Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation

DYNAMIC ANTISYMMETRY AND THE SYNTAX OF NOUN INCORPORATION

Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory VOLUME 84

Managing Editors Marcel den Dikken, City University of New York Liliane Haegeman, University of Ghent, Belgium Joan Maling, Brandeis University Editorial Board Guglielmo Cinque, University of Venice Carol Georgopoulos, University of Utah Jane Grimshaw, Rutgers University Michael Kenstowicz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Hilda Koopman, University of California, Los Angeles Howard Lasnik, University of Maryland Alec Marantz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology John J. McCarthy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge

For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/6559

DYNAMIC ANTISYMMETRY AND THE SYNTAX OF NOUN INCORPORATION

by

Michael Barrie University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

123

Michael Barrie University of Ottawa Department of Linguistics Arts Hall 70 Laurier Avenue East K1N 6N5 Ottawa Ontario Canada [email protected]

ISSN 0924-4670 ISBN 978-94-007-1569-1 e-ISBN 978-94-007-1570-7 DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7 Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York Library of Congress Control Number: 2011929131 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface

This monograph is a revised version of my 2006 dissertation at the University of Toronto. I have included more discussion on various issues in noun incorporation in Northern Iroquoian languages based on changes in my understanding of the material since 2006. I have also added additional material gathered during postdocs at the University of British Columbia and the University of Ottawa. Much of the data on Northern Iroquoian languages comes from my own fieldwork and from several published sources. The system of interlinear glosses varies significantly from one source to the next. For consistency, I have employed a uniform set of abbreviations for the interlinear glosses throughout. I wish to thank my consultants Daisy Elijah (Oneida), Nora Carrier and Gloria Williams (Onondaga), Elizabeth Herrling (Halkomelem), and Beatrice Bullshields (Blackfoot). Without their assistance, I would not have been able to undertake this research. In addition, I wish to thank several colleagues of mine for their assistance with the relevant literature and/or data including Diane Massam (Niuean), Arsalan Khanemuyiour, Jila Ghomeshi, and Nick Pendar (Persian), Bettina Spreng and Martina Wiltschko (German), Will Seto, Lisa Seto and Max Mak (Cantonese), Yosuke Sato (Japanese), and Martina Wiltschko (Halkomelem). Parts of this monograph have been presented at numerous conferences including NELS35 and 36, the Linearization workshop at DGfS in 2010, the annual meetings of the Canadian Linguistic Association and the Linguistic Society of America, and the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas. I wish to thank the audiences there for insightful questions and suggestions that led me to revise and, hopefully, improve upon the details. Numerous people have listened to me talk about my ideas presented here or have collaborated with me on related projects, and have given useful and substantial feedback, or have simply asked vital, thought-provoking questions that allowed me to improve my analysis. This list includes (in no particular order) Elizabeth Cowper, Diane Massam, Alana Johns, Carrie Dyck, Martina Wiltschko, Gabriela Alboiu, Éric Mathieu, Joel Dunham, Bettina Spreng, Heather Bliss, Arsalan Khanemuyipour, Jila Ghomeshi, Kenji Oda, Yosuke Sato, plus others I have surely forgotten. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the financial support of SSHRC doctoral and postdoctoral fellowships and a Killam post-doctoral research fellowship. v

Abbreviations

A ABS ACC AG AGR APPL ART BEN BPS C CAUS CIS CL CMP COLL CONT CORE CUC DEG DEM DR DU DUC DUR EPEN ERG EXCL EZ F FACT FUT

absential absolutive accusative agent agreement applicative article benefactive Bare Phrase Structure common noun causative cislocative classifier completive collectivizer continuous determiner for core arguments (as opposed to oblique arguments) Canonical Use Constraint degree demonstrative bivalent direct (indicates that the object is lower on the thematic hierarchy than the subject) dual dualic durative epenthetic ergative exclusive ezafe vowel in Persian feminine factual mood future

vii

viii

GEN GER HAB INANIM INC INCL IND INF INSTR INTR INVIS ITER I.TH JOIN LCA LF LNK LOC M M/A N.CL NE NEG N/F NFS NI NOM NT NZLR OBJCL OBL OBV OPT P PART PAT PF PL POSS PRED PRF PRFV PROG PROX PSR

Abbreviations

genitive gerund habitual inanimate incompletive inclusive indicative infinitive instrumental intransitive invisible iterative intransitive theme joiner vowel, an epenthetic vowel in Northern Iroquoian languages Linear Correspondence Axiom logical form linker vowel local masculine mode-aspect noun class a particle in Northern Iroquoian languages of unclear function negative neuter/feminine noun forming suffix noun incorporation nominative neuter nominalizer object clitic oblique obviative optative proper noun participle patient phonetic form plural possessive predicative marker perfect perfective progressive proximate possessor

Abbreviations

PST PUNC PURP Q REAL REFL REL SBJV SG SRFL STAT TH TNS TR UG VCL VTA

ix

past tense punctual aspect purposive question particle realis reflexive relativizer subjunctive singular semi-reflexive stative theme vowel (indicates argument hierarchy relations in Algonquian languages) tense transitive Universal Grammar verbal classifier verb transitive inanimate

This is Blank Page Integra

x

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Outlook and Goals . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Noun Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Properties of NI . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 On the Syntactic Nature of NI 1.3 Conclusion and Outline of Book . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1 2 5 5 8 18 19

2 Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 A Bit of History of Phrase Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Bare Phrase Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Antisymmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Head Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Alternative Accounts of Linearization . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 Demerge and Concatenate: SOV as Underlying Order 2.5.2 Parameterized Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3 Departures from the LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

23 23 26 30 34 40 41 42 47 48 48

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure . . . 3.1 The Problem of Mutual C-Command . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Previous Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Guimarães (2000) and Self-Merge . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Nunes and Uriagereka (2000) . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Richards (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The LCA and BPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Alternatives to Complement-to-Spec Roll-Up . . . . . 3.5.1 Spec-To-Spec Movement and Romance Clitics . 3.5.2 Avoidance of the Initial Merger Problem . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

53 53 54 57 60 61 61 61 71 77 78 81

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

xii

Contents

3.6 Linearization and Late Insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian . . . . 4.1 Northern Iroquoian Languages . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Clause Structure of Northern Iroquoian . 4.1.2 Nominal Structure in Northern Iroquoian 4.2 Patterns of NI in Northern Iroquoian . . . . . . 4.2.1 Productivity of NI . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Nominal Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Previous Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 NI as Phrasal Movement . . . . . . . . 4.4 Properties of Iroquoian NI . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 NI in Ditransitives . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 NI and Overt DPs . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85 88 88

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93 93 94 97 100 101 106 107 107 112 118 118 121 123 123

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages 5.1 The Structure of Nominals and V/IN Order . . . . 5.2 NI in Sierra Popoluca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 English Gerunds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Description of NI in English Gerunds . . . 5.3.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 German Progressives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Persian ‘Long Infinitive’ Constructions . . . . . . . 5.6 Tamil Noun Incorporation and Coordination . . . . 5.7 Adverb Incorporation in Blackfoot . . . . . . . . . 5.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

127 127 130 132 133 135 138 143 147 150 154 155

6 V+N Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Polynesian Pseudo Noun Incorporation . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 The Structure of Niuean Nominals . . . . . . 6.1.2 Pseudo Noun Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3 Postlude on Tukang Besi Object Incorporation 6.2 Romance Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Description of V+N Compounds . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Analysis of Romance Compounds . . . . . . 6.3 Mapudungun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Upriver Halkomelem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

159 160 161 163 165 167 168 170 172 176 181 183

Contents

7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Limitations . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Conclusions and Implications References . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiii

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

185 185 186 190 194

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

197

Chapter 1

Introduction

This monograph is a study of Noun Incorporation (NI) within the framework of Dynamic Antisymmetry. It deals primarily with NI in Northern Iroquoian (represented principally by Oneida and Onondaga, with some discussion on Mohawk); however, I also consider a number of other cases of NI and related phenomena in a variety of languages. I propose that NI is the direct result of the need to satisfy the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA). NI arises when the verb selects a bare nominal root as a complement, thereby creating a point of symmetric c-command. This point of symmetry is resolved by the nominal root raising to the specifier of VP. My account is couched within two recent, well-received proposals on phrase structure, which I meld into a single cohesive framework. Specifically, I examine Bare Phrase Structure (BPS) (Chomsky 1994) and Antisymmetry (Kayne 1994) and propose that the insights of both proposals can be maintained if we adopt a Dynamic Antisymmetric view as proposed by Moro (2000; 2004). Moro proposes that movement is driven by the need to satisfy the LCA, and furthermore that this movement takes place overtly. Thus, if two terms cannot be linearized because of their noncompliance with the LCA, something must move so that the LCA is satisfied. In particular, I examine the case of two symmetrically c-commanding heads; a situation that arises upon the initial merger of two heads (the Initial Merger Problem). This is precisely the situation in the case of NI as just described above. Thus, NI is purely a result of the phrase structural properties of the VP. This eliminates the need for a macroparametric mechanism, such as the Morphological Visibility Condition (Baker 1996). I will also show that not only does an LCA violation (in particular, symmetric c-command) trigger movement, it can also trigger a cascade of movements often referred to as Complement-to-spec roll-up in the literature.1 This approach predicts that NI should typically appear with N+V order. Indeed, this order is significantly more common than V+N order (Caballero et al. 2008); however, it is by no means universal, as there are numerous counter-examples. I discuss how NI with V+N order arises in later chapters.

1 These will come up later in the discussion where appropriate. Representative examples include snowballing (Aboh 2004a) and intraposition movement (Rackowski and Travis 2000).

M. Barrie, Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 84, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_1,  C Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

1

2

1

Introduction

The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows. Section 1.1 presents the major goals of this monograph and gives a brief overview of how these goals will be accomplished. Section 1.2 introduces the phenomenon of NI and presents its properties that are pertinent to the discussion. Section 1.3 is an outline of the remainder of the monograph.

1.1 Outlook and Goals I identify the following goals of this monograph: • • • •

to present a thorough analysis of NI in Northern Iroquoian, to recast (Dynamic) Antisymmetry in a BPS framework, to argue for a Dynamic Antisymmetric analysis of NI, and to illustrate the Dynamic Antisymmetric analysis of NI with data from a variety of other languages.

