1. No category

WOPiG, Leipzig
October 2013
Cyclic Spell-Out and Agreement Options in Raising
2. EPP
YOUSSEF HADDAD AND SUSI WURMBRAND
University of Florida and University of Connecticut
FA vs. PA—Ways to satisfy the EPP
EPP Typology
1. Introduction
Standard Arabic (SA) Agreement pattern
•
•
(1)
Preverbal subjects: full agreement [FA] (Mohammad 1990, 2000, Aoun et al. 1994, Ouhalla
1994, Benmamoun 2000, Soltan 2007)
Postverbal subjects: partial agreement [PA] (only gender; default singular)
a.
l-fataya:t-u
qaraʔ-na
the-girls-NOM read-3.F.PL
l-dars-a
the-lesson-ACC
F(ull )A(greement)
b.
qaraʔ-at
read-3.F. SG
l-dars-a
the-lesson-ACC
P(artial )A(greement)
l-fataya:t-u
the-girls-NOM
Agreement in raising and control constructions
(2)
yarkudˁ na
run.3.F.PL
fi l-malʕab
in the-playground
b.
badaʔat
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
fajʔatan [ yarkudˁ na
started.3.F. SG the-students. F -NOM suddenly [ run.3.F.PL
fi l-malʕab
in the-playground
c.
badaʔat
started.3.F. SG
[ tarkudˁ u
[ run.3.F. SG
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
fi
in
l-malʕab
]
the-playground ]
d.
badaʔna
started.3.F.PL
[ tarkudˁ u
[ run.3.F. SG
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
fi
in
l-malʕab
]
the-playground ]
(3)
a.
*badaʔna
started.3.F.PL
[ yarkudˁ na
[ run.3.F.PL
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
]
]
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
badaʔna
started.3.F.PL
c.
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
yarkudˁ na
run.3.F.PL
•
•
•
•
Optional VSO language—T can be valued either by subject DP or v (this is reminiscent of
Pesetsky and Torrego’s 2001 claim that both T and the subject in Spec,TP can move to check
a feature on C in English)
Special assumption regarding v in SA: has only a gender feature.
In VSO order, v+V moves to T and values T’s Gender feature; other features default.
a.
Difference between FA and PA in general?
Why/how are PA and FA possible with V1 in
(2c-d)?
Why is FA with V2 impossible in (3a)?
Why is FA with V1 impossible in (3b)?
Backward raising/control account; agreement as evidence for movement and phases
Agreement pattern derived by cyclic spell-out and PF copy choice
S—VFA
b.
TP
3
DP
T’
iϕ: 3.F.PL 3
T
vP
uϕ: 3.F.PL 3
DP
v’
iϕ: 3.F.PL 3
v+V
…
uϕ: F
]
]
*V1.FA-DP
This talk
•
•
•
*V2.FA
*all other combinations
a. DP V1.FA
V2.FA
b.
V1.PA DP V2.FA
c.
V1.PA
V2.PA DP
d.  V1.FA
EPP: ϕ-features on v and T
v: ϕ-features which are valued by the subject
T: ϕ-features valued by the subject DP (English) or by moved v(+V) (Greek, Irish); see
Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2001) for the latter
Since v is valued by the subject DP, in both cases, T agrees with the subject.
Valuation between two uFs is possible (see above; also Pesetsky and Torrego 2007)
Standard Arabic
(4)
[OK if subject is extraposed (different intonational pattern; long pause before subject)]
b. *badaʔna
started.3.F.PL
•
•
•
•
all: ‘The female students started to run.’
a.
•
•
•
VPA—S
TP
3
v+V
T’
uϕ: F 3
T
vP
uϕ: F .3.SG 3
DP
v’
iϕ: 3.F.PL 3
v
…
uϕ: F
*VFA » S: no T-to-C; PF must choose the higher copy (unless there is a PF reason not to).
*S » VPA: if there is further subject movement in (4b), this movement must be covert.
PF restriction in SA:
At PF, the higher copy must be realized, unless this leads to the order DP—V.PA, in which case
the lower copy must be realized.
3. Back to raising constructions
Phases in raising/control infinitives (Alexiadou et al. To appear, Wurmbrand 2013a, b)
(5)
a.
b.
[TP SUBJ  T [vP=PHASE SUBJ  … [XP=PHASE SUBJ
SA:
 = (2a)
 = (2b)
2
 [vP SUBJ
 = N/A
…]]]]]
 = (2c,d)
(2)
badaʔna
started.3.F.PL
a.
