partitive, so there should be nothing wrong with this sentence. What (i) shows is that there has to be an expletive-associate chain that connects the subject position occupied by the expletive and the D P in complement position. This expletive-associate chain would be unnecessary if unaccusative verbs could assign any sort of case.

References Baker, Mark 1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical versity of Chicago Press.

Function Changing. Chicago: Uni-

240

Luis López

Belletti, Andrea 1988 The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19,1-34. Bordelois, Ivonne 1988 Causatives: From Lexicon to Syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 57-93. Brody, Michael 1999 Relating syntactic elements: remarks on Hornstein's "Movement and chains". Syntax 2, 210-226. Burzio, Luigi 1986 Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. Chomsky, Noam 1986 Knowledge of Language. NY: Praeger. 1993 A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In Ken Hale and Jay Keyser (ed.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik 1993 The Theory of Principles and Parameters. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld and Theo Venneman (ed.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: De Gruyter. Collins, Chris 1997 Local Economy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Guasti, Maria-Teresa 1993 Causatives and Perception Verbs: A Comparative Study. Torino, Italy: Rosenberg and Sollier. Guéron, Jacqueline 1983 Inalienable Possession, Pro-inclusion and Lexical Chains. Ms. Université de Paris VIII. Hale, Ken and Jay Keyser 1993 On Argument Structure and the Syntactic Realization of Lexical Relations. In Ken Hale and Jay Keyser (ed.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Hornstein, Norbert 1999 Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96. Hoshi, Hiroto 1994 Passive, Causative and Light Verbs: A Study on Θ-Role Assignment. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. Kayne, Richard 1975 French Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Kempchinsky, Paula 1991 On the Characterization of a class of ditransitive Verbs in Spanish. In Héctor Campos and Fernando Martinez-Gil (ed.), Current Studies in Spanish Linguistics. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Kratzer, Angelika 1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (ed.), Phrase structure and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lasnik, Howard 1992 Case and expletives: notes towards a parametric account. Linguistic Inquiry 23:381-405. Li, Yafei 1990 Conditions on Xo Movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

The causee and the theory of bare phrase structure

241

López, Luis 1997 What Merge and Move Can or Can't Do. University of Missouri ms. 1999 On the non-complementarity of θ-theory and checking theory. Paper presented at G L O W 22 colloquium, Berlin. Marantz, Alec 1993 Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions. In Sam Mchombo (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar. Stanford, Cal: Centre for the Study of Language and Information. Moore, John 1996 Reduced constructions in Spanish. New York: Garland. Rizzi, Luigi 1986 Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501-557. Treviño, Esthela 1994 Las Causativas del Español con Complemento Infinitivo. México: El Colegio de México. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa 1985 The Relation between Morphophonology and Morphosyntax: the Case of Romance Causati ves. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 247-289.

Temporal modification, the 24-hour rule and the location of reference time1 Gerhard Brugger

1. Introduction When one is working on the Present Perfect (PrP) one can easily get the impression that the numerous studies on this topic produced an almost equal amount of views and analyses. Unfortunately, they are generally based on a relatively small set of data which quickly becomes insufficient when one attempts to compare or evaluate the different views and analyses. The issue becomes even more intricate when one opens up the field to languages other than English. The present research focusses on selected European languages with special attention to Spanish. The PrPs in these languages vary considerably. The differences will be crucial for a refinement of the analysis of the PrP. On the one hand, we want to know how the languages differ; on the other, we want to know why they differ in that way. The first part of this paper addresses the first question. We will examine the cross-linguistic variations regarding the Past Adverb Constraint, the 24-hour Rule, Current Relevance and the Present Possibility Constraint. Although some of these properties, especially the Past Adverb Constraint, have received considerable attention in the literature no entirely satisfying solutions have been proposed so far. In particular, if we include languages like Spanish and Danish the distribution and interpretation of temporal specification turns out to be much more complex than has usually been thought of. The second part of the paper proposes an answer to the second question. The challenge for any analysis of the PrP is the link between form and meaning cross-linguistically. That is, why do we observe a difference in the range of meanings across languages if apparently there is no difference in the form? In section 3 we will suggest that there actually is a relevant difference in form to which a significant part of the attested cross—linguistic variation can be related to.

244

Gerhard Brugger

2. Cross-linguistic variations Although, as Bull (1968:65) states, "for many Spaniards there is not significant difference" between the PrP and the past tense, in none of the following cases are the past tense and the PrP free variants: (1) a. Llegó hace dos días 'He arrived two days ago' b. Ha llegado hace dos días 'He has arrived two days ago' (2) a. Estuvo allí dos días 'He was here for two days' b. Ha estado allí dos días 'He has been here for two days' (3) a. ¿Estuvo Vd. en Madrid? 'Were you in Madrid' b. ¿Ha estado Vd. en Madrid? 'Have you been in Madrid' The PrP sentences express a relation with respect to "now", i.e. the time of utterance, that is not expressed by the past tense, (lb) and (2b), for instance, convey that the event or the event's immediate effects are still in progress at the time of utterance. By contrast, the corresponding past tense sentences do not communicate that the subject is still here now. Relatedly, one would not open a conversation with a complete stranger with the past tense sentence (3a), since this sentence would imply that the speaker has some previous knowledge of the stranger, such as e.g. that the stranger was traveling in Spain. Since the PrP inquires about any time prior to now, it is more appropriate when this knowledge is missing. We say that the Spanish PrP differs from the past tense in that it has Current Relevance. A common metaphor describing this intuition is that the PrP "looks at" events in the past from the time of utterance. Or using Reichenbach's (1947) notions, the events are seen from a Reference Time (R) that is simultaneous with Speech Time (S): (4)

E_R,S

Temporal modification, the 24-hour rule and the location of reference time

245

The relation "_" indicates that the Event Time (E) precedes R; "," stands for simultaneity. This analysis, which Reichenbach had formulated originally for the tenses of English, has been applied to Spanish in slightly different formulations by various researchers such as Cartagena (1994), Zagona (1991) and Giorgi & Pianesi (1997). The question that arises at this point is whether the PrP has the same properties in these two languages. A re-examination of the data shows instantly that this is not the case. First of all, they differ with respect to temporal modification. As is well-known, the English PrP cannot be modified by temporal specifications that denote definite intervals in the past, such as yesterday, two days ago, last week, in 1944, etc: *Cadu has made Caipirinha2 two days ago/last week. The past tense would be used instead: ok Cadu made Caipirinha two days ago/last week. This restriction is known as the Past Adverb Constraint (PAC). The Spanish PrP, on the other hand, can be combined with definite past time adverbs, as the grammaticality of ( l b ) shows. Secondly, in certain cases the Spanish PrP can be used to refer to past events that do not have Current Relevance. Bull (1968:65) points out that Ha cantado can be equivalent to the past tense sentence Cantó hoy and be translated into the English sentence He sang today. Also the PrPs of languages like Italian, French and German differ from English. They show no restriction with respect to past time modification; they can lack Current Relevance; they can be used in narrative contexts; and refer to sequences of events in the past: (5)

Cadu ha fatto Caipirinha (ieri alla festa). L'ha offerta a tutti. E tutti quelli che l'hanno bevuta sono finiti all'ospedale. '*Cadu has made Caipirinha (yesterday at the party). He has offered it to everybody. And all the ones who have drunken it have ended up in the hospital.'