In regards to the first goal I describe in detail the various properties of NI that are particular to Northern Iroquoian and show how the proposed analysis for NI coupled with an innovative structure for the doubling construction accounts for the specific properties of NI in this language group. A general description of NI is found in the following section; however, I also discuss several additional properties of NI found in Northern Iroquoian. Specifically, I discuss the kinds of nominals that can undergo NI and their morphological properties. I also discuss how NI in Northern Iroquoian interacts with wh-movement. In short, an in depth description of NI in Northern Iroquoian is presented along with the general properties of NI cross-linguistically. The facts presented here are based on a vast descriptive (Lounsbury 1949, 1953; Froman et al. 2002; Woodbury 1975b, 1975a, 2003; Michelson and Doxtator 2002; Bonvillain 1972) and theoretical (Michelson 1991; Baker 1988, 1996; Postal 1979) literature on this topic, as well as various field trips conducted from 2003 to 2005 on Oneida and 2005 to the present on Onondaga. The discussion on the general properties of NI is based on various cross-linguistic surveys on the topic (Mithun 1984; Caballero et al. 2008; Gerdts 1998; Massam 2009). Accommodating Antisymmetry and BPS in a unified framework is not a straightforward task. I review and build on previous work on this topic (Guimarães 2000; Oishi 2003; Richards 2001a; Uriagereka 1999; Kayne 2009a) and adapt a version of the LCA that is compatible with the machinery of BPS. This comprises the bulk of Chapter 3. Briefly, BPS requires the initial merger to be between two heads, giving rise to a violation of the LCA as mentioned above. To resolve this violation, the selected head raises to the specifier of the selector. The next head that this complex merges with, however, will be in a symmetric c-command relation with the head in specifier from the previous step, triggering another round of raising to satisfy the LCA. This process sets off a cascade of roll-up type movement referred to

1.1

Outlook and Goals

3

above. Of course, the derivation does not continue this way indefinitely. I resolve this situation by making the LCA sensitive only to heads with phonological content, as suggested by Moro (2000). Thus, a phonologically empty head halts this type of movement. I suggest that NI in particular highlights this fact about BPS and initial merge since it typically involves merger of two lexical heads, hence two heads with phonological content. Non-NI constructions involve initial merge between a lexical head and a functional head or between two functional heads – both situations of which involve the possibility of a phonologically null head, thus obscuring the Initial Merger Problem. I now discuss briefly how the current proposal captures the fact that a full DP complement to a verb and a bare noun2 complement to a verb often exhibit different linearization properties. The proposed analysis accounts for this asymmetry. When the verbal root, V, selects a full DP as a complement, V asymmetrically c-commands the material inside the DP in compliance with the LCA. When the V selects a bare nominal root as a complement, the two elements c-command each other, in violation of the LCA. Following Moro’s Dynamic Antisymmetry (2000), the nominal root raises to SpecVP to satisfy the LCA. By contrast, when V selects a full DP as a complement, the verb asymmetrically c-commands the material inside the DP. In the extended nominal projection alone a number of functional projections have been identified with syntactic and semantic effects (Ritter 1992, 1993; Szabolcsi 1983; Abney 1987; Cheng and Sybesma 1999; Ghomeshi 2003; Megerdoomian 2008); however, whether the head is overtly realized with a particular morpheme is subject to a great deal of cross-linguistic variation, and many heads are phonologically empty. This gives rise to a great deal of variation in the surface realization of the morpheme order of DPs. In any event, when the verb selects a full DP complement, in the vast majority of cases, the verb will asymmetrically c-command all the material inside the DP. As already stated, the empirical foundation for this study consists of NI and related phenomena. I offer an extensive discussion and analysis of NI in Northern Iroquoian in Chapter 4, and I discuss similar facts in a variety of other languages in Chapters 5 and 6. In the following examples, the verbs are shown in boldface and the complement nouns are italicized to show their relative positions. The (a) examples contain full DP complements and the (b) examples contain nominal complements that have undergone NI or a closely related phenomenon, which I later argue to be essentially the same as NI. Again, notice that the NI forms appear with the order N+V (V+N is discussed in Chapter 6), while the order of V and DP varies.

2 Throughout

this monograph, I use the term bare noun to mean functionally bare (i.e., a bare root or a bare nP), rather than morphologically bare in the sense of Giorgi and Longobardi (1991). This distinction is important because a morphologically bare noun in this other sense could contain a large number of functional projections with phonologically empty heads.

4

1

Introduction

1. NI in Onondaga (Northern Iroquoian) a. wahahní:no˛ T neT ganakdaT waT -ha-hnino˛ -T FACT -3. SG . M . AG -buy-make- PUNC ‘I’m making a house for him.’

neT NE

b. wahanakdahní:no˛ T waT - hanakt- ahnino˛ FACT - 3.SG . M . AG bed JOIN buy ‘He bought a bed.’

ka-nakt-aT AGR -bed- NFS

T

PUNC

2. NI in English Gerunds a. Alice enjoys collecting stamps. b. Alice enjoys stamp-collecting. 3. German Progressives3,4 a. Ich esse die the I eat.1.SG ‘I’m eating the apples.’

Äpfel. apple.PL

b. Ich bin beim Äpfelessen. I am at.the apple.PL- eat.INF ‘I’m eating apples.’ / ‘I’m busy apple-eating.’ 4. Persian Long Infinitives5 a. sima æz xundæn-e in ketab xoš-eš mi-yad Sima from reading-EZ this book good-3 SG CONT-come.3 SG ‘Sima likes reading this book.’ b. sima æz ketab xundæn xoš-eš mi-yad Sima from book reading good-3 SG CONT -come.3 SG ‘Sima likes reading books.’ In English, example 2, full DP complements appear to the right of the verb, and what is demonstrably a bare noun appears to the left of the gerundive form of the verb. Gerunds are taken up in more detail in Chapter 5. These data highlight the asymmetry between full DP objects and bare noun objects. Specifically, whether 3 Of course OV word order is possible with full DP objects, as German is an SOV language. The point here is that full DP objects can appear in either VO or OV word order, depending on whether the verb appears in 2nd position or sentence-finally. With bare nominal objects as in the progressive beim construction, only OV word order is found. 4 Unless otherwise stated, all German data are from Bettina Spreng and Martina Wiltschko (personal communication). 5 Unless otherwise stated, all Persian data are provided by Jila Ghomeshi, Arsalan Kahnemuyipour, and Nick Pendar (personal communication).

1.2

Noun Incorporation

5

the object appears before or after the verb depends on whether the object is a full DP or bare noun. Of course, other factors may affect VO versus OV word order (see footnote 3), but the generalization still holds. The theory of phrase structure I advocate here accounts for this asymmetry in a straightforward way. There are, of course, instances of NI with the order V+N. I examine several particular cases in detail in Chapter 6: pseudo noun incorporation (PNI) in Niuean (Massam 2001), V+N compounds in Romance (such as Spanish toca-discos ‘record-player’ and French tranche-oeufs ‘egg slicer’), lexical suffixation in Upriver Halkomelem, and NI in Mapudungun. I argue that V+N order results from the presence of additional functional material in the IN that permits the LCA to linearize the verbal root with the elements inside the IN. Thus, no movement needs to take place and the order V+N surfaces. The major scientific contribution of this proposal is twofold. First, it accounts for the robust cross-linguistic generalization that when a verb takes a bare noun as a complement, we observe the order N+V more frequently than V+N (Caballero et al. 2008), and when the verb takes a full DP complement, we get roughly a 50–50 split between the orders V+DP and DP+V (Ruhlen 1975; Dryer 2008). In Chapter 2, I address the lack of a universal N+V order in NI constructions. Second, NI and a wide range of related phenomena fall out naturally from the theory of linearization proposed here. I do not need to posit any new syntactic mechanisms, so NI comes for free, in effect. As a consequence, we do not need a variety of different mechanisms to account for the phenomena in 2–4. Thus, rather than having to posit different mechanisms to account for NI and related phenomena, I propose that existing mechanisms accomplish this task.

1.2 Noun Incorporation NI has been the subject of study for well over 100 years now (Kleinschmidt 1852; Cuoq 1866; Kroeber 1909; Sapir 1911). It in fact continues to be the subject of much heated debate and controversy, especially concerning its status as a syntactic, morphological or lexical phenomenon (Baker 1996; Baker et al. 2005; Mithun 1984, 1986b; Sadock 1980, 1986; Rosen 1989). The works of several authors (principally those in the references just mentioned) have converged on a common set of prototypical properties of NI, which I describe below. I also discuss the typological work of Caballero et al. (2008), which describes in detail those properties of NI concerning the order between the IN and the verbal root.

1.2.1 Properties of NI Northern Iroquoian languages illustrate many prototypical properties of NI (Rice 1991; Baker 1988, 1996; Mithun 1984; Woodbury 1975b), which are described in depth in Chapter 2 and are analyzed in Chapter 3. These include: (i) the ability to incorporate a direct object, instrument, path or subject of an unaccusative, but not an

6

1

Introduction

indirect object, goal, source, comitative or subject (example 5, Mohawk, and example 6, Onondaga),6 (ii) the ability for the incorporated noun to appear with a full DP double or modifier (examples 7–8, Onondaga), (iii) the surface order N+V (observed throughout, though see the forthcoming discussion on order in the following paragraphs), (iv) the optionality of NI (example 9, Oneida), (v) frozen scope (observed in 10), and (vi) idiomatic meanings. I will show that properties (i) and (iii) boil down to a situation of symmetric c-command triggering NI via movement. Properties (ii) and (iv) are related to the structure for NI I propose in Chapter 3. These are illustrated in the following examples. Note that the properties illustrated below apply generally to all Northern Iroquoian languages (Baker 1988, 1996; Bonvillain 1972; Woodbury 1975b, 1975a; Mithun 1984; Abbott 2000; Froman et al. 2002). 5.

NI in Mohawk Ditransitives (Baker 1996: 207) a. t-a’- khey- athvni- tsher- u- ’ ne owira’a CIS - FACT- 1. SG . AG :3. SG . F. PAT-ball- NZLR - give- PUNC NE baby ‘I gave the ball to the baby.’ b. # t- a’- ke- wir- u- ’ ne athvno CIS - FACT- 1. SG . AG - baby- give- PUNC NE ball ‘I gave the baby to the ball.’ (NOT ‘I gave the ball to the baby.’)

6.

a.

b.

c.

7.

honathahidákheT honathah3.PL . M . PATSRFL path‘They are walking on a path.’