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
yarkudˁ na
run.3.F.PL
b.
badaʔat
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
fajʔatan yarkudˁ na
started.3.F. SG the-students. F -NOM suddenly run.3.F.PL
•
Spell-out of embedded TP: Linearization is fixed to the order V2»DP (similar to Fox and
Pesetsky’s 2005, cyclic linearization); all further movement of the subject must be covert.
TP
3
{SUBJ/v+V }
T’
(2a)/(2b)
3
T
vP
3
SUBJ
the students.F
phase
v’
3
v
uϕ: F
VP
3
V
start
phase
TP
3
SUBJ
the students.F
T’
#
V2.PA SUBJ
4. Subject movement vs. no movement constructions
Motivation for subject movement
FA requires subject DP movement
PF must choose higher copy
(3)
*badaʔna
started.3.F.PL
a.
b. *badaʔna
started.3.F.PL
(2)
•
[ yarkudˁ na
[ run.3.F.PL
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
]
]
*V2.FA
yarkudˁ na
run.3.F.PL
*V1.FA-DP
c.
badaʔat
started.3.F. SG
[ tarkudˁ u
[ run.3.F. SG
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
]
]
d.
badaʔna
started.3.F.PL
[ tarkudˁ u
[ run.3.F. SG
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
]
]
TPEMBEDDED
3
SUBJ
T’
iϕ: 3.F.PL 3
v+V
T’
uϕ: F
3
T
vP
uϕ: F .3.SG
3
SUBJ
iϕ: 3.F.PL
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
v’
3
v
…
uϕ: F
3
•
Backward control: matrix verb/v is thematic—it must merge with a DP to establish an argument-of relations (see Hornstein 1999, et seq., Polinsky and Potsdam [P&T] 2002, 2006,
2012, Wurmbrand 2013b)
EPP: ϕ-feature valuation of T; for agreement with the matrix verb (whether PA or FA), the
subject DP must move at least up to matrix Spec,vP (Position ):
(6)
•
•
(7)
v moves to check T’s EPP/ϕ
PA on embedded V+T
SUBJ undergoes edge movement
(see below for motivation)
Transfer, copy choice
PF: must realize lower copy
Higher copy remains active in syntax
[TP SUBJ
[vP SUBJ …]]]]]
Embedded clauses in SA raising/control are finite (morphologically imperfective + indicative
or subjunctive); Case deficiency not motivated
Embedded clause is the same in NOC cases where the matrix and embedded subjects are different—embedded subject licensed in embedded clause (no movement can take place).
a.
qarrara
Sami:r
ʔan
decided.3.M.SG Samir
to
‘Samir decided for Leila to travel.’
tusa:fira
travel.3.F.SG
Layla
Leila
b.
*qarrarat
Sami:r
ʔan
decided.3.F.SG
Samir
to
‘Samir decided for Leila to travel.’
tusa:fira
travel.3.F.SG
Layla
Leila
c.
•
 T [vP=PHASE SUBJ  … [TP=PHASE SUBJ 
qarrara
Sami:r
ʔan
tusa:fira
decided.3.M.SG Samir
to
travel.3.F.SG
‘Samir decided for the students to travel.’
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
If the embedded subject is fully licensed in the embedded clause, movement only takes place
when the matrix v or T requires a subject.
4
(8)
Last Resort
[Bošković 2007: 610]
X undergoes movement iff without the movement, the structure will crash.
•
This predicts that subject movement does not occur in contexts where the matrix verb does
not require a subject and T has no EPP feature (Haddad 2012).
•
•
•
Crucially, broad subjects cannot agree with the verb.
To show this, consider first a verb—be.about—which is ambiguous between raising (no
movement/agreement) and control (movement/agreement)
As in (2), the V1—V2—DP order allows FA or PA on V1 (but V2 must involve PA); and the
DP—V1—V2 order requires FA on both verbs.
(11) Control: ‘The female students were about to succeed.’
Raising: ‘It was about to happen that the female students would succeed.’
Raising verbs (preliminary)
•
•
•
v is present in passive/unaccusative contexts as well and those vPs are phases (see Legate
2003, 2012, Sauerland (2003), Alexiadou et al. To appear, Wurmbrand 2013a, b)
Raising v is thematically underspecified—v does not introduce an agent; but ϕ-features still
possible: certain raising verbs come with fully underspecified v; others with v with ϕ-features
Similarly, T can be inserted with or without ϕ-features (see Haddad and Wurmbrand in prep
for all possible combinations and classes of raising and control verbs).