Again, with or without the temporal specification, this text can be translated into English only with the past tense but not with the PrP. The English PrP has often been characterized as denoting non-specific or indefinite events or event times. This is most evident in examples such as John has often been in Madrid which express that an event happened at some unspecified time(s) in the past before now. One could say that the PrPs in the other languages differ in that they can refer to specific or definite event times. If, as is plausible to assume, definite past time adverbs can modify definite but not indefinite events, the differences with respect to past time modification follow. 3 We refer to this proposal as the (In)def-

246

Gerhard Brugger

inite E Approach. This idea has been mentioned quite frequently in the literature and can be traced back to Reichenbach (1947). Nevertheless it has been formalized in more detail recently by Giorgi & Pianesi (1997). The following text taken from Michaelis (1994:142) illustrates the indefinite nature of the PrP in English: (6)

Hayward police have arrested the prime suspect in last week's string of laundromat robberies. Two off-duty officers confronted the suspect as he left a local 7-11. A back-up unit was called in to assist in the arrest.

We observe that the PrP sentence introduces an event into the discourse and the subsequent past tense sentences elaborate upon the circumstances surrounding that event. In a way similar to the definiteness/indefiniteness distinction in the domain of noun-phrases, past tenses can have this anaphoric ability whereas the PrP cannot. If we replaced the past tenses in the text by the PrP, the result would be anomalous. Of course, in the other languages where the PrP can be definite according to the (In)definite-E Approach the PrP can be anaphoric and in fact replace the past tenses in (6). At first sight an explanation in the lines of the (In)definite-E Approach appears attractive as it allows to maintain the Reichenbachian scheme E_R,S uniformly across languages despite the mentioned differences. In addition, it allows for a close relation between morphological form and semantic interpretation. For instance, the auxiliary in the present tense can be taken as expressing the non-past relation between S and R and the participle as expressing the precedence relation between R and E. Leaving the basic relations between the time points identical, such an approach must tie the differences between the languages to some other factor like the (in)definiteness of E. However, this approach raises an issue which will ultimately lead to its rejection: the location of R. Compare the first sentence in (5) Cadu ha fatto Caipirinha ieri alla festa and its translation into English Cadu made Caipirinha yesterday at the party, which is a sentence in the past tense. The (In)definite-E Approach would assign different Reichenbachian representations to these sentences, i.e. E_R,S, with E being definite, and E,R_S, respectively, even though they have the same meaning. Of course, this observation alone does not constitute a problem since an equivalence in meaning does not necessarily exclude different underlying representations. More importantly though, as the following sections will show, the

Temporal modification,

the 24-hour rule and the location of reference time

247

PrP differs cross-linguistically to a much larger extent than what has been recognized in the past. In the light of these new insights, the ideal that all cross-linguistic variation can be reduced to other factors keeping the basic relations between S,R and E identical will have to be abandoned. In the next two subsections, we will examine two phenomena that exhaust the explanatory potential of the (In)definite-E Approach: the 24hour Rule in Spanish and the positioning of temporal specifications in Danish.

2.1. The 24-hour rule Let us first consider past time modification in sentence initial position. As the contrasts show, the Spanish PrP has an intermediate status between English and Italian: (7) a. Esta mañana a las seis Juan ha abierto la ventana 'This morning at six Juan has opened the window' b. *Ayer Juan ha abierto la ventana 'Yesterday Juan has opened the window' (8) a. okIeri/okStamattina alle sei Gino ha aperto la finestra b. *Yesterday/*This morning at six John has opened the window The Spanish PrP can be modified by a definite past time adverb, but only if the adverb denotes an interval that is part of TODAY, i.e. the day of when the sentence is uttered. This is the case with esta mañana a las seis "this morning at six" in (7a). When the interval precedes TODAY, as is the case with e.g ayer 'yesterday', hace tres semanas 'three weeks ago', en 1947 'in 1947', etc., the adverb cannot combine with the Spanish PrP (cf. (7b)). This restriction, which also holds in Catalan and 17th century French, has been subsumed under the notion 24-hour Rule. There is no trace of the 24-hour rule in Italian, French, German or English. The former are compatible with any of these time modifications, the latter with none of them. It is often claimed that the event must lie within TODAY. However, this is not always the case. The following sentence, for instance, does not necessarily imply that John opened the window today—the opening can have occurred at any time in the past even before TODAY:

248

(9)

Gerhard

Brugger

Juan ha abierto la ventana 'Juan has opened the window'

The relevance of the 24-hour Rule can still be observed indirectly. There is a difference in meaning depending on whether the opening occurred today or before today. As Comrie (1985) observes, if Juan opened the window at a time before TODAY, this sentence is appropriate only if the window is still open at the time of the utterance. Thus, the sentence entails that the window stayed open overnight. If, conversely, the window is closed now, i.e. Juan opened it and later he or somebody else closed it, the sentence is appropriate only if the opening occurred at some time today. We generalize: (10)

The Spanish PrP has Current Relevance if the Event Time is prior to TODAY. If the Event Time lies within TODAY the PrP may or may not have Current Relevance.

The (In)definite-E Approach can account for this generalization in terms of the (in)definiteness of E. Suppose that the 24-hour Rule only restricts definite Event Times: a definite E must be within TODAY. If so E can precede TODAY only if E is indefinite. Since Current Relevance is related to indefinite Event Times the generalization is derived. This formulation helps us understand a further difference between Spanish and Italian. We pointed out in the previous section that the Italian PrP, unlike the English one, can be used in narrative contexts and refer to sequences of events in the past. The Spanish PrP can do this too, but only if the described events happened TODAY. The following example, however, is unexpected: (11)

Juan ha abierto la ventana ayer/hace dos días 'Juan has opened the window yesterday/two days ago'

In apparent contrast to what we observed at the beginning of this section, the Spanish PrP is not always incompatible with temporal specifications that denote intervals before TODAY. It is the position of the adverb within the clause which is crucial. These adverbs can only surface in sentence-final position and are excluded from the sentence-initial position. Only adverbs that denote intervals within TODAY can appear in both positions in Spanish. Therefore the negative judgement for (7b) above remains unchanged. 4

Temporal modification,

the 24-hour rule and the location of reference time

249

Evidently, the (In)definite-E Approach misses the point here as it would exclude this sentence. According to the formulation of the 24-hour Rule given above, the Event Time of (11) can only be indefinite if it is not within TODAY. But, as such, it should disallow modification by a definite past time adverb. The explanation for these contrasts will be presented in section 2.3. It is important to notice that the generalization in (10) is not contradicted by this example. As predicted, the sentence has Current Relevance. It is appropriate only if the window is still open, which implies that it has stayed open overnight. In other words the sentence has the meaning of the English PrP sentence John has opened the window only that the Event Time is specified overtly. One of the intriguing insights of this section is the relevance of the syntactic position of the temporal specification in Spanish. In the following section we will discuss another language with similar contrasts.

2.2. The syntax of temporal specification The Danish PrP is compatible with definite past-time denoting adverbs. (12) is taken from Davidsen-Nielsen (1990:124), (13) from Allan, Holmes & Lundskaer-Nielsen (1995). 5 (12)

Vil de der har glemt at stille deres ure i gar aftes g0re det nu 'Would those of you who have forgotten to set their watches last night do so now?'

(13)

Hvornaar er du ankommet? 'When have you arrived?'

So far Danish looks like Italian. But there are some important differences. As the following examples illustrate, the syntactic distribution of the temporal specification is highly restricted in Danish. While definite past time adverbs can appear in pre- and post sentential position in Italian, they are excluded from the sentence initial position in the Danish PrP: (14) a. *For to dage siden jeg er ankommet b. o k Due giorni fa sono arrivato 'Two days ago I have arrived' c. 'Jeg er ankommet for to dage siden

250

Gerhard Brugger

d. ok Sono arrivato due giorni fa Ί have arrived two days ago' Many speakers of Danish would answer the PrP-question (13) with a past tense sentence. However, when they use the PrP the time specification must be placed in final position, as in (14c), as the reverse ordering in (14a) is ungrammatical. The (In)definite-E Approach presupposes that E can be definite in both languages and that the past time adverbs in (13) and (14) specify a definite E. The observed syntactic contrasts require additional assumptions. A plausible direction is to assume that there is some locality constraint: the modifying constituent must be structurally close to the modified time point. Let's assume that the Reichenbachian Time Points (S, R and E) and the temporal relations between them ("_" and ",") are represented structurally: (15)

[ TP S τ0 R

["P2P

T2°

E ... VP ...]]