(Woodbury, 2003: 282)

waT hageT nhyayé˛ hdaT hakwaT FACT3. SG . M . AG :1. SG . PAT ‘He hit me with a stick.’ ohahaná:we˛h oahah3.SG . NT. PATroad‘The road is wet.’

T

itakherun-

T

nhyastick-

PURP

(Woodbury, 2003: 928) aye˛hd- daT JOIN hitPUNC

(Nora Carrier, Gloria Williams, speakers) nawe˛h JOINwetSTAT

a-

waT gnasgwohaeT neT gwísgwis knaskwohaewaT FACT- 1. SG . AG - animalwash‘I washed the pig.’

T

neT

PUNC

NE

(ibid.) kwiskwis pig

6 See Öztürk (2009) and Cagri (2009), however, for discussions on so-called subject incorporation in Turkish as well as Polinsky (1990) for subject incorporation in Chukchi.

1.2

Noun Incorporation

8.

a.

waT khní:no˛ T neT ne˛geT ganakdaT khnino˛ waT FACT- 1. SG . AG buy‘I bought this bed.’ waT gnakdahní:no˛ T neT ne˛geT waT knakt- aFACT- 1. SG . AG - bedJOIN ‘I bought this bed.’

b.

9.

7

NI in Oneida a. waPkhni:nú: ká:sleht waP-k-hninu-´: FACT-1. SG . AG -buy- PUNC ‘I bought a car.’ b.

waPkePslehtahni:nú: waPkFACT1. SG . AG ‘I bought a car.’

T

neT

ne˛keT

PUNC

NE

DEM

(ibid.) kanaktaT bed

hnino˛ buy-

T

neT

(ibid.) ne˛keT

PUNC

NE

DEM

(Daisy Elijah, speaker) ka-Psleht-Ø 3. SG . NT-car- NFS

eJOIN -

Pslehtcar-

aJOIN -

hninubuy-

´: PUNC

10.

Yah te-wake-nakt-a-hninu NEG -1. SG . PAT-bed- EPEN -buy. STAT No ‘I didn’t buy the bed.’ Or ‘I didn’t buy a(ny) bed.’ =‘There is a bed that I didn’t buy.’ (Baker, 2003: 116)

11.

(Onondaga, Gloria Williams and e˛dyo˛ dwe˛nage˛T sä:hgwaT e˛-d-yo˛ -ad-we˛n-a-ge˛T sR-hgw-aT Nora Carrier, speakers) FUT -DUC -3.SG . F. AG - SRFL-word- EPEN -rest/pillow-INSTR - PUNC ‘They put it under a pillow’ / ‘They tabled the matter.’

Example 5 shows a ditransitive, in which the direct object, but not the indirect object, can undergo NI. Example 6 shows NI of a path, an instrument and an unaccusative subject. Example 7 illustrates doubling of the IN (animal) with a hyponymous object (pig). Example 8 shows a stranded modifier (a demonstrative).7 Example 9 shows that NI is optional in Oneida. Example 10 shows that the IN in Mohawk exhibits frozen scope with respect to a scope bearing element outside the verbal complex. Finally, example 11 shows that NI often gives rise to idiomatic readings. Mithun (1984) also observes that NI constructions are often used in institutionalized activities and are sometimes restricted to particular kinds of uses. This is akin

7 The

use of the label modifier stranding to describe example 8 has theoretical implications that I discuss in greater detail in Chapter 4.

8

1

Introduction

to the Canonical Use Constraint (CUC) discussed by Kiparsky (1997). All of the properties just discussed hold in Northern Iroquoian generally. Perhaps unsurprisingly so, it will become clear throughout the discussion, especially in the later chapters, that not all languages with NI exhibit the exact same set of properties for this phenomenon. The landmark discussion on the types of NI, its discourse properties and effects on argument structure is Mithun (1984), a typology which maintains widespread currency in the literature today. I turn now to a discussion of the typological properties of NI as it relates to linear order. Based on Kayne’s (1994) principle of Antisymmetry, Baker (1996) proposed that NI is universally N+V – a claim he backed down on (Baker et al. 2005) in light of the V+N order found in Mapudungun. Caballero et al. (2008) conducted the first wide-scale cross-linguistic study on linear order in NI, where they show that N+V order is significantly more prevalent in NI constructions than V+N order. Note that OV and VO order (with full DP objects) is pretty much evenly distributed, (Ruhlen 1975; Dryer 2008). Caballero et al. report the following results to their study (adapted from source document). 12. Productive8 - OV - VO Non-productive Total

N+V

V+N

Total

26 (67%) 15 9 8 (100%) 36 (73%)

13 (33%) 2 10 0 (0%) 13 (27%)

39 17 19 8 49

As the reader can see, there is a distinct preference for N+V order; however, this difference is more pronounced because of the instances of non-productive NI (i.e., where such forms are lexicalized). Nevertheless, there is still a significant preference for N+V order in languages with productive NI.9

1.2.2 On the Syntactic Nature of NI I conclude this section with some arguments in favour of maintaining a syntactic analysis of NI, in spite of various counter-arguments. I discuss the range of elements that can be incorporated, idiomatic readings associated with NI constructions, and frozen scope. One argument against a syntactic treatment of NI lies in the fact that elements other than the direct object can be incorporated (Rosen 1989; Spencer 1995; 8 Not all languages with productive NI were classified as OV or VO languages, hence the discrepancy in totals. 9 Note that I have nothing to say about the correlation between VO/OV order and V+N, N+V order despite the fact that this is significant.

1.2

Noun Incorporation

9

Di Sciullo and Williams 1987). In particular, paths, locations, instruments and adverbs can undergo NI (or adverb incorporation in the case of the latter), in several languages, as discussed above. Excluded from NI constructions, however are goals, benefactives, sources and comitatives. This seemingly disparate set of elements (direct objects, paths, instruments, locations, and adverbs) is actually a natural class under a Larsonian (1988; 2004) analysis of VP-internal elements. Under Larson’s analysis, these elements are introduced in the specifier or complement of a VP shell. VP

13.

V’

XP

VP

V

V’

XP V

XP

Thus, when one of these elements is introduced as a bare root in complement position, it undergoes NI the same way the direct object does. The other elements, goals, sources, benefactives and comitatives, are introduced by functional projections of various kinds, or, in the case of comitatives, involves some other constructions altogether. The inability for indirect objects to undergo NI has been noted in the literature before (Mithun 1984; Baker 1996: 297ff.). The exact structure of ditransitives plays an important role here. Pylkkänen (2008), for instance, has argued that goal arguments are introduced by a low applicative head (see Larson 2010 for arguments against this approach, though).10 She also introduces other elements such as instruments by applicative heads; thus, this approach fails to capture the natural class described above. Larson’s (1988; 1990) original discussion of the double object construction placed the indirect object and goal directly inside a VP shell, which also fails to capture the natural class described above. Baker (1988; 1996) argues that the indirect object/goal/source is introduced in the VP shell by a phonologically null preposition. Consider the following example (Baker 1996: 298).

10 Larson

takes issue with the fact that Pylkkänen has divorced the goal argument from the event semantics. Thus, in a construction such as John baked Mary a cake, Mary is related to the cake by a to.the.possession.of predicate, but is not related to the event. Fatally, however, Larson argues that this approach fails to capture the fact that the subject, John, must be responsible for Mary’s receipt of the cake. Under Pylkkänen’s approach, the sentence above is compatible with a scenario in which John baked a cake and someone else brought it to Mary. Since I do not ultimately adopt Pylkkänen’s approach, I won’t pursue this line of reasoning further here.

10

1

14.

Introduction

VP V’

NP N

V

ball

give

PP P

NP

Ø

N baby

Baker argues that the null preposition provides the semantic distinctions necessary to encode direction in transfer of possession verbs (buy from vs. give to). Note that indirect objects in Northern Iroquoian languages can be either sources or goals, so the distinction must be encoded somewhere (see also Michelson 1991). Consider the following Onondaga examples (Woodbury 2003). 15. a. waT ho˛ wahyahní:no˛ T waT -ho˛ wa-ahy-a-hnino˛ -T FACT-3. AG :3. SG . M . PAT -fruit- JOIN-buy-PUNC ‘Someone bought fruit from him.’ b. waT khé:yo˛ T waT -khe-o˛ -T FACT -1.SG . AG :3. SG . F. PAT -give-PUNC ‘I gave it to her.’ It is not clear how Baker’s approach extends to paths, locations and instruments, however. Under the approach above, a null P is necessary to give rise to the correct semantics for the indirect object. Assumedly, a null P would be necessary to give rise to the correct reading (instrumental, locative, etc.) to the relevant nominal phrase. It would be unclear, then, what blocks incorporation of the indirect object, but allows it for paths, locations and instruments. Beck and Johnson (2004) also argue that indirect objects are introduced by a functional projection based on its behaviour with the adverb again. Crucially, double object constructions allow both a repetitive and restitutive reading with again. Consider the following example, with the repetitive and restitutive readings spelled out, respectively (Beck and Johnson 2004: 113). 16.

Thilo gave Satoshi the map again.

17.

a.

Thilo gave Satoshi the map, and that had happened before.

b.

Thilo gave Satoshi the map, and Satoshi had the map before.

1.2

Noun Incorporation

11

Beck and Johnson argue that this ambiguity arises as a result of an additional predicative head that relates the direct object to the indirect object (while still relating both to the main event, thereby avoiding the problems in Pylkkänen’s proposal, see note 10). Thus, Beck and Johnson propose the following structures for double object constructions and DP + PP constructions. The HaveP and PP serve as adjunction sites for again, accounting for the restitutive readings. 18. a. [vP Thilo [v’ v [VP give [BECOME[HaveP Satoshi [Have the map]]]]]] b. [vP Thilo [v’ v [VP the map1 give [BECOME[PP PRO1 to Satoshi]]]]] Crucially, the ambiguity noted by Beck and Johnson is absent with locations, instruments and adverbs. In the following examples, no restitutive reading is possible (although the adverb again may take scope over different parts of the VP).11 19.

a. John is cooking in the kitchen again. b. Joyce is trimming flowers with a knife again. c. Suzanne is typing very quickly again.