Raising verbs without phi-features on v and T
•
•
(9)
There are no features to value in the matrix clause (no thematic relation, no phi-valuation)
Since the embedded subject is licensed in the embedded clause, and there is nothing in the
matrix clause to be valued by the subject, movement does not take place; the matrix verb is
spelled out at PF with default 3.M.SG.
[Default agreement on the matrix verb has no effect for agreement on the embedded verb
(DP»V2 orders must involve FA, V2»DP orders PA).]
yajib
ʔan
must.3.M.SG
to
‘The students must succeed.’
tanjaħa
succeed.3.F. SG
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
b. *tajib/yajibna
ʔan
must.3.F .SG/must.3.F.PL to
tanjaħa
succeed.3.F. SG
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
a.
c.
d.
•
*yajib
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
must.3.M.SG the-students. F -NOM
yajib
ʕ ala l-tˁ a:liba:t-i
must.3.M.SG on the-students. F -GEN
b.
*l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
yajibna
the-students. F -NOM must.3.F.PL
ʔawʃakna
[ (ʔan) tanjaħ(u/a)
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
]
were.about.to.3.F.PL [ (to)
succeed.3.F. SG the-students. F -NOM ]
Control
c.
ʔawʃaka
[ (ʔan) tanjaħ(u/a)
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
]
was.about.to. 3.M.SG [ (to)
succeed.3.F. SG the-students. F -NOM ]
Raising
d.
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
ʔawʃakna
were.about.to.3.F.PL
(ʔan)
(to)
yanjaħna
succeed.3.F.PL
Control
e.
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
the-students. F -NOM
ʔawʃaka
(ʔan)
was.about.to. 3.M.SG (to)
yanjaħna
succeed.3.F.PL
Raising
When the subject occurs initially, it is ambiguous between a moved subject (control) or a
base-generated broad subject (raising)
Broad subjects can co-occur with a ‘true’ subject, but agreement with a broad subject is prohibited, even when it is the only DP preceding the verb
(12) all: ‘As for the students, their colleagues were about to succeed.’
a.
ʔan
to
yanjaħna
succeed.3.F.PL
c.
l-tˁa:liba:t-u
ʔawʃaka
ʔan yanjaħa
*l-tˁa:liba:t-u
ʔawʃakna
ʔan yanjaħa
zumala:ʔ u-hunna
to succeed.3.M. SG classmates. M -NOM-their
the-students.F-NOM was.about.to-3.M.SG to
the-students.F-NOM were.about.to.3.F.PL
l-tˁa:liba:t-u
the-students.F-NOM
zumala:ʔ u-hunna
succeed.3.M. SG
ʔawʃaku:
zumala:ʔ u-hunna
classmates. M -NOM-their
ʔan yanjaħu:
classmates. M -NOM-their was.about.to-3.M.PL C/to succeed.3.M.PL
Summary
•
•
•
•
Control contexts: always require movement (or external Merge of another NP if NOC is possible); agreement is obligatory
Raising contexts: can involve movement (if v and/or T require an NP) or no movement (v/T
lack ϕ-features—default agreement arises)
Further possible combinations: see Haddad and Wurmbrand, in prep.
Crucially: Whenever there is subject movement from the embedded clause, some or all of the
agreement patterns in (2) arise ((2a,b) are the most attested, (2c) is less common, and (2d) is
the least common/most marked)
The analysis proposed here has derived the agreement patterns via a cyclic spell-out derivation and the phase structure below.
ʔan yanjaħna
to succeed.3.F.PL
•
ʔan yanjaħna
to succeed.3.F.PL
(13)
5
b.
b.
The subject can only occur in the matrix clause as a broad subject (Doron and Heycock
1999, Alexopoulou et al. 2003).
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
yajib
the-students. F -NOM must.3.M.SG
Control
yanjaħna
succeed.3.F.PL
Other non-agreeing verbs: yastaħiil ‘be.impossible’, yumkin ‘be.possible’, yustaħsan
‘be.preferred’—all of these verbs are compatible as impersonal verbs (if there is a subject, it
must occur as a PP like (9d)).
(10) a.
•
ʔawʃakat
[ (ʔan) tanjaħ(u/a)
l-tˁ a:liba:t-u
]
were.about.to.3.F. SG [ (to)
succeed.3.F. SG the-students. F -NOM ]
ʔan
to
Excursus: Broad subjects and agreement
•
•
a.