The temporal projection T(ENSE) relates R with S. A second projection, which we call T ( E N S E ) 2 relates E with R (cf. Giorgi & Pianesi (1991)). Let's assume, moreover, following Stowell (1993), that the specifier and the complement of Τ and the complement of T2 are time denoting phrases that denote S, R and E, respectively. If τ expresses "," and T2 expresses "_" the result is the Reichenbachian scheme for the PrP: E_R,S. Since these assumptions are sufficient to illustrate the argument, we will postpone a more precise specification of the semantic contents of τ and T2 to a later point in this paper. Within this picture we could restate the locality constraint in the following way: an adverb that modifies E must be within the projection of T2: (16)

[adverb ... [ t p S t 2 R [ X 2 P t2°E ... VP ... adverb]]

Obviously, an adverb in sentence initial position is not in this domain. In order to modify E, it would have to employ some other operation. Without being too theory specific, we could say that the adverb "lowers" or "reconstructs" to a position within the T2 projection. The difference that leads to the contrasts in (14) would then be that this operation is available in Italian but not in Danish.

Temporal

modification,

the 24-hour

rule and the location

of reference time

251

One of the major problems of this explanation is that it ignores that "lowering" of a sentence initial adverb is not an unmarked process in Italian, which is in disparity with the unmarked status of sentences like (14b). We illustrate this with sentences in the past perfect whose Reichenbachian scheme is E_R_S. Since E and R are both in the past, past time adverbs can modify one or the other. The two options give rise to two distinct interpretations (cf. e.g. McCoard 1978:91, Comrie 1985:65-69, Klein 1991:529). (17) a. Yesterday, Mary came to Chris's office at six. But Chris had already left at six. b. Yesterday, Mary came to Chris's office at seven. But Chris had already left at six. In (17a) Chris left at some time before six; in (17b) he left at six. This contrast is due to the different Reference Times provided by the first sentences. In the first case, the Reference Time is 6 o'clock and the time of Chris's leaving is before that. In the second case, the Reference Time is 7 o'clock, at six consequently modifies the Event Time. Thus it appears that the adverb in sentence final position can modify both R and E. Notice that the two interpretations differ in their intonation pattern. When the adverb modifies R, it has the intonation of a dislocated element; when it modifies E, it is part of the intonational phrase of the sentence. Crucially, when the adverb surfaces in sentence initial position, only one of these two readings persists. At six Chris had (already) left can only mean that Chris left at a time before six. The Event Time reading that Chris left at six is not available. This indicates that the temporal specification can modify R but not E in this position. Or, in the terms introduced above, it cannot "lower" or "reconstruct" to the T/AGR projection. Danish behaves like English. The sentence initial adverb only specifies R (18a). As for Italian, Bianchi, Squartini & Bertinetto (1995) claim that an adverb in sentence initial position can modify either R or E. In the second case (18b) expresses that Gino's leaving was at six. (18) a. Klokken seks var John (allerede) gâet b. Alle sei Gino era (già) partito 'At six Gino had (already) left' So far the evidence appears to confirm the conjecture made above that Italian and Danish differ with respect to the "lowering" of time adverbs. However, it is important to point out that the status of (18b) is highly marked when E is modified. This interpretation requires the adverb to be

252

Gerhard Brugger

heavily stressed: ALLE SEI Gino era partito. In contrast, (14b) Due giorni fa sono arrivato can be uttered without any prominence on the adverb. Its intonation pattern is comparable to the corresponding past tense sentence in English Two days ago I arrived. The outlined explanation leaves this contrast completely unexpected. Since the adverb would have to "lower" in order to modify E, heavy stress on the adverb should be obligatory. The fact that it is not indicates that the adverb does not modify E, but something else.

2.3. Dividing the burden The evidence presented in the previous sections shows that the (In)definite-E Approach is not able to accommodate the observed cross-linguistic variations. The underlying assumption that all PrPs have the Reichenbachian scheme E_R,S, which at the beginning seemed attractive, has now turned out to be far too restrictive, as all the observed differences had to be related to variations of E. If, instead, we allow R to either coincide with S (19a) or precede S (19b), part of the differences can be attributed to R: (19) a. E_R,S b. E,R_S (19b) is the Reichenbachian scheme of the English past tense. With this move we allow the PrP in the languages where this ambiguity is manifested to look at past events from a Reference Time that is also in the past without implying Current Relevance effects. On the other hand, we depart from the idea that the morphological uniformity of the PrP across languages is paralleled by a uniform semantic analysis. We want to emphasize, however, that we do not believe that there is no strict relation between morphological form and semantic representation. In fact, as we will argue in section 3.2, both schemes in (19) follow from the morphological form of the PrP in a natural way if we adopt certain assumptions concerning the role of the auxiliary. This move allows us furthermore to abandon the inadequate assumption formulated in section 2.1 that the 24-hour Rule restricts the Event Time and view it as a constraint on Reference Time instead: (20)

The 24-hour Rule The Reference Time of a Spanish PrP-sentence is an interval that is included in TODAY 6

Temporal modification,

the 24-hour rule and the location of reference time

253

The traditional scheme of the PrP, E_R,S, fulfills the 24-hour Rule trivially. Since S is within TODAY by definition, if R and S are co-temporaneous then also R is within TODAY. Since E is unrestricted E can be any time in the past. The new formulation of the 24-hour Rule also allows for the second scheme with R preceding S provided that R is within TODAY. Since E is co-temporaneous with R, also E is within TODAY. Under these new premises the Spanish contrasts in (7) and (11), repeated below, differ in their Reference Times: (7) a. o k Esta mañana a las seis Juan ha abierto la ventana 'This morning at six Juan has opened the window' b. *Ayer Juan ha abierto la ventana 'Yesterday Juan has opened the window' (11)

Juan ha abierto la ventana ayer/hace dos días 'Juan has opened the window yesterday / two days ago'

The adverbs in (7), esta mañana a las seis 'this morning at six' and ayer 'yesterday', set R before S, hence E,R_S. But since only one of them does this in accordance with the 24-hour Rule the sentences contrast. In (11), ayer and hace dos días set E prior to TODAY. Since this excludes that R coincides with E, R can only coincide with S. Consequently E_R,S is the only scheme associated with this sentence. Notice that the contrast between (7b) and (11) adds further evidence to the assumption of the previous section that adverbs in sentence initial position cannot "lower" to modify E. If this constraint did not hold, ayer in sentence initial position could modify E and (7b) would not be distinguishable from (11). A further advantage is that Current Relevance can now be characterized as a property of Reference Time only, whereas in the (In)definite-E Approach Current Relevance also required that the Event Time be indefinite. (21)

The Current Relevance Corollary Current Relevance arises iff R coincides with S

In fact, the Spanish sentences differ with respect to Current Relevance. (11) has Current Relevance as it is appropriate only if the window is still open now. (7a), on the other hand, does not. Since the event is viewed from a past Reference Time, the sentence does not say anything about the present state of the window.