For the current purposes I will adopt the proposal of Beck and Johnson and assume the structures in 18 for ditransitive constructions, though I leave out the BECOME operator as I do not discuss the formal semantic properties here.12 The proposal that adverbs, direct objects, instruments and locations form a natural class also receives interesting empirical support from an unexpected source. Non-canonical objects in Mandarin Chinese also comprise the same set of elements, namely paths, locations and instruments, but exclude goals, sources, benefactives and comitatives (Li 2010). The aforementioned elements can appear in preverbal PPs (the canonical position for adjunct PPs), while paths, locations and instruments can optionally appear in the canonical object position in Mandarin (immediately to the right of the verb) without a preposition. Consider the following Mandarin 11 Note

that a restitutive reading is available with 19b; however, this is independent of the instrumental phrase. The same reading is available with the following sentence.

i. Joyce is trimming flowers again (and they used to be trimmed before). This reading is somewhat odd because cut flowers don’t typically re-grow their stems (thus requiring re-trimming). Nevertheless, it is available. Under Beck and Johnson’s approach, we would assume a stative BE predicate, which the adverb again could take scope over. ii. Joyce CAUSE flowers BE trim. Crucially, the instrumental phrase is not introduced by an additional predicative head since or else we would predict yet another restitutive reading. 12 Many of the arguments for the various proposals for the structure of ditransitives rely on a number of semantic distinctions. Further details of these semantic properties in Northern Iroquoian languages will have to wait for future research.

12

1

Introduction

Chinese data. Examples 20 and 21 illustrate non-canonical objects with a locative and instrumental, respectively. Examples 22 – 24 show that the non-canonical object construction is unavailable with benefactives, comitatives and sources. 20.

21.

22.

a.

ta zai canting he at restaurant ‘He eats at the restaurant.’

b.

ta chi canting he eat restaurant ‘He eats at the restaurant.’ / ‘He eats restaurant food.’

a.

ta xihuan yong zhe zhi maobi pen he like use this CL ‘He likes to write with this brush pen.’

b.

ta xihuan xie zhe zhi maobi pen he like write this CL ‘He likes to write with this brush pen.’

a.

wo gei ta zuo I for him make ‘I make clothes for him.’

b.

23.

a.

b.

24.

a.

b.

chi eat

(fan) (meal)

xie write

(zi) (word)

yifu clothes

∗ wo

zuo ta I make him (‘I make things for him.’) wo gen ta zuo I with him make ‘I make clothes with him.’

yifu clothes

∗ wo

zuo ta I make him (‘I make things with him.’)

wo xiang tushuguan I from library ‘I borrow books from libraries.’

jie borrow

shu book

∗ wo

jie tushuguan I borrow library (‘I borrow from libraries.’)

It would be a strange coincidence indeed if NI in the languages under discussion and non-canonical objects in Mandarin Chinese picked out the same set of concepts which are eligible to participate in these constructions. Thus, the non-canonical

1.2

Noun Incorporation

13

objects in Mandarin Chinese coupled with the Larsonian shell hypothesis actually argue in favour of a syntactic approach to NI of instruments, paths, locations and adverbs. NI constructions typically show idiomatic and unpredictable meanings. This was often cited as an argument in favour of a lexical analysis for NI. Consider the following example (Woodbury 2003: 304). 25. waT shagotshógwaks waT - shakoathsohkw-kØ FACT- 3. SG . M . AG :3. SG . F. PAT- SRFL - lipeat- PUNC ‘He kissed her.’ (lit: ‘He ate her lips.’) In 25, the idiomatic reading is available only in the NI construction.13 Marantz (1997) has argued against the notion of idiomatic meanings as an indicator of a lexical component to the grammar based on phrasal idioms in a wide variety of languages such as chew the fat, pull the wool over X’s eyes, make waves, and kick the bucket. These idioms have meanings which are not deducible from their syntax; however, they participate in syntactic processes (such as passivization: The wool was pulled over the customer’s eyes or focus fronting: Even the tiniest of waves I wouldn’t make with that administrator) and cannot be analyzed as syntactic atoms. One may object that these idioms are of a different nature or character than the idiomatic readings of IN constructions. Indeed the idioms in English (and many other languages) include determiners on the nouns rather than bare nominals. Given that I related the similarity of INs with bare nominals below, I consider yet additional data. Consider the following Cantonese data (Barrie 2008). 26.

a.

b.

27.

a.

b.

13 Note

caat3 haai4 polish shoe ‘flatter’ OR ‘polish shoes’ caat3 ni1 deoi3 haai4 CL shoe polish this ‘polish this pair of shoes’ #‘engage in this instance of flattery’ jam2 ca4 drink tea ‘have dim sum’ OR ‘drink tea’ jam2 ni1 di1 drink this CL ‘drink this tea’ #‘have this (bit of) dim sum’

ca4 tea

that this idiom is apparently found only in the Syracuse community in New York. My consultants in Six Nations did not recognize this idiom.

14

1

Introduction

With the bare nominal objects, both the idiomatic and compositional readings are available. When the object contains higher functional material, only the compositional reading is available, exactly like in the instances of NI shown so far. Note that the bare noun cannot be considered morphologically incorporated because it can be separated from the verb by aspectual morphology and can even be focused in some cases, while retaining the idiomatic reading. 28.

a.

jam2 zo2 ca4 PRFV tea drink ‘have had dim sum’ OR ‘have drunk tea’

b.

lei5 lin4 ca4 dou1 mei6 you even tea all not.yet ‘You’ve never even had dim sum before.’

jam2 drink

Another similar illustration comes from light verb constructions in Japanese. Again, consider the following data (Sato 2010). 29.

30.

a.

beknyoo-suru studying-do ‘to study’ OR ‘to discount’

b.

benkyoo-o suru do studying-ACC ‘to study’ NOT ‘to discount’

a.

ryoori-suru cooking -do ‘to cook’ OR ‘to handle well’

b.

ryoori-o suru do cooking - ACC ‘to cook’ NOT ‘to handle well’

Again, the idiomatic readings are available on the bare noun constructions only. Both the Cantonese and the Japanese data provide further illustrations that the availability of idiomatic readings is correlated with the bareness of the noun rather than with any concept of word-hood. While idiomatic readings are found nearly always exclusively with NI constructions, this is by no means universal. Consider the following Chipewyan data (Cook and Wilhelm 1998: 59). 31.

a.

na-jë´ th-the-Ø-Ø-da ITER-hook- M / A -3. SG - VCL -sit ‘S/he is fishing again.’ (lit: sitting with a hook)

b.

jë´ th gha˛ the-Ø-Ø-da hook with M / A -3. SG - VCL -sit ‘S/he is fishing again.’ (lit: sitting with a hook)

1.2

Noun Incorporation

15

Here, the idiomatic reading is found with both the incorporated and nonincorporated forms, again underscoring the lack of involvement of any notion of word-hood in establishing idiomatic readings. Related to the above is the fact that NI also subject to the CUC (Kiparsky 1997), whereby pragmatically or culturally determined application of the incorporated object is understood. This information typically cannot be gleaned from the syntax. For instance in the phrase butter the toast, we understand a particular way of spreading butter on the toast (with a knife, only on one flat surface, not on the edges or on only half of the surface, for example). The following Oneida example (Michelson and Doxtator 2002) illustrates this phenomenon for NI. 32.

wahathwistásheteP waPhaFACT3. SG . M . AG ‘He counted money.’

atSRFL -

hwistmoney-

ashetcount-

eP PUNC

The sentence in 26 cannot refer to counting kinds of money or numbers of bill or coins. It can only refer to counting the sum value of the money. Harley (2008), however, showed that this is not a property of the lexicon, but a property of bare nouns, based on the following English data. 33.

in bed bed at church

∗ on

in the bed on the bed at the church

Unless we wish to posit that forms such as in bed and at church (and, in North American dialects of English, in the hospital) are syntactic atoms spit out from a generative lexicon, the CUC cannot be used as an argument against a syntactic approach to NI. In fact, it shows that NI impinges on our understanding of the syntax of bare or reduced nominal expressions. Finally, I address the issue of frozen scope. NI constructions typically show frozen scope as shown in example 10 above. This has also been cited as a property of words, the idea being that words are syntactic atoms and thus morphemes inside words cannot take scope outside the word. I argue that this is more a property of bare nouns, however. Consider the following Blackfoot example (Glougie 2000). 34.

a.

ihkan-ano-yi-a om-yi piita PST .all-see.TR -3’- PL DEM-OBV eagle ‘They all saw the eagle.’ (∃ > ∀)

b. ihkan-iyapi-ya piita PST .all-see.INTR - PL eagle ‘They all saw an eagle.’ (∀ > ∃) c.

piita ihkan-iyapi-ya PST .all-see. INTR - PL eagle ‘They all saw an eagle.’ (∃ > ∀)

16

1

Introduction

The difference to note between these two examples is that the object in 34a is a full DP with a demonstrative, while the following two examples contain a bare nominal. Note also the intransitive marking on the b and c examples highlighting the fact that they contain bare nominal objects. The bare noun in 34b, c has frozen scope despite being syntactically free in the sentence. Again, it has been shown that a putative property of NI, namely frozen scope, intended to argue for its status as a lexical phenomenon, in fact is merely a property of bare nouns. In fact, van Geenhoven (1998) has shown that frozen scope in West Greenlandic and bare plurals in English pattern identically in terms of scopal relations, thus highlighting the similarity in properties between bare nouns and INs. van Geenhoven gives the following example from West Greenlandic (p. 3, ex 3, Bittner 1994: 118). 35.

Junna Kaali-mit allagar-si-nngi-l-a-q Kaali- ABL letter-get- NEG - IND - TR -3. SG Junna. ABS ‘It is not the case that Juuna got a letter/letters from Kaali.’ #‘There is/are a letter/letters from Kaali that Juuna didn’t get.’

As shown, the IN cannot take scope above negation. Bittner also gives the following English data showing that bare plurals in English also cannot take scope above sentential negation (p. 4, ex (5), citing Carlson 1977: 19). 36.

John didn’t see spots on the floor. =It is not the case that John saw spots on the floor. =There were spots on the floor such that John didn’t see them.

Related to the above discussion is Williams’ (2007) argument that word-internal morphemes cannot take their resolution outside the word. Consider the following data. 37.

a. b.

John described himself. John told self-destruction stories.

In 37a, the word himself finds its resolution higher up in the clause. In other words, himself must be coreferential with John. In 37b, on the other hand, the self in selfdestruction cannot look outside the word to find its resolution. Thus this sentence can refer only to generic self-destruction stories and not to self-destructions stories about John. There are, however, some situations in which word-internal morphemes sometimes do look outside the word for resolution. First, consider the following piece of data that complements 37. 38.