[TP SUBJ
 T [vP=PHASE SUBJ  … [TP=PHASE SUBJ 
6
[vP SUBJ …]]]]]
5. Towards a typology of backward raising
•
Other languages that allow backward raising/control: Adyghe (P&T 2002, 2006, 2012), Tagalog (Wurmbrand 2013b)
(14) a.
axe-r
[ axe-me
pj"sme-r a-tx"-new
]
they-ABS [ they- ERG letter-ABS 3PL.ERG-write-INF ]
‘They began to write a letter.’
ø-fjež’aʁe-x
3ABS-began-3PL.ABS
[P&P 2012: 78; simplified]
b.
axe-r
[ axe-me
pj"sme-r a-tx"-new
]
they- ABS [ they-ERG letter-ABS 3PL.ERG-write-INF ]
‘They began to write a letter.’
ø-fjež’aʁe-x
3ABS-began-3PL.ABS
[P&P 2012: 78; simplified]
(15) a.
b.
Kaya ni Manuel
na
bumili
ng bagong kotse
able
DET Manuel
L
NOM.buy DET new car
‘Manuel is able to buy a new car.’
[Kroeger 1993: 182, (29a)]
Kaya ng
bumili
si Manuel
able L
NOM.buy
PTT Manuel
‘Manuel is able to buy a new car.’
ng bagong kotse
DET new car
[Kroeger 1993: 182, (29b)]
(16) BR vs. FR Hypothesis:
PF linearization: Pronounce highest copy (unless…)
Only languages in which the choice of PF copy has an effect at PF (beyond which copy is
pronounced) allow BR.
•
P&P (2012) point out that cross-linguistically, BR is much rarer than FR. Given (16), this is
expected. Overtly indicating a movement dependency is the universal default procedure, and
only special properties and constellations allow the BR option.
6. References
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2001. The subject-in-situ generalization and
the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32.2:193-231.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Susi Wurmbrand. To appear. Movement vs.
long distance Agree in raising: Disappearing phases and feature valuation. In
Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 43, ed. by HsinLun Huang, Ethan Poole and Amanda Rysling. Amherst: University of Massachusetts,
GLSA. [http://wurmbrand.uconn.edu/Papers/NELS43.pdf].
Alexopoulou, Theodora, Edit Doron, and Caroline Heycock. 2003. Broad subjects and clitic left
dislocation. In Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects, ed. by David Adger, Cécile
de Cat and George Tsoulas, 329-358. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Aoun, Joseph, Elabas Benmamoun, and Dominique Sportiche. 1994. Agreement, word order,
and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25:195-220.
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The feature structure of functional categories. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more
minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38.4:589-644.
7
Doron, Edit, and Caroline Heycock. 1999. Filling and licensing multiple specifiers. In Specifiers:
Minimalist approaches, ed. by David Adger, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette Plunkett and
George Tsoulas, 69-89. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fox, Daniel, and David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic Linearization of Syntactic Structure. Theoretical
Linguistics 31.1-2:1-46.
Haddad, Youssef. 2012. Raising in Standard Arabic: Forward, backward, and none. In Arabic
language and linguistics, ed. by Reem Bassiouney and Graham Katz, 61-78. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30:69-96.
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Standford, CA:
CSLI Publications.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some Interface Properties of the Phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34.3:506516.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2012. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language
88.3:495-525.
Mohammad, A. Mohammad. 1990. The problem of subject-verb agreement in Arabic: Towards a
solution. In Perspectives in Arabic Linguistics I, ed. by Mushira Eid, 95-125.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mohammad, A. Mohammad. 2000. Word order, agreement and pronominalization in Standard
and Palestinian Arabic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1994. Verb movement and word order in Arabic. In Verb movement, ed. by
David Lightfoot and Norbert Hornstein, 41-72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken
Hale: A life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 355-426. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of
features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture, ed. by Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian and
Wendy Wilkins, 262-294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2002. Backward Control. Linguistic Inquiry 33.2:245-282.
Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax
9:171-192.
Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2012. Backward Raising. Syntax 15.1:75–108.
Sauerland, Uli. 2003. Intermediate adjunction with A-movement. Linguistic Inquiry 34.2:308314.
Soltan, Usama. 2007. On formal feature licensing in Minimalism: Aspects of Standard Arabic
morphosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2013a. QR and selection: Covert evidence for phasehood. In Proceedings of
the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 42, ed. by Stefan Keine and
Shayne Sloggett, 277-290. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.
[http://wurmbrand.uconn.edu/Papers/NELS42.pdf].
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2013b. Tagalog infinitives: Consequences for the theory of phases, voice
marking and extraction. Ms. Storrs. [http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001898].
Youssef Haddad
[email protected]
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/yah/
Susi Wurmbrand
[email protected]
http://wurmbrand.uconn.edu
8