254

Gerhard Brugger

Let's now come back to the Italian and Danish data in (14). The contrasts indicate that R can precede S in Italian but not in Danish and consequently also that the Danish PrP differs from the Italian one in that it has Current Relevance. (14) a. *For to dage siden jeg er ankommet b. ok Due giorni fa sono arrivato 'Two days ago I have arrived' ? c. Jeg er ankommet for to dage siden d. ok Sono arrivato due giorni fa Ί have arrived two days ago' The predictions are correct. The Danish question in (13) Hvornaar er du ankommet? "When have you arrived?" as well as (14c) are appropriate only if the speaker or addressee, respectively, is still at the intended location at Speech Time. In other words, the meaning of the Danish PrP is that of the English PrP except for the fact that the former allows the Event Time to be specified by temporal modifications. We summarize our results in (22): (22)

Italian/Spanish PrP a. E_R,S + b. E,R_S + c. E-modification +

Danish PrP + +

English PrP + -

We conclude that Current Relevance does not exclude definite past time modification in general. It only excludes past time modification of Reference Time. This restriction follows directly from the Current Relevance Corollary in (21). Since past time adverbs modify past intervals they can R-modify the PrP only in languages such as Italian and Spanish, where the PrP may lack Current Relevance. Since E is in the past in E_R,S we expect that Current Relevance is compatible with definite past time modification of the Event Time. Data from Spanish and Danish confirmed this. We should notice at this point that many researchers have attempted to exclude exactly this basing themselves on the peculiar behavior of English (cf. e.g. Klein's (1991) Pdefiniteness constraint, Richards (1982)). Our discussion showed that this would be undesirable. However, the question still remains: Why is Emodification not possible in English? We leave this issue for further re-

Temporal modification,

the 24-hour rule and the location of reference time

255

search and, in the second part of the paper, we will concentrate on the difference in the Reference Time in the languages under consideration. So far, we have isolated three aspects of the PrP that are related to the Reference Time: Current Relevance, R-modification and the 24-hour Rule in Spanish. In the following section we will add a fourth one: the Present Possibility Constraint.

2.4. The present possibility constraint The English PrP not only "views" an event from the present moment, it often also requires that the events be capable of re-occurring at the present moment. This property is captured under the notion Present Possibility Constraint (PPC). For instance, the PrP sentence Have you ever been to a Beatles concert? is less felicitous than the almost identical one Have you ever been to a Rolling Stones concert? The difference is that, at the present moment, for instance January 2000, the probability of the Rolling Stones performing live is much higher than that of the Beatles, whose last performance was 30 years ago. Only a person who still firmly believes (or hopes) that the Beatles will reunite one day would use the PrP Anybody else would use the simple past instead. A special case of the Present Possibility constraint is that the person or thing must be living or existing. For this reason the PrP is odd in the following example: (23)

Einstein *has taught/ ok taught at Princeton

Only the past tense, but not the PrP, can be used once Einstein is no longer alive. His being dead eliminates the possibility of him teaching at Princeton again. 7 There is an important restriction to this constraint. As McCawley (1971:106f) points out, the intuition depends on whether the subject is the topic or the focus of the sentence. The PrP is excluded when Einstein is the topic of the sentence, as after a question like What can you tell me about Einstein?. If Einstein is the focus and contributes new information, as after Who has taught in Princeton?, the PrP is acceptable (provided, of course, that Princeton which now functions as the topic is still existing). Similarly, the question To what concerts have you been to? eliminates the contrast noted before. I have been to a Beatles concert, a Rolling Stones concert, an Elvis Presley concert, ... is an acceptable response. The PPC can also be observed in Danish (24a) and in Spanish (24b).

256

Gerhard Brugger

(24) What can you tell me about Einstein? a. *Einstein har lasrt pâ Princeton b. *Einstein ha enseñado en Princeton 'Einstein has taught in Princeton' When the subject is the topic, the PrP sentences are as infelicitous as in the English example. There is an important difference, though. In Spanish, the awkwardness of (24b) is not only a consequence of the fact that Einstein is dead now, but also that he taught at Princeton many years ago. (25) illustrates this point: (25)

(What about Snowwhite?) Esta mañana Blancanieves se ha levantado a las seis, ha hablado con una mujer, ha comido una manzana y despues se ha muerto. 'This morning Snowwhite has gotten up at 6 o'clock, she has talked to a woman, she has eaten an apple, and then she has died'

Here the sequence of PrP sentences is perfectly acceptable even though Snowwhite is already dead at the time the sentence is uttered. The crucial difference with respect to (24b) is that the PrP sentences in (25) refer to events that happened TODAY. This contrast reveals that the PPC is related to Reference Time: the sentence topic must be alive or existent at R. Recall that the 24-hour Rule differentiates the two sentences in the location of R. Since E precedes TODAY in (24b) R can only coincide with S (E_R,S). Therefore the sentence topic should still be alive now, which is not the case. The same is true for the Danish PrP in (24a). By contrast, the PrP sentences in (25) do not say anything about their topics at S since their Reference Times are in the past (E,R_S). In other words, the PPC meets the 24-hour Rule. Whenever the 24hour Rule disallows R to be in the past, the effects of the PPC become visible. We see that the explanation of this data can be quite natural if we allow ourselves to think of the PrP sentences in (25) as past tense sentences, semantically. It would be rather unclear, on the other hand, how one could accommodate them in a non-stipulative way within the (In)definite-E Approach which analyses all PrPs as E_R,S.

Temporal modification,

the 24-hour rule and the location of reference time

257

3. Form and meaning As outlined in section 2.2, we assume that the projection T ( E N S E ) 2 expresses the temporal order between the Event Time and Reference Time. The latter is related with Speech Time through the T ( E N S E ) projection. The time points S, R and E themselves are treated as time denoting phrases and located in the specifier and the complement of τ and the complement of T2, respectively: [ TP S τ 0 R

(26)

[j2p T2°

E ... VP ...]]

If we combine these structural assumptions with the result that the PrP can be either E_R,S or E,R_S we have to conclude the following: (a) that the precedence relation can be expressed in two different locations, in T2 or in τ; (b) that τ can express precedence or simultaneity; and, finally, (c) the same for T2. These conclusions raise a number of questions, some of which we will address later in this paper. In Reichenbach's scheme of the PrP, E_R,S, the semantic relations are directly reflected by the morphosyntax. The present tense morpheme of the auxiliary expresses the simultaneity ([-PAST]) between S and R in τ and the participle expresses the precedence ([+PAST]) between R and E in T 2 (cf. (27a)). The other construal, E,R_S, requires [+PAST] in τ, which certainly is surprising if we take into consideration the present tense form of the auxiliary. One would not expect a present tense form to express past tense meaning. However, we do not have to draw the conclusion that the auxiliary expresses precedence. Suppose that the auxiliary may have no temporal function at all and that in this construal the past relation in τ is expressed by some other appropriate element such as the participle (cf. (27b)). In this configuration, the present tense form of the auxiliary is less surprising as it can be related to some default mechanism in the word formation process. Arguably, the morphological frame includes a slot for both tense and subject-agreement (AGR). If the semantic content of the temporal slot is not specified, the unmarked form, i.e. the present tense morpheme, is chosen. The structures in (27) illustrate the ambiguity. ( 2 7 ) a.

AGR

Cadu < b.