I witnessed John’s self-destruction.

Here, self must be coreferential with John, thereby taking its resolution outside the ‘word’ that contains it. Consider also reflexives in Onondaga.

1.2

39.

Noun Incorporation

17

John waT hadadaehsé˛ thwaT John waT haJohn FACT- 3. SG . M . AG‘John kicked himself.’

atatREFL -

aehse˛thwkick-

aT PUNC

Here, the reflexive morpheme atat must find its resolution outside the word that contains it. Thus, atat must corefer to John. One final example is found in a particular kind of Blackfoot wh-question. 40.

tsa ááni anná Mary anní John omaanistsíkkamiyoowatahpi aniskayi apastaminam? tsa how

aani say

ann-wa Mary DET- PROX Mary

ann-yi John DET John

om-aanist-ikkam-iy-oowat-a-hp-yi 3-DEG-fast-?-eat.VTA-EPEN-NZLR-INANIM. SG ann-yi-ahk-yi DET- OBV- INVIS - INANIM . SG

apastaminamm apple

‘How quickly did Mary say that John ate that apple?’ (embedded scope on ‘how’) The embedded verbal complex contains a degree variable, aanist, which is bound by the wh-element, tsa, in the left edge of the matrix clause. These three lines of evidence illustrate that the word does not act as a syntactic island for resolution of anaphora or variable binding. This section has described the basic properties of NI, which I list below in bullets. It is important to note that not all languages with NI instantiate all the properties below to the same extent. Thus, it is difficult to pin down a single set of defining properties for NI. • • • • •

NI acts on direct objects, locations, instruments and paths NI does not act on indirect objects, subjects, goals, sources or comitatives the IN can often appear with a full nominal double NI constructions typically appear with N+V order NI constructions typically alternate with non-NI constructions, in other words, NI is often optional • the IN often exhibits frozen scope • NI constructions often give rise to special or idiomatic readings This section has also given various arguments in favour of a syntactic approach to NI. These arguments are all based on blurring the distinction between autonomous syntactic and morphological/lexical modules of the grammar. Specifically, I showed that many of the so-called morphological or lexical properties of NI are also

18

1

Introduction

applicable to a variety of syntactic constructions. These included non-canonical objects, idiomatic readings, and frozen scope. In the case of non-canonical objects, I showed that the range of incorporable elements (direct objects, locations, paths, instruments and adverbs) constitutes a natural syntactic class based on theoretical considerations on Larson’s work on the VP shell and on empirical facts based on Li’s discussion of non-canonical objects in Mandarin Chinese. In the case of idiomatic readings, I reiterated Marantz’ observation that phrasal elements (kick the bucket) can have idiomatic readings, too, and discussed more facts specifically related to NI. Finally, I showed, based on van Geenhoven’s work, that frozen scope is a property of of INs and of bare nouns in many languages.

1.3 Conclusion and Outline of Book This chapter has given a brief outline of the goals of this monograph and described how these will be accomplished. To recapitulate, I offer an in depth description of NI in Northern Iroquoian, formulate a theory of phrase structure that maintains the core ideas of BPS and the LCA, relate this theory of phrase structure to NI in Northern Iroquoian, and finally show how this theory can account for linear or in NI constructions in a number of other languages. Section 1.2 also described the general properties of NI found cross-linguistically based on a number of prior works. It also discussed the linear order of NI constructions. What was found was the following: while VO and OV is quite evenly distributed cross-linguistically, N+V order prevails over V+N order. This order is most robust in non-productive or lexicalized constructions, but still holds in productive NI. The remainder of this monograph is structured as follows. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical background of this monograph. It begins with a brief discussion on the history of phrase structure within generative grammar and then presents the theories of BPS and Antisymmetry necessary for an understanding of the subsequent material. The chapter ends with a discussion on Head Movement and its absence from UG. Readers familiar with the basic tenets of Bare Phrase Structure and Antisymmetry may wish to skip some of this material. Chapter 3 starts off by outlining some of the theoretical problems inherent in bringing together BPS and Antisymmetry and discusses some earlier efforts in this direction. Section 3.2 discusses in more detail the problems raised at the beginning of the chapter, and explores the two logically possible ways of redefining the LCA in BPS terms, both of which have been previously discussed in the literature. This section also explores in detail the consequences that each of these approaches would have for the rest of the grammar. Section 3.3 discusses the core problem mentioned above, which is the initial merger of two heads, which we recall is an LCA violation. This section discusses the ramifications of adopting a dynamic view of Antisymmetry, which includes Complement-to-spec roll-up. Section 3.4 discusses some other possibilities that are compatible with the approach adopted here and shows how they might be implemented in particular circumstances, such as clitic

References

19

climbing. Finally, Section 3.5 discusses late vocabulary insertion and the Distributed Morphology framework, and how it bears on the current proposal. Chapter 4 is the main empirical illustration of the proposal put forth in the previous chapter, which is the analysis of NI in Northern Iroquoian. It begins with a brief defence of a syntactic approach to NI and illustrates the various patterns of NI found in Northern Iroquoian. The following section presents an analysis of NI in this language group and discusses some previous analyses of NI in Iroquoian. Section 4.4 discusses some other core properties of NI in Iroquoian, including NI in ditransitives and doubling. Finally, Section 4.5 discusses some properties of Iroquoian DPs. Chapter 5 discusses various other kinds of N+V incorporation including putative NI in gerunds in English, German and Persian. Although the process looks similar in all the constructions in these three languages, minor cross-linguistic differences manifest themselves in interesting ways. While all three cases have N+V order, Persian optionally allows V+N order. Also, both Persian and English allow only bare nouns in the NI constructions while German allows number marking, but no other kind of marking. The chapter also discusses incorporation of conjoined nominals in Tamil. Chapter 6 discusses various kinds of V+N incorporation, which on the face of it is problematic for the approach here. In particular, I discuss Pseudo NI in the sense of Massam (2001). Data from Niuean and Chamorro are discussed, along with the structure of nominals in these languages. The proposal made here will be shown not to be fully compatible with Massam’s approach. This chapter additionally discusses V+N compounds in Romance languages as well as NI in Mapudungun and lexical suffixation in Upriver Halkomelem. Chapter 7 is a conclusion. It includes a summary of the major empirical and theoretical findings of this volume. It also discusses some of the limitations of this proposal with the hopes of stimulating future research. Finally, it includes some brief comments on some extensions of the proposals laid out here.

References Abbott, Clifford. 2000. Oneida. Munich: Lincom Europa. Abney, Stephen. 1987. “The English Noun Phrase and its Sentential Aspect.” PhD diss., MIT press, Cambridge, MA. Aboh, Enoch. 2004a. The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Baker, Mark C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, Mark C., Roberto Aranovich, and Lucía A. Golluscio. 2005. “Two Types of Syntactic Noun Incorporation: Noun Incorporation in Mapudungun and Its Typological Implications.” Language 81 (1):138–76. Barrie, Michael. 2008. “Bare Nouns in Cantonese.” Paper presented at the 12th Bilingual Workshop in Theoretical Linguistics, Ottawa, ON, December 5–6. Beck, Sigrid, and Kyle Johnson. 2004. “Double Objects Again.” Linguistic Inquiry 35 (1):97–123. doi:10.1162/002438904322793356.

20

1

Introduction

Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, Scope, and Binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bonvillain, Nancy. 1972. “Noun Incorporation in Mohawk.” In Papers in Linguistics from the 1972 Conference on Iroquoian Research, edited by Michael K. Foster, 18–26. Mercury Series Ethnology Division. Ottawa, ON: National Museum of Man. Caballero, Gabriela, Michael J. Houser, Nicole Marcus, Teresa McFarland, Anne Phycha, Maziar Toosarvandani, Suzanne Wilhite, and Johanna Nichols. 2008. “Nonsyntactic Ordering Effects in Syntactic Noun Incorporation.” Linguistic Typology 12 (3):383–421. Cagri, Ilhan M. 2009. “Arguing Against Subject Incorporation in Turkish Relative Clauses.” Lingua 119 (2):359–73. Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. “Reference to Kinds in English.” PhD diss., University of Massachussetts, Amherst, MA. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Rint Sybesma. 1999. “Bare and Not-So-Bare Nouns and the Structure of NP.” Linguistic Inquiry 30 (4):509–42. Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL. Cook, Eung-Do, and Andrea Wilhelm. 1998. “Noun Incorporation: New Evidence from Athapaskan.” Studies in Language 22 (1):49–81. Cuoq, Jean-André. 1866. Etudes philologiques sur quelques langues sauvages. Montreal, QC: Dawson Brothers. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dryer, Matthew S. 2008. Map 83: Order of Object and Verb. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. http://wals.info/feature/83. Accessed August 13, 2010. Froman, Frances, Alfred J. Keye, Lottie Keye, and Carrie Dyck. 2002. English-Cayuga/CayugaEnglish Dictionary. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Gerdts, Donna B. 1998. “Incorporation.” In The Handbook of Morphology, edited by Andrew Spencer, and Arnold M. Zwicky, 84–100. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Ghomeshi, Jila. 2003. “Plural Marking, Indefiniteness, and the Noun Phrase.” Studia Linguistica 57 (2):47–74. Giorgi, Alessandra, and Giuseppe Longobardi. 1991. The Syntax of Noun Phrases. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press. Glougie, Jennifer. 2000. “Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Blackfoot Quantifiers and Nominals.” MA Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Guimarães, Maximiliano. 2000. In Defense of Vacuous Projections in Bare Phrase Structure. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 9:90–115. Harley, Heidi. 2008. “Bare Roots, Conflation and the Canonical Use Constraint.” University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, February 5–6, 2008. Jiang-King, Ping. 1998. “Sonority Constraints on Tonal Patterns.” In The Proceedings of the Seventeenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Kimary Shahin, Susan Blake, and Eun-Sook Kim, 332–46. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 2009a. Antisymmetry and the Lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8 (1):1–31. Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. “Remarks on Denominal Verbs.” In Complex Predicates, edited by A. Alsina, Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells, 247–88. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Kleinschmidt, Samuel. 1852. Grammatik der grönländischen Sprache mit theilweisem einschluss des Labradordialects. Berlin: Reimer. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1909. “Noun Incorporation in American Languages.” Paper presented at the XVI. Internationalen Amerikanisten-Kongress, 2d, Vienna and Leipzig. Larson, Richard K. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3):335–91.