AGR

[ - P A S T ] T [+PAST]-J"2

ha [+PAST]T

Cadu ha hecho < 'Cadu has made Caipirinha'

V

hecho ub'lo > ullo > ulo where-it-clitic (Gal.-Port., Leonese) b. D E UBI ILLU > d(e) + ó + (i)llo > dòlo where-it-clitic (Old Spanish) 4 'Where is X?' 1.1.1. Dialectal information

(from the 19th century to the present)

In Saco e Arce's Galician grammar úlo/úla are described as interrogative pronouns with the meaning "where is he/she" as well as adjectives containing a locative interrogative adverb. Carballo Calero (1976:315) describes it as "half-adverb, half-pronoun ... (and) ... it admits all of their inflectional properties". Alvarez et al. (1986:431) claim that "with (ú ) the use of an article or a pronoun is obligatory, and this unit is only used as a root question". The Diccionario Xerais da Lingua (1987:873) adds that úlo is used with no verb around. The Galician and Portuguese (Trás-osMontes, Monçâo, Chaviäes, Melgaço) paradigm follows the same inflections as pronominals (6a) (Garcia de Diego 1909, Leite de Vasconcellos 1928), inter alia). The Leonese counterpart (in Navelgas, Cabranes, Lena and Aller) also includes a neuter gender for mass nouns (6b) (Menéndez Pidal 1990 [1906], Zamora Vicente 1985, Rodríguez Castellano 1952, Granda Gutiérrez 1960, Canellada 1944, D'Andrés 1993, Arias Cabal 1996). An additional dúlo < D E U N D E ILLU "from where is s/he coming?" is also attested in Galician (Garcia de Diego 1909:101) (6c).

Singular Plural

Masculine úlo úlos

Feminine úla úlas

Singular Plural

Masculine úlu úlos

Feminine úla úlas

Singular Plural

Masculine dúlo dúlos

Feminine dúla dúlas

(6a)

(6b)

(6c)

(Galician)

Neuter úlo

(Asturian)

(Galician)

The «/¿»-derivations are also attested in Judeo-Spanish from Northern Morocco (Corominas & Pascual 1981, and BRAEXW (1927:567) Dialecto judeo-hispano-marroquí o hakitía. In this latter work, ¿Adó? is de-

314

Luis

Silva-Villar

scribed as an "interrogative adverb, only used before nouns or suffixed pronouns with the verb estar 'to be' understood". Within the Judeo-Spanish of Bitoli (Macedonia) this derivation is also attested (Espinosa 1946). Since the Judeo-Spanish speakers have not been in direct contact with the Iberian Peninsula since 1492, we conclude that the ú/o-derivations were colloquial in Spanish at that period of time, namely, the late 15th century.

1.2. Properties Some of the basic properties of ti/o-derivations have already been presented: the apparent elliptical verb, which is sometimes identified as estar "to be", as well as the early origin of the complex [C + D] 5 word úlo. The status of the elliptical verb needs some qualifications: (a) No verb can be spelled out (7), (b) the interpretation of the hypothetical missing verb includes several alternative meanings such as "what has become of ...?/ what has happened to ...?/where is ...?" among others. See glosses of example (8). Additionally, in the case of Galician dúlo, the understood verb is related to any verb with "origin" interpretation (9). (7)

*úlo está pro? 0 where-it is it 'Where is it?'

(8)

tu

la xente, ¿Úlo? (Asturian, Zamora Vicente 1985:210) you for there and the people where-it-neuter 'Here you are, and your family, what has happened to them/ what has become of them?'

(9)

¿Dúlas? from-where-them-f.pl. 'Where are they coming from?, where are they bringing them from?'

por ende, y

If ellipsis is considered the result of the deletion of phonological features under conditions of parallelism, any violation of deletion should lead to redundancy but never to ungrammaticality as (7) shows. Even more controversial yet is the role of estar in the selection of pronominal clitics among NILs. Estar does not allow non-predicational clitics, which is in fla-

Verbless derivations

in historical syntax

315

grant contradiction with the variation in gender and number of the examples mentioned so far. Modern Spanish illustrates the non-transitive status of estar (10). In fact, estar does not select any D P object at all (11). (10) a. Juan está cansado John is tired-agr.(m.sg.) b. Juan lo está John it-neuter is c. María está cansada Mary is tired-agr.(f.sg.) d. María *la / lo está Mary her-f.sg. / it-neuter is (11)

(Spanish)

*Juan está el profesor /él John is the professor/him

Among m/o's salient properties, it is surprising that the subjects that participate in these derivations have to be doubled by an enclitic object pronoun, thus violating Principle Β of Binding Theory. This unusual situation is not so unique as shown in Keenan's (1994) study of the creation of anaphors in Old English. What is surprising is that the interpretation of the pronoun is independent of any available predicate. Less unique is the enclitization to a non-verbal item (i.e., úlhúl(a)dó) which is a regular situation in the history of NILs as a consequence of the application of the Tobler-Mussafia law.7 Additionally, Principle A of Binding Theory does not apply to úlo structures as a consequence of the ban of anaphoric pronouns among the set of grammatical sequences (12): (12)

*Ú-se? where-self

(Gal.-Port.)

Another distinctive property of these constructions is the lack of úlo-embedded derivations, which must be associated to the root environment that gave birth to them. The active role of C suggests that the licencing properties for C in the root derivation must exclude any type of syntactic selection (C-selection), in harmony with den Besten's (1983) ideas. This property makes w/o-derivations resemble other familiar structures such as complex inversion in French or subject-auxiliary inversion in English. An additional possible explanation for the root-embedded asymmetry is that w/o-questions are neither requesting information nor requiring a peremptory answer, which explains our attempt to interpret them by "em-

316

Luis

Silva-Villar

bedded glosses" such as "I wonder where/what ...". From this perspective, the exclusion of "embedded derivations" is a logical outcome. The lack of negative derivations can be derived from the reduction of the possible steps of the derivation after the movement of Τ (or a portion of T) to C and subsequent shrinking of the derivational steps. An alternative analysis would involve splitting the checking of the Τ formal components. We are assuming that negation in NILs is derived via checking of formal features againt a functional stage Neg along the steps of the derivation from Τ to C. The insertion of Neg would cause a blocking effect to the operation Attract-F (or covert movement) and subsequent violation of the Minimal Link Condition (Chomsky 1995). From an interpretative point of view, w/o-derivations required the "pre-existence" of the DP in a previous context. From this perspective, negative derivations would involve the contradiction of obligatory recovering of DPs from contexts in which their existence is not assumed, which is meaningless. The lack of non-finite derivations as well as aspectual, modal, or non-unmarked (non-redundant) temporal interpretations is another characteristic of these derivations (13). The temporal interpretation is always contemporaneous to the speech moment. Future glosses must only be understood as either hypothetical, rhetorical or evocative. The finite/non finite distribution supports either the lack of [+Vp]-feature-of-T or, better, its redundancy at Spell-out. The [+Np] feature of Τ would be enough to check the [+present] as proposed by Benmamoun (1998) to explain the syntactic behavior of the present copular constructions in Arabic. Thus, the clitic becomes responsible for checking the [+present] temporality. The lack of infinitives, which is expected only in relative sentences containing the infinitive along with a W7i-word, is explained by the fact that ύ "where" in Galician-Portuguese and Asturian (Leonese) cannot be unstressed so that it cannot qualify as a relative Wh-word (Arias Cabal 1996, Longa, Lorenzo & Rigau 1996)8 (14b). It is a case of morphological deficiency. The lack of arbitrary subjects in úlo derivations is undoubtely linked to this restriction. The ungrammaticality of indirect questions is shown in (14a). In this case, Asturian, a Leonese variety, illustrates the derivations. (13)

Úlo? where-it 'Where is/*was/*will be/*would be it?' 'Where is/*can be/*may be/...?' 'Where is/*has been/*had been/*is to be/ *is going to be ... it?'

Temporal Modal Aspectual

Verbless derivations

(14) a. *Nun sé

in historical syntax

317

ú

ta Xuan (Asturian, Longa, Lorenzo & Rigau 1996) neg know-lp.sg. where is John b. *La casa u Xuan vive the house where John lives

The exclusive [+specific] status of úlo subjects confirms that we are dealing with a "syntactic phenomenon", not an "allegro" speech rearrangement. 9 Moreover, their specificity shows that this structure cannot merge new DPs into the discourse but an emphatic comment about the existence of already known DPs. Purely locative interpretations of íí/o-derivations are always a historical evolution of previous "existential" interpretations. Specifically, the oldest attested interpretations within NILs of these sequences emphasize the fact that an object is unexpectedly missing.10 A sentence such as (15) is interpreted either way as its glosses show: (15)

E

úlas

provas que lhi

daredes? (Old Galician-Portuguese) and where-the proofs that to-him give-2p.sg. 'And where is the evidence that you will give to/for him?' 'And "no evidence to provide for him is in here!'" (Joan García de Guilhade, Rodrigues Lapa 1965,203:312)

Weak determiners and most of the strong determiners are disallowed here. Indefinite (16a) (non-specific) derivations, distributive determiners (16b) and quantifiers in general (16c) are banned or unattested with the exception of "all" and "both". Only definite articles, clitics, and quantifiers such as those already mentioned are compatible with úlo derivations. (16) a. *Ú-nha carta? (Gal.) where-a letter lit. 'Where is a letter?' b. *Ulas cadansuas cartas? where-it each-of-them-pl letters 'Where are each one of their letters?' c. *Úlas moitas/duas cartas? where many /two letters 'Where are there many/two letters?' All of the above properties define úlo sentences and provide descriptive information for their analysis.11 An interesting extrapolation of these

318

Luis

Silva-Villar

properties is that since V-movement cannot be invoked to explain the derivation of these structures, the derivational contribution of weak pronouns and verbs must be independent from the prosodie point of view. Finally, úlo derivations cannot be created by excorporation without violating the intrinsic meaning of "ex-corpor-ation": there is no verb, i.e., "body", from which to excorporate anything.

1.3. The ubi sunt topos The ubi sunt? formula can be used to understand úlo derivations as it sheds light on some steps in their evolution. This formula is perhaps as old as mankind, but it enjoyed extraordinary popularity throughout the Middle Ages as a rethorical expression regarding the theme of mutability (Matsuda 1983, Morreale 1975 and references therein). The development and diffusion of this formula from the Bible to the Middle Ages and from Latin to Romance and Germanic languages has been systematically traced by Gilson (1955) and Cross (1956), showing the heavy influence of Latin didactic works on the vernacular languages. We may distinguish some essential aspects of the formula: - It is a rethorical question. The content is evocative. - It has been argued that the formula comes from Hebrew ayé "where", which denies "existence" in the original Bible. The formula is used without an overt lexical verb. - The Latin Bible adds the verb esse "to be" to the formula. - The formula is repeated in conduplicatio manner, a type of word repetition used to create emotional effects. The conduplicatio favors the lack of copula. - It appears exclusively in matrix questions. - The Romance written forms span the period from 13th to the 17th centuries. Some examples from Latin (17) and Old Spanish (18) show the type of structure we are dealing with. The Latin derivations show the lack of the overt verb "to be", which is not always the case. The repetition of Ubi "where" illustrates the conduplicatio (17). In the Old Spanish examples (18), again, the lack of verb "to be" and the conduplicatio are illustrated. The Wh-word adó "where" is a case in hand.

Verbless derivations

(17)

Ubi 0 Plato, ubi 0 Porphyrius? Ubi 0 Tullius aut Virgilius? Ubi 0 Thaies, ubi 0 Empedocles Aut egregius Aristoteles? Alexander ubi 0 rex maximus? Ubi 0 Hector Trojae fortissimus? Ubi 0 David rex doctissimus? Ubi 0 Salomon prudentissimus? Ubi 0 Helena Parisque roseus? 12

(18)

¿'Ado ¿Adó ¿Adó ¿Adó ¿Adó ¿Adó ¿Adó ¿Adó ¿Adó ¿Adó ¿Adó ¿Adó ¿Adó ¿Adó ¿Adó ¿Adó

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

in historical syntax

319

(11th century, Christliche Anthologie, Rambach\ \1817, in Morreale 1975:488)

los thesoros, vasallos servientes? los firmalles, piedras preciosas? el aljófar, posadas costosas? el algalia e aguas olientes? paños de oro, cadenas luzientes? los collares, las jarreteras? peñas grises?, ¿adó 0 peñas veras? las sonajas que van retiñientes? los conbites, cenas y yantares? las justas?, ¿adó 0 los torneos? nuevos trajes, extraós meneos? las artes de los dançadores? los comeres?, ¿adó 0 los manjares? la franqueza?, ¿adó 0 el espender? los risos?, ¿adó 0 el placer? menestriles?, ¿adó 0 los jugleres? (Ferrán Sánchez de Talavera, Dezir "por la muerte" \de Ruy Díaz de Mendoza.

Ln Morreale 1975: 498)

Literary Spanish also had these structures with explicit pronominal enclitization onto the interrogative WTi-word, which is well attested in the literature. For example, in Alonso (1962) dole is described as an "elliptical expression frequently used within the 15th century". 13 In Menéndez Pidal (1990 [1906]), he says "The interrogative adverb dó was used in Castillian until the 16th century with the verb estar 'to be' being understood as inquiring about something that is not found". The following examples, taken from Old Portuguese (19) and Old Spanish (20), are content-related to the ubi sunt formula and exhibit their characteristic lack of verb. Examples (19-20) show the encliticization of both the determiner-article ((19a) and (19c)) and pronominal clitics (the remaining cases) onto the Whword "where". 14

320

Luis

Silva-Villar

(19) a. E úlas caballerías que tendes pera me levar? and where-the steeds that have-2p.sg. for me to-take 'Where are the steeds you have to carry me?' (Gil Vicente 3,46) b. Adúllo o teu malvavisco, Britez filha, e o solimäo? to-where-it the your marshmallow B. daughter and the poison 'Britez, daughter, where is your marshmallow, and the poison?' (17th C. Portuguese, Francisco Manuel de Melo, Fid. Apr. 25) c. Pois adúllos mariolas? (ib. 52) then to-where-the villains 'Then, where are the villains?' d. Húlos esses namorados? [= (2a)] where-them those lovers 'Where are those lovers' (Gil Vicente 3, 67, cited in Said Ali, 1966:185) (20) a. ¿Qué se fizo este huevo? ... ¿Quién lo levó? ¿Adóle este huevo? what SE did this egg who it took to-where-it this egg 'What happened to this egg? Who took it? Where is this egg?' (Arcipreste de Talavera, Corbacho, p. 124) leal dóla? b. ¿Mi vieja my old-woman loyal where-her 'Where might my loyal old friend be?' (= (2b) LBA, Sapon 1951:46, Clas. Cast. 41:1568b) c. ¿Adólo? to-where-it 'Where is it?/ Where did it go?' (LBA, 1331, cited in Hanssen 1913:285, §672) y vuestra cortesanía, ¿dóla? and your politeness where-it 'Your politeness, where is it?' (Malón de Chaide, in Corominas and Pascual 1981) One of the major challenges of this research is integrating the information one can extract from dialectology and history of the language. The data presented so far show that the same morphosyntax found in modern Galician and Asturian is used to represent the ubi sunt topos in old NILs. One further step is to trace the evolution of these structures from old variaties on in chronological steps: from Latin ubi to medieval úlo, and from medieval úlo to modern dialectal úlo. The case of Spanish is different in a natural way: the end of the Tobler-Mussaffia law renders the structure obsolete.