References

21

Larson, Richard K. 1990. “Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff.” Linguistic Inquiry 21 (4):589–632. Larson, Richard K. 2004. “Sentence Final Adverbs and “Scope”.” In Proceedings of NELS 34, edited by Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf, 23’43. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications. Larson, Richard K. 2010. “On Pylkkänen’s Semantics for Low Applicatives.” Linguistic Inquiry 41(4):701–04. doi:10.1162/LING_a_00020. Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 2010. “Case and Objects.” Paper presented at the GLOW in Asia VIII, Beijing Language and Culture University, August 12–14. Lounsbury, Floyd Glenn. 1949. “Iroquoian Morphology.” PhD diss., Yale University, New Haven, CT. Lounsbury, Floyd Glenn. 1953. Oneida Verb Morphology. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2):201–25. Marantz, Alec. 2001. “Words.” Paper presented at the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Southern California, February 23–25, 2001. Massam, Diane. 2001. “Pseudo Noun Incorporation in Niuean.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19 (1):153–97. Massam, Diane. 2009. Noun Incoporation: Essentials and Extensions. Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (4):1076–96. Megerdoomian, Karine. 2008. “Parallel Nominal and Verbal Projections.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, edited by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizaretta, 73–103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Michelson, Karin. 1991. “Possessor Stranding in Oneida.” Linguistic Inquiry 22 (4):756–61. Michelson, Karin, and Mercy Doxtator. 2002. Oneida-English/English-Oneida Dictionary. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Mithun, Marianne. 1984. “The Evolution of Noun Incorporation.” Language 60 (4):847–94. Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Moro, Andrea. 2004. “Linear Compression as a Trigger for Movement.” In Triggers, edited by Anne Breitbarth, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 387–430. Berlin, New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Oishi, Masayuki. 2003. “When Linearity Meets Bare Phrase Structure.” Current Issues in English Linguistics 2:18–41. Öztürk, BalkIz. 2009. “Incorporating Agents.” Lingua 119 (2):334–58. Polinsky, Maria. 1990. “Subject Incorporation: Evidence from Chukchee.” In Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective, edited by Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell, and Errapel Mejias-Bikandi, 349–64. Stanford, CA: The Center for the Study of Language and Information. Postal, Paul. 1979. On Some Syntactic Rules in Mohawk. New York, NY: Garland Publishing. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rackowski, Andrea, and Lisa Travis. 2000. “V-Initial Languages: X or XP Movement and Adverbial Placement.” In The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, edited by Andrew Carnie, and Eithne Guilfoyle, 117–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rice, Keren. 1991. “Intransitives in Slave (Northern Athapaskan): Arguments for Unaccusatives.” International Journal of American Linguistics 57 (1):51–69. Richards, Norvin. 2001a. “A Distinctness Condition on Linearization.” In 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Karine Megerdoomian. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1992. “Cross-Linguistic Evidence for Number Phrase.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37 (2):197–218. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1993. “Where’s Gender?” Linguistic Inquiry 24 (4):795–803. Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1989. “Two Types of Noun Incorporation: A Lexical Analysis.” Language 65 (2):294–317.

22

1

Introduction

Ruhlen, Merritt. 1975. A Guide to the Languages of the World. Stanford, CA: Language Universals Project, Stanford University. Sadock, Jerrold. 1980. “Noun Incorporation in Greenlandic: A Case of Syntactic Word Formation.” Language 56 (2):300–19. Sadock, Jerrold. 1986. “Some Notes on Noun Incorporation.” Language 62 (1):19–31. Sapir, Edward. 1911. “The Problem of Noun Incorporation in American Languages.” American Anthropologist 13:250–82. Sato, Yosuke. 2010. “Bare Verbal Nouns, Idiomatization and Icorporation in Japanese.” Paper presented at the Theoretical East Asian Linguistics, 6, Peking University: Beijing. Spencer, Andrew. 1995. “Incorporation in Chukchi.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 71 (3):439–89. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. “The Possessor that Ran Away from Home.” The Linguistic Review 3 (1):89–102. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. “Multiple Spell Out.” In Working Minimalism, edited by Samuel Epstein, and Norbert Hornstein, 251–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. “Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic.” Dissertations in Linguistics. (DiLi). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Williams, Edwin. 2007. “Dumping Lexicalism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, edited by Gillian Ramchand, and Charles Reiss. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Woodbury, Hanni. 1975a. “Noun Incorporation in Onondaga.” PhD diss., Yale University, New Haven, CT. Woodbury, Hanni. 1975b. “Onondaga Noun Incorporation: Some Notes on the Interdependence of Syntax and Semantics.” International Journal of American Linguistics 41 (1):10–20. Woodbury, Hanni. 2003. Onondaga-English/English-Onondaga Dictionary. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Chapter 2

Theoretical Background

This chapter establishes the theoretical background in which the forthcoming analysis is couched. In particular, I adopt the tenets of Bare Phrase Structure, Antisymmetry and Dynamic Antisymmetry. Readers familiar with these concepts may wish to skip to the next chapter, where the theoretical proposal is presented, or to skim the following sections. The analyses of NI are presented in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. However, before these analyses can be presented, I propose in Chapter 3 how BPS and the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) can be made compatible with each other. In doing so, I will show that NI can be captured without appealing to head movement, which has fallen out of favour in recent years. The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. Section 2.1 covers a brief history of phrase structure and how it relates to linearization. Section 2.2 outlines the theory of BPS, and Section 2.3 outlines the theory of Antisymmetry. Section 2.4 discusses the role of head movement and its elimination from UG. Section 2.5 covers various alternative theories of linearization. Finally, Section 2.6 concludes the chapter.

2.1 A Bit of History of Phrase Structure Chomsky (1957; 1965) proposes that the grammar must distinguish between principles that determine the structure of sentences in a given language and those that derive the different word orders found for sentences in that language. The former are known as phrase structure (PS) rules and the latter are known as transformations. Phrase structure rules of the Standard Theory and its descendents gave way to the Headedness Parameter (Chomsky 1981; Stowell 1981; Travis 1989 inter alia) in X-Bar Theory (Chomsky 1970; Jackendoff 1977). In its broadest form, the Headedness Parameter allows for the four settings in 1; however, many formulations allow only the first two, with the specifier obligatorily on the left (Oishi 2003; Richards 2008).

M. Barrie, Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 84, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_2,  C Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

23

24

1.

2 Theoretical Background

Four Structural Types of XPs a. XP Spec

X’ X

b.

S-H-C order Compl

XP Spec

S-C-H order

X’ Compl

c.

X XP

X’ X

Spec

H-C-S order

Compl

d.

XP X’ Compl

Spec

C-H-S order

X

The prevailing view, introduced nearly simultaneously by Stowell (1981) and Chomsky (1981), was that the Headedness Parameter was a category-neutral specification of the linear order of the specifier, head and complementizer in a given language. The result of this approach was that clusters of word order properties (postpositions, post-nominal determiners, and OV order versus prepositions, prenominal determiners, and VO order; see Greenberg 1963) could be easily accounted for with one parametrically determined setting for headedness of all XPs. In contrast to this is the view that different syntactic categories can be assigned different parameter settings, a view that leads to severe over-generation. There are several problems with the Headedness Parameter, however, many of which have been previously discussed (Kayne 2003a, 2009; Kroch 2001). I discuss these only briefly here and leave the reader to consult the references indicated for a fuller discussion. Kayne discusses at length several typological gaps that the Headedness Parameter predicts should exist. Further, Kroch (2001) points out that all SOV languages (even Japanese according to Kayne) depart from the Greenbergian correspondences in some way. Nakajima (1999) also points out that one of the goals of BPS is to pursue a derivational rather than a representational approach to phrase structure. He suggests

2.1

A Bit of History of Phrase Structure

25

that the representational nature of the Headedness Parameter is inconsistent with the derivational approach of BPS. Specifically, Nakajima argues that the headedness parameter is a condition on the representation of a syntactic structure and that what is needed is a derivational approach to linearization.1,2 Additionally, Kayne (2009) points out that if the Headedness Parameter existed, it would be a very strange parameter. Ideally, parameters should be properties of functional elements in the Lexicon, and the Headedness Parameter is not tied to any such functional lexical item. Kayne draws the following analogy. Most models of generative syntax assume a bottom-up derivation; however, top-down models have also been proposed (Phillips 2003). No one, though, has ever proposed that languages vary parametrically between these two choices such that some languages are bottom-up and some are top-down. A Headedness Parameter, Kayne contends, would be no different than the bizarre parameter just described. Given the numerous problems with the Headedness Parameter, it comes as no surprise that one would resurrect the Universal Base Hypothesis.3 The form of the Universal Base Hypothesis adopted here, of course, is Antisymmetry (Kayne 1994), which is described in detail below. Before continuing, however, I address a common remark on Antisymmetry concerning the postulation of putatively unmotivated movements and functional projections to achieve the correct word order in this framework (see Richards 2008 for recent discussion). I note that this approach lacks no more explanatory adequacy than an approach that assumes a Headedness Parameter with both left and right adjunction. Headedness coupled with free left and right adjunction fails to prevent the same kinds of unattested structures that free generation of functional projections and movements do. One matter of ongoing research is to understand the kinds of movements and functional projections available in UG, in an attempt to constrain Antisymmetry. The next section outlines the theoretical approaches in which the proposal in Chapter 3 is framed: BPS and Antisymmetry. The end of this section has a short discussion of head movement and its proposed elimination from UG. Readers familiar with these concepts can skip to Section 2.5. 1 Nakajima

offers such an approach, which we argue against later. The current proposal does offer a strongly derivational approach to linearization. 2 Wojdak (2008), in fact, does propose a derivational approach to word order assuming an updated version of the Headedness Parameter. Again, however, such an approach suffers from many of the same problems as the traditional Headedness Parameter as described in this section, including over-generation. 3 The exact formulation of the Universal Base Hypothesis (Bach 1968) is still a matter of debate (Zwart 1997; Broekhuis 2006). On the basis of the prevalence of SVO and SOV patterns crosslinguistically, it comes as no surprise that the two contenders for this hypothesis are the S-H-C order (Kayne 1994, inter alia) and S-C-H order (Fukui and Takano 1998, inter alia). Still, others have proposed that the directionality parameter specifies only the order between the head and the complement, with the specifier universally on the left (Oishi 2003; Ernst 2003; Richards 2008). We address these issues at the end of this chapter.