Verbless derivations

in historical syntax

321

The chronological theory is not wihout problems as we will show below. Deriving the dialectal ιilo from the literary ubi sunt can be justified by taking into account the progressive secularization of the topic from the 13th to the 17th centuries as well as by the formal similar properties that both types of derivations share. Additionally, the conduplicatio creates the obvious structural environment triggering the progressive lack of verb. However, two contradictory facts conspire against this perfect picture: (21 )

I. The morphosyntax of úlo is as old as Romance languages are. Its mere existence suggests an independent popular evolution from the Latin formula. II. If úlo had evolved from ubi sunt, its origin should not be traced back before the 13th century, when the ubi sunt topic enjoyed popularity.

In order to solve this contradiction, two solutions seem plausible to us: either úlo and ubi sunt structures are independent from each other or both structures are related but not as a development from the latter into the former. Any theory claiming the independence of both structures leaves unexplained the fact that they both share the same morphosyntax. On the other hand, we gain explanatory power if both structures can be derived from a common theory. The lack of written materials in NILs until the 12th century favors the latter approach. 15 Moreover, at least as early as the beginning of the 13th century, we find examples such as the following cantiga line, (15) repeated here as (22): (22) E úlas provas que lhi daredes? (Old Galician-Portuguese) and where-the proofs that to-him give-2p.sg. (Joan García de Guilhade, Rodrigues Lapa 1965,203:312) Notice that this is a rhetorical question about a secular topic, which supports the foundation for the parallel treatment of both sequences from the inception of Northwestern Romance. Although more research is necessary to cover some gaps in the data, the partial conclusion is that both phenomena must be studied together. Both derivations can shed light on each other, which is supported by the antiquity of the phenomena and justified by the parallel evolution of probably one of the oldest and most universal linguistic objects.

322

Luis

Silva-Villar

2. Discussion of concomitant facts This section presents some possible explanations of úlo derivations: inflected complementizers (2.1), subject clitics (2.2) and pronouns as copulas (2.3). All of them are either rejected or put aside as it is premature to obtain a workable solution at this point of the research.

2.1. Inflected complementizers If we want to generate úlo morphosyntax as an inflected Germanic-like complementizer, we face at least the following problems: (a) Germanic inflected complementizers appear mainly in embedded clauses, (b) The finite verb cannot be elliptical in Germanic languages in general. One of the few cases reported in the literature in which a verb can be left out is in Frisian infinitival complement clauses that have an unrealized future reading (Hoekstra & Marácz 1989, Zwart 1993).16 (23)

Jan is fan doel om nei Ljouwert ta 0/te gean John is of purpose for to L. to 0 / t o go 'John intends to go to Leeuarden' (Frisian, Hoekstra & Marácz 1989, in Zwart 1993)

Notwithstanding, the Dutch dialects that show complementizer agreement pattern with standard Dutch rather than with Frisian with respect to the possibility of V-ellipsis: (24)

Datte ze van plan benne om naar Amsterdam toe *(te gaan) that-PL they of plan are-PL for to Amsterdam to to go (South Hollandic, Zwart 1993:258)

Surprisingly, one of the cases reported in the literature of V-ellipsis within Germanic languages corresponds to ubi sunt sentences such as those in German in (25): (25) a. ... Oder wo 0 vor ihm Sapur? (German, Becker 1924:508/504) or where 0 before him Sapur lit. 'Where is before him Sapur?' b. Wo 0 Tullius? where 0 Tullius 'Where is Tullius?'

Verbless derivations

in historical syntax

323

These stylistic translations, from Arabic and Latin, allow us to capture the broad extension of the ubi sunt phenomenon. 17 (c) If I-to-C takes place (den Besten 1983), why aren't ύ endings verbal? Nothing like the regular inflection affixes *ύ-ο, *ú-as, *ύ-α, etc has ever been attested within NILs.

2.2. Subject clitics If we assigned the status of subjects to the pronouns that participate in úlo derivations as their English glosses seem to suggest, for example in (26), we could support such a position by pointing out the potential creation of some úlo forms from ύ + Latin subject pronouns: ULA < UBI ILLA, ULO> UBI ILLUD, etc. (26)

Úlo? (Gal.) where-him/it 'Where is he/it?'

In this approach, a spellout with doubling as in (27) would be a case of subject clitic doubling similar to those found in Northern Italian dialects (Brandi & Cordin 1989, Rizzi 1985, Vanelli 1984), or, maybe, similar to complex inversion structures in French (Kayne 1984, Rizzi & Roberts 1989 and Sportiche 1994): (27)

Úlo ele?(Gal.-Port.) where-him he 'Where is he?'

However, we must reject this approach for at least two obvious reasons: (a) the verb is elliptical, so it is not a subject verbal clitic at all, and (b) Judeo-Spanish first and second person constructions such as adórne? "where am I?", adóte? "where are you?" (28) exclude the possibility of their origin as subjects.18 Both me and te are object clitic forms. (28) a. ¿Adóme yo? to-where-me I 'Where am I?'/'I wonder where I am'/'What has happened to me?' (Northern Moroccan Judeo-Spanish or Hakitia, BRAE XIV) b. ¿Adóte tú? to-where-you you 'Where are you?'/'I wonder where you are'/ 'What has become of you?'

324

Luis

Silva-Villar

Judeo-Spanish offers an interesting support to the non-literal content of these structures/questions since nobody asks himself/hersef "where he/ she is". Judeo-Spanish is unique among NILs in being the only one with first and second pronouns.

2.3. Pronouns as copulas The apparent lack of verb and the overt enclitic determiner in these constructions lead us to explore the use of pronouns as copulas in a variety of derivations. It has long been known that present-tense nominal sentences in many languages lacking a copula contain an optional pronoun in addition to the subject. From Russian to Old Mandarin, or from Sinhala to Wappo, or from Zway to Semitic languages, the use of pronouns as copulas in verbless constructions is well attested (Benveniste 1960, Li & Thompson 1977 among many others). In what follows I will confine my research to Hebrew and Arabic, which is motivated by historical, geographical and language contact relations. In Doron (1986), it is argued that the pronoun in a Hebrew sentence like (29) is a clitic which is the phonological realization of unattached agreement features that have absorbed Case. (29)

Dani hu ha-more (Hebrew, Doron 1986) Dani he-Nom the-teacher 'Dani is the teacher'

Although úlo derivations undoubtely resemble sentences the Hebrew sentences in (30), they differ in a number of ways. (30) a. Eyfó hu?(Hebrew) where he-Nom. 'Where is he?' b. Eyfó ani? where I-Nom. 'Where am I?' 2.3.1. Major differences of úlo vs. Hebrew & Arabic verbless derivations There are major differences between úlo and the Hebrew and Arabic verbless sentences. On the one hand, subject clitics in Hebrew and Arabic

Verbless derivations

in historical syntax

325

are nominative clitics (30) (32)19. On the other hand, copular subject clitics cannot be doubled by subject pronouns in Hebrew: (31) a. *Ata hu more you he teacher b. *Hu hu more he he teacher

(Hebrew, Doron 1986)

The ungrammatically of (31a) cannot be attributed to some "clash" in agreement between clitic and non-clitic pronouns as (31b) shows. The corresponding sentence where the subject is third-person is just as ungrammatical. This is not the case in Arabic, as shown in (32): (32) a. Nta huwa l-?ustad you he-Nom. the-teacher 'You are the teacher'

(Moroccan Arabic, Ennaji 1990)

Moreover, the existential particle yes in Hebrew, which is used in copular constructions, contrasts with úlo derivations in its use in embedded structures (33): (33)

Ma ata xosevse yes li 0? (Hebrew, Berman & Grosu 1976) what you think that be to me 'What do you think (that) I have?'