26

2 Theoretical Background

2.2 Bare Phrase Structure Since early Minimalist efforts (Chomsky 1993, 1994, 1995b) it has been assumed that X-bar theory is an unnecessary enrichment of UG. Instead, syntactic structures are built by a simple pair-wise algorithm, Merge, under the rubric of BPS. Thus, rather than assuming a theory of phrase structure that constitutes a separate module of UG (X-bar Theory), BPS posits a single operations, Merge, which manipulates phrase structure.4 This operation takes as its input two elements, α and β, and gives as its output the unordered set {α, β}. Furthermore, it is assumes that this unordered pair must have a label of some sort in order to be accessed by subsequent instantiations of Merge. We call this label γ, and express the result as follows. 2.

{γ, {α, β}}

There are various possibilities as to the nature of γ, all of which are considered in turn in Chomsky (1995a). He concludes that the label is an identical copy of either α or β. Later, Chomsky (2008) offers a more precise algorithm for determining the label. I eschew this discussion here and assume simply that the label of the probe (i.e., the selector) projects. The operation Merge operates over lexical items and syntactic objects (the output of Merge). Also, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, only the top-most node in a tree is eligible to participate in Merge (i.e., Merge obeys the Extension Condition).5 Suppose we have the two phrase markers shown in 3a and b. They can participate in Merge to give the structure in 3c (assuming a projects) but there is no way to merge one of the phrase markers counter-cyclically with a subcomponent of the other. 3.

Merger of Phrase Markers a. K = {a, {a, b}}6 b. L = {c, {c, d}} c. Merge (K, L) = {a, {{a, {a, b}}, {c, {c, d}}}} (if a, the label of K, projects)

Before proceeding, a comment is in order about how phrase markers are represented here. For a phrase such as [DP the dog], I treat the three representations in 4 (where other functional projections such as NumP and nP have been omitted for the sake 4 In

its original formulation (Chomsky 1995a), Merge and Move were distinct operations (see also Nunes 2004). More recently (Chomsky 2004, appearing originally in 2001) has proposed that Move is not a distinct operation, but is simply a version of Merge referred to mnemonically as Internal Merge. 5 Citko (2005) argues for parallel merge, which is counter-cyclic, however. See also Richards (1998) on tucking in. Furthermore, one could argue that the null hypothesis is not to restrict Merge to operate over only the root node in absence of evidence to the contrary. See Citko and Richards cited above, as well as Chomsky (2008). 6 For consistency throughout, when lexical items are represented by Roman letters, I use standard font for labels and italic font for the actual lexical items.

2.2

Bare Phrase Structure

27

of discussion) as notational variants (except in the discussion on Antisymmetry below where X-Bar notations are the topic of discussion). I use phrase markers as in 4c throughout the rest of this work, since most readers are familiar with this type of notation. Strictly speaking, 4c is an X-Bar theoretic representation; however, the larger trees that are presented below would be rather unweildy in true BPS representations. 4.

Representation of Phrase Structure a. {the, {the, dog}} b.

the dog

the

c.

DP D

N

the

dog

Next I address the issue of adjunction in BPS, and whether or how it could carry over to an Antisymmetric approach. Prior to Beyond Explanatory Adequacy, (Chomsky 2004), Chomsky proposed two types of Merge: set Merge (substitution) and pair Merge (adjunction). Formally, the difference between the two is the structure of the label of the set formed by Merge. Set Merge works as illustrated in 3, while pair Merge differs in that the label is an ordered pair, , giving rise to the set {, {a, b}}. Chomsky (2004), alters the adjunction operation so that adjunction of a to b forms the ordered pair rather than an unordered set with a two-headed label, {, {a, b}}. Set Merge is unchanged, giving rise to {a, {a, b}}. Regardless of the set-theoretic composition of adjunction structures, Chomsky assumes that the adjoined XP (here a) does not participate in any new relations formed by the growing tree structure, and that b participates in the same relations that would have existed if adjunction had not taken place (agreement, binding, etc.). In other words, adjunction does not change the relation of the phrase it adjoins to with the rest of the sentence. Evidence for this view of adjunction comes from anti-reconstruction effects (Lebeaux 1988). 5.

[Which picture of herselfj that Johni likes] did hei ask Maryj to buy twh ?

In 5, the wh-phrase must reconstruct to the trace position indicated in order for the anaphor to be licensed. In reconstructing, however, we would expect a Condition C violation since John is c-commanded by a coreferential pronoun. The sentence, however, is grammatical, supporting the claim that the adjoined XP (underlined) does not participate in any new relations with the rest of the structure. The following sentence, now, is problematic for the picture drawn so far. 6.

∗ He i

knows which picture of herselfj that Johni likes Maryj bought.

28

2 Theoretical Background

In 6, regardless of whether the wh-phrase reconstructs, a condition C violation is created by the pronoun, he, in the matrix clause. To account for such data, Chomsky proposes an operation Simpl (=simplify) that converts an adjoined structure to a set Merged structure {a, b}, which participates in structural relations as any set merged phrase does. Another major proposal for adjunction holds that adjuncts are merged ‘late’ or post-cyclically (Speas 1990; Stepanov 2001; Lebeaux 1988, 1991).7 The idea behind these proposals is that the adjunct merges to its host phrase after all overt transformations have taken place. This is shown in 7. 7.

Postcyclic Merge of Adjuncts a. He did purchase [DP what photo] b. [DP what photo] did he purchase [DP what photo] c. [DP what photo [that John1 likes]] did he1 purchase [DP what photo] d.

[DP what photo [that John1 likes]] did he1 purchase [DP what photo]

base structure wh-movement add adjunct delete lower copy

Within an Antisymmetric framework (as explained below), there is no distinction between a specifier and an adjunct in terms of phrase structure. Any given XP may sport either one specifier or one adjunct. Although set theoretic notation may be devised to encode the difference between adjuncts and non-adjuncts, such differences seem theoretically superfluous unless the properties of adjuncts can be captured by these set theoretic concepts. It seems to me, however, that neither {, {a, b}} nor accomplishes this task, and no account appears forthcoming. In fact, recent work in this area points toward a move away from these original formalisms (Hornstein and Nunes 2008). Furthermore, stipulating order in this way is at odds with Antisymmetry and would require significant modification of the LCA. This, of course, is not a problem in and of itself, but in the absence of clear argumentation and vast empirical support, such far-reaching changes to the theory are to be avoided. For the purposes of this monograph, then, I assume that adjuncts compete with non-adjuncts for the unique specifier position within an XP, leaving aside the issue of the set theoretic implementation. This approach is compatible with the traditional view in which adjuncts adjoin to lexical or functional projections in the clause or to a Cinquean (1999) view in which many adverbial elements appear within their own functional projections. I now leave the issue of adjunction and end this section with a brief discussion on movement. 7 Not discussed here are two other proposals for adjunction structures. The first is Rubin (2003), who proposes a Mod(ifier)P shell to host adjunction. He proposes that it is a property of ModP that properties of the pre-existing structure (c-command, etc.) do not change. The other proposal is that of Safir (1999), who proposes that anti-reconstruction effects in adjunction structure are due to vehicle change, thus eliminating the need for any special structural apparatus for adjuncts.

2.2

Bare Phrase Structure

29

In order to account for the displacement property of language in a constrained and consistent way, constituents that fulfil the same semantic role (i.e., bear the same thematic role) are assumed to be merged into the same base position, regardless of where they appear on the surface. Thus, in the sentences, John stole the book, the book was stolen, and Which book do you think John stole the DP containing the word ‘book’ is merged in the same position in all three sentences.8 Furthermore, movement must be motivated in some way (cf. there seems to be someone at the door versus ∗ there seems someone to be at the door). In other words, constituents move, but in a constrained manner. Given the phrase structure in 8, suppose that AP must raise to SpecBP. 8.

BP B

CP C

AP

Movement is accomplished by remerger of AP with BP, a process often referred to as internal Merge. This contrasts with previous conceptions of Move, which assumed it was a composite of primitive operations: Copy + Merge (Chomsky 1995b; Nunes 2004).9 Upon merger of AP and BP, a copy of AP appears both in its remerged position and its original merged position. Under normal circumstances, the lower copy deletes at PF. 9.

BP AP

BP B

CP C

AP

This treatment permits the elimination of Move as a primitive operation. I reiterate that in 9 the category AP is either an adjunct or specifier, the choice between the two not being relevant to the forthcoming discussion. Thus, movement of AP (or internal Merge of AP) results in {B, {AP, {B, {B, CP}}}}. Finally, I address the trigger of movement. Moro (2000) pursues a research program in which symmetric c-command (discussed below) is the sole trigger for movement. In a nutshell, when two elements cannot be linearized by the LCA, 8 Notwithstanding to this are situations in which a DP is coreferential with a null element, thus giving the illusion that movement has taken place when none really has. Examples include PRO in traditional analyses of control and operators in some kinds of relative clauses. 9 Nunes’ (2004) conception of Move actually consists of a composite of four operations: Copy + Merge + Form Chain + Chain Reduction.

30

2 Theoretical Background

one of the two elements must raise to break the symmetry. Within the Minimalist Program movement has been argued to take place to remove strong uninterpretable features (Chomsky 1993, 1995b) or to satisfy a poorly understood EPP feature (Chomsky 2000, 2001). I assume that movement can take place for reasons other than the satisfaction of the LCA; however, I do not take a stance here on exactly how these triggers are to be understood.

2.3 Antisymmetry Kayne (1994) develops a theory of linearization in which c-command relations determine surface word order through the LCA. 10.

Linear Correspondence Axiom d(A) is a linear ordering of T.

(Kayne, 1994: 6)

A is the complete set of ordered pairs {<X1 , Y1 >, <X2 , Y2 >, <X3 , Y3 > . . . <Xn , Yn >} where Xi and Yi are any two non-terminal syntactic nodes such that Xi asymmetrically c-commands Yi . d(A) is the mapping from A to the set of ordered pairs of terminals such that ai is dominated by Xi and bi is dominated by Yi . T is the set of terminal nodes. In other words, when a syntactic node X asymmetrically c-commands a node Y, all the terminal nodes dominated by X precede all the terminal nodes dominated by Y. 11 gives the definition of c-command adopted in Kayne (1994). 11.

X c-commands Y iff X and Y are categories and X excludes Y and every category that dominates X dominates Y. (Kayne 1994: 18).