In addition to that, pronouns-for-copulas can introduce negative derivations in both Hebrew and Arabic. The particle eyn is the negative counterpart of yes . The negative discontinuous morpheme ma...s , which is usually affixed to verbs, can be attached to the pronoun huwa "he". The fact that masi cannot occur before huwa "he" implies that the latter is a suppletive form of the copula kun "to be", and not a subject clitic (Ennaji 1990): (34) a. Ma ata toen se eyn lexa 0? (Hebrew, Berman & Grosu 1976) what you claim that not to you 'What are you claiming that you don't have?' b. Driss ma-huwa-s hmaq (Moroccan Arabic, Ennaji 1990) Driss neg-he-neg fool 'Driss is not a fool' c. *Driss masi huwa hmaq

326

Luis

Silva-Villar

It has been traditionally argued in the literature that pronouns that serve as copulas in Arabic resolve structural ambiguity by distinguishing between a phrase (DP) and a sentence (CP). This cannot be the case in úlo derivations since the lack of a pronoun results in ungrammatically. 20 Finally, in both Hebrew and Arabic, copular pronouns cannot be considered a copy of the subject because they agree with the subject only in gender and number but not in "person" like any present tense V (Ennaji 1990). In Doron's words "the features of AGR in nominal sentences do not become agreement affixes as they do in sentences with verbs. Rather, those features remain unattached in INFL and absorb any unassigned Nominative case feature, thereby becoming a pronominal clitic." In a more recent (minimalist) approach, Benmamoun (1998) has proposed that the present tense in Arabic and Semitic languages in general is [+N] "only", in both verb and verbless sentences. The role of clitics-for-copulas is shown to be for the checking of the [-(-present] temporality. An extension of this checking mechanism to the úlo derivations, and obligatory tenseless derivations in general, seems to be natural, although the number of qualifications necessary to accomodate an approach along these lines is open to investigation. We conclude that any attempt to relate or unify úlo derivations with the Hebrew and Arabic copular verbless constructions, although promising, still faces serious crosslinguistic problems at the present time. A diachronic relationship with Semitic languages due to biblical influences 21 is not excluded, although, in synchrony, we reject any language tranfer from Hebrew (and/or Arabic) into Judeo-Spanish in either Medieval Iberia or in the diaspora. The adórne derivations, which are the Judeo-Spanish version of the úlo derivations, have different properties as already shown. In a different vein, it would be necessary to argue that, under language contact conditions, object clitics would play the function of subject clitics in a language with no subject clitics at all. Although this is not impossible, any argument in that direction would take us beyond the topic22. In this section, I excluded the status of úlo forms as inflected complementizers, I have rejected the status of enclitics (in úlo-like forms) as subject clitics and it has been shown how problematic it is to associate the topic to Semitic copular verbless constructions. The latter point supports the independence of Judeo-Spanish forms from the Semitic ones and highlights the importance of the contribution of dialectology to linguistic studies.

Verbless derivations

in historical syntax

327

3. Theoretical discussion The syntax of úlo cannot be "regular" syntax if we want to associate its meaning with some verbal inflection and/or some verbal content. We can get an interpretation of the derivation, but we cannot resort to any verbal inflection to support its different computational steps. Only if object clitics are analyzed as verbal inflections can we ascribe some verbal properties to these derivations. Although clitics are not encliticized into any "verbal" head, this is not problematic in the context of the general properties of Iberian languages. Old Northwestern Iberian languages and all modern varieties, with the only exception being modern Spanish, follow the Tobler-Mussaffia law, which excludes clitics from being in first position. From this perspective, it is not unusual to find pronouns enclitic to linguistic items other than verbs at Spell-out; however, what is crucially different is that the verb is not overtly realized. Within NILs, even if the verb is not the licenser, the verb is the identifier as is shown in the Interpolation example (35). 23 (35)

Ques le non spidies (Old Spanish, cited in Silva-Villar 1996) that-SE him not said-good-bye 'That nobody said good-bye to him'

The clitics s'le "SE-him" undergo in conjunction with their host and licenser, que "that", phonological processes that are standardly limited to lexical items. Based on these similarities, overt negation not only splits the linear relationship between pronouns and (their) verbal host, but it is the non-elliptical verb spidies that is responsible for the interpretation of pronouns, i.e., its identifier. This fact suggests that the final explanation for úlo structures needs new and different lines of reasoning. The morphosyntactic status of úlo cannot be attributed to bare output conditions since úlo cannot qualify as a suppletive form of "where is he/ it?" in order to be inserted at PF as a suppletor since suppletors exist when non-suppletive forms are unavailable. This is not the case since, as already mentioned, the hypothetical non-suppletive form is alive, as in the case the Galician "ónde está ele?". Thus, we face the existence of two different numerations that have the same interpretation at the LF interface. Other relations invoked by bare output conditions, like those derived from 0-structure or those induced by the derivation itself are difficult to apply since neither úlo has 0-grid nor úlo is created within CC. 24

328

Luis

Silva-Villar

We are forced to conclude that úlo must be added fully inflected to the numeration when the Form Numeration operation is active (Chomsky 1995). One problem is that úlo does not belong to any known category. Úlo is not a member of either C or D functional categories. 25 Additionally, úlo is not formed by adding any kind of *[[C] + [D]] since no sets of C + D such as *ú + D are available to form feature boundaries. This is supported by historical phonology: the syntactic processes/conditions necessary to form them no longer exist synchronically. Therefore, these units have to be acquired as a complex multicategorial [C + D] by eliminating the possible step-by-step derivation of the Computational Component. Then, úlo cannot be considered derivational syntax or "regular syntax". Since the (syntactic) internal structure of úlo is not accesible by the CC, the relationship between úlo and the rest of the derivation has to be restricted to some modality of Strict Merge, i.e., merge without Move. 26 We propose that the syntactic properties of úlo derivations can be explained by attracting "features-to-check" of T-(or a subpart of T)-to-C. This explanation is only true if we have a mental representation, i.e., a non-derivational perception of the final product of the derivation that involves úlo itself. Notice that native speakers cannot reconstruct the derivational process consciously, i.e., their Computational Component is not at work to produce this unit. 27 This approach entails that the status of ιilo has to be "verbal-like", i.e., Τ without [+V] (or with innert [+V]), in order to explain the different grammatical behavior between úlo derivations, blocked in embedded derivations, and [C+D] units in interpolation structures like (35). The lack of negative derivations is explained as a blocking effect of Neg in violation of the Minimal Link Condition (Chomsky 1995). In fact, it is derived from the lack of accesibility to the internal structure of úlo under the assumption that Neg is a step between Τ and C in the CC. The paradoxical situation created by the absence of a triggering Verb for úlo-derivations (36) is automatically solved if úlo is labeled as a verblike C-structure or, in other words, a structure that absorbs the [+N] feature of T, which is compatible with Benmamoun's approach to explain Semitic (verb and verbless) present tense derivations. (36)

Cmax

( C

X'max

^ Τ

ymax

\^max VB

????

The tension produced by the contradictory subject-object case is another problematic property of w/o-derivations shared by DPs/NPs in úlo deriva-

Verbless derivations

in historical syntax

329

tions (37). The subject-object DP/NP requires the same reference for the enclitic object pronoun and the subject nominative, which leads to a flagrant violation of the principle Β of Binding Theory. This unusual configuration is minimized if subjecthood and the checking of the D formal feature of Τ are split as two independent grammatical functions with asymmetric feature checking, as proposed independently in the literature by Collins (1996) and Ura (1996). While the D formal feature of Τ is checked by incorporation of the object pronoun into C, subjecthood is checked by Strict Merged with ιilo. (37)