The following example illustrates how the LCA is implemented. In these examples, a, b, and c are terminals; A, B, and C are minimal projections dominating only terminals, and AP, BP, CP are maximal projections. Both minimal and maximal projections count as categories with respect to the definition in 11. Consider now example 12. 12.

BP AP

BP

A

B

CP

a

b

C c

2.3

Antisymmetry

31

The set A, upon which the LCA will be evaluated, consists of the set of ordered pairs in 13, which gives rise to d(A) in 14, the mapping from A to the set of pairs of ordered terminals as explained above. 13.

{<AP, B>, <AP, CP>, <AP, C>, }

14.

{, , }

In order for a derivation to be linearized, every terminal node must be ordered with respect to every other terminal node, either directly, or by transitivity. In other words, linear ordering must be total. Furthermore, linear ordering cannot be contradictory. That is, if a node A c-commands B, then no element inside B, including B itself, can c-command A or anything inside A. Such a configuration would result in contradictory linearizations and the derivation would crash at the PF interface. As a result of the LCA, tight restrictions are placed on phrase structure. Each maximal projection can contain only one specifier or one adjunct (the distinction between the two essentially being dissolved). Multiple adjunction or adjunction to a maximal projection that already has a specifier is prohibited. This is because the two adjuncts, or an adjunct and a specifier to the same maximal projection cannot be linearized with respect to each other.10 This is shown in the following example. 15.

BP AP

BP

A

DP

a

D

B

d

b

BP CP

Here BP has either two adjuncts/specifiers (the distinction between the two having evaporated). There is no asymmetric c-command relation between AP and DP in this structure under Kayne’s definition of c-command. The reason for this is that the three instances of BP in example 15 constitute a single category. Thus, B is dominated by BP, but AP and DP are not. They are thus not dominated by any category in this structure. In order for a category β to dominate an element α every segment of β must dominate α. Since the lowest segment of BP does not dominate 10 Guimarães (2008) shows that some constructions with multiple specifiers are actually compliant with the LCA. This is true only if one of the specifiers is a head and if there is no higher head that selects the XP with multiple specifiers as a complement. Since multiple specifiers are permitted in Dynamic Antisymmetry (as long as any point of symmetry that is formed is subsequently removed), I will not concern myself with the wrinkles Guimarães raises for strict versions of Antisymmetry.

32

2 Theoretical Background

either AP or DP, the category BP does not dominate either of these elements. Even if another head, E, merges with BP, the lack of asymmetric c-command between AP and DP remains, and their linear order remains unresolved. 16.

EP BP

E e

AP

BP BP

A

DP

a

D

B

d

b

CP

In 16, E c-commands both AP and DP.11 Also, AP and DP both c-command B; however, there is still no asymmetric c-command relation between AP and DP. As a result, no linear order is established between these two elements and the derivation crashes at PF. Consider now a contradictory ordering.12 In 17, BP asymmetrically c-commands C, and CP asymmetrically c-commands B. This gives rise to the set A in 18, and its image under the function d. We see that d(A) contains the contradictory ordering and , and the derivation crashes. 17.

DP AP

DP

A

BP

CP

a

B

C

b

c

18.

{<AP, B>,<AP, CP>, <AP, C>, , }

19.

{, , , }

11 Note

that E is in a symmetric c-command relation with both AP and DP since E, AP and DP are all dominated by the same set of maximal projections (only EP), but that E asymmetrically c-commands both A and D. Thus, e can be ordered with respect to a and d. The crucial point here is that there is no way that a and d can be ordered with respect to each other. 12 Note that the DP in 17 does not have a head. The inadmissibility of this kind of structure can be used to derive endocentricity. Thus, just as Kayne removes X’-Theory as a primitive from UG, deriving it instead from the LCA, endocentricity can also be removed as a primitive from UG. See Moro (2000), however, who uses the point of symmetry in the structure in 17 for small clauses. See Guimarães (2008) for related discussion, though.

2.3

Antisymmetry

33

More recently, Antisymmetry has been shown to capture a number of typological gaps that would otherwise remain mysterious (Kayne 2003a, 2009; Carstens 2002; Kayne 2010). Capturing these typological facts within an Antisymmetric framework has emerged as a significant research program. For instance, it is quite common for VO languages to have a constraint ruling out V-Adv-O; however, OV languages typically never have such a constraint. This is surprising under a symmetric view of syntax, where both left- and right-headed VPs are available but falls out naturally from an Antisymmetric view of syntax. I leave the reader to consult the references above for further consequences of Antisymmetry along these lines. Importantly for us, Dynamic Antisymmetry also predicts that NI will predominantly be of the N+V order, a prediction that largely holds to be true, according to Caballero et al. (2008). As mentioned elsewhere in this monograph, not all NI is of the order N+V. Chapter 5 is devoted to a discussion of V+N order. Moro (2000; 2004; 2009) develops a research program, Dynamic Antisymmetry, in which he proposes that the LCA is a PF constraint deriving from bare output conditions required for the articulo-perceptual interface.13 The bare output condition is simply that a linear order must be derived from the output PF receives from the syntax. Following Moro (2000), I call this the weak antisymmetric view. This contrasts with Kayne (1994), who assumes that the LCA holds throughout the derivation. Kayne’s original motivation for assuming that the LCA holds at every level of grammar and throughout the derivation (the strong antisymmetric view) has to do with the role of X-bar theory. Kayne’s original proposal sought to derive the properties of X-bar theory from Antisymmetry, thus eliminating X-bar theory as a primitive from UG. Since it was assumed that the principles of X-bar theory hold at every stage of the derivation, Kayne assumed that the LCA should also hold throughout the derivation. Since X-bar theory has been abandoned in the Minimalist Program, there is no compelling reason to assume that the LCA holds throughout the derivation. As Moro points out, since the LCA is concerned with linear order – a phonological aspect of language – there is no reason to assume that it holds anywhere but at PF. Under Moro’s Dynamic Antisymmetry approach, symmetric c-command serves as a trigger for movement. Movement, in this case, is the search for asymmetric c-command so that the LCA is satisfied. Moro discusses three specific contexts in which symmetric c-command holds, shown below. 20.

Symmetric C-Command a.

XP ZP

XP YP

13 Chomsky

XP

(1995b: 337) actually suggested this in a brief discussion of Romance clitics.

34

2 Theoretical Background

b.

XP X

c.

Y XP

ZP

YP

In the examples above, the elements in the ovals c-command each other. Moro proposes that this symmetry acts as a trigger for movement. In fact, Moro pursues a research program in which symmetry, not morphology, serves as the sole trigger for movement.14 In this monograph, I will be concerned only with the type of symmetry illustrated in 20b. To summarize, the LCA requires that all terminal heads enter into a noncontradictory linear ordering. The LCA is evaluated at the PF interface (following Moro 2000 but contra Kayne 1994). Movement can eliminate instances of symmetry, and Moro takes this to be its prime motivation. He does ask whether there are other motivations for movement, but leaves the question unanswered.15 If there is a choice as to what to move to eliminate symmetry, other properties of the grammar, in principle, may come into play. The preceding paragraphs have discussed the principles of Antisymmetry that are required for the proposal for phrase structure in Chapter 2. I now turn to head movement and its status in UG.

2.4 Head Movement Although Kayne (1994) states that head-adjunction is possible (but only to the left), it has been argued more recently that head-movement is not available to UG, or is restricted in some way (Harley 2004; Fanselow 2003; Chomsky 2000; Kayne 2003b; Koopman and Szabolcsi 2000; Mahajan 2003). I discuss here some of the properties of head movement and the problems involved in restricting or eliminating it entirely. First, however, I begin with a brief discussion of head-movement within an early minimalist framework.16 In his discussion of head movement, Chomsky (1995b) invokes uninterpretable [V-] features and [N-] features to account for verb-movement and NP-movement in language. In French, for instance, T hosts a strong [V-] feature that must be checked 14 See, for example, (Baauw 1998; Guasti and Moro 2001; Koncar 2005) for developments in this direction. 15 Moro acknowledges that it may be difficult or even impossible to treat all cases of movement as the resolution of symmetrical constructions. He admits that other possible triggers for movement such as checking Case in passives or EPP may have to be admitted in UG. 16 For a general discussion of head movement, see Roberts (2001).

2.4

Head Movement

35

by overt verb raising. In both English and French, T also hosts a strong [N-] feature (the EPP), which attracts the subject NP to SpecTP. The question that arises here is why the [V-] feature is satisfied by head-movement while the [N-] feature is satisfied by XP-movement. As it stood, this difference had to be stipulated.17 The elimination of head-movement from UG solves this problem by leaving XPmovement as the only type of movement. This results in a simplification of the grammar, since it reduces the number of options available to the learner to account for displacement. Consider the following scenario, with the following underlying and derived order of elements. 21.

Underlying versus derived order in a hypothetical language a. A. . .B. . .C (underlying) b. B. . .A. . .C (derived)

We observe that B has raised from its base position a position to the left of A. This movement could in principle be accomplished either by head-movement or by XP-movement as shown in the following phrase markers. In the following examples, X and Y are phonologically null. 22.

Phrase markers for hypothetical language a. AP [underlying order] A

XP X

BP B

YP Y

CP …

C

b.

AP A Bi

[derived order – head movement] XP

A

X

BP ti

YP Y

CP C

17 Massam

…

(2000b) proposes that VOS word order in Niuean arises when the VP moves to satisfy EPP in SpecTP. Thus we see here an example of a strong [V-] feature being satisfied by XP-movement. Other examples include Oda (2003; 2005) who proposes a VP-raising analysis to account for certain word order facts in Irish, and Aboh (2004) also discusses cases of VP movement and N movement.

36

2 Theoretical Background

c.

AP

[derived order – XP-movement] AP

BP B

A

YP

XP

tCP

Y

CP C

XP …

X

tBP

In 22c, CP moves to SpecXP, then the remnant BP moves to SpecAP. The result is that the same word order is derived in 22b and 22c. If the heads X and Y are phonetically null, there is no a priori way to distinguish between these two analyses. From the child’s perspective, then, having two possible transformations available to account for the same overt displacement severely complicates language acquisition in a way that a model of grammar that holds that head movement does not exist does not. Another problem with head-movement is the lack of a clear understanding of how it works in BPS. In X-Bar Theory, phrasal movement can be either adjunction or substitution, but it was never clear which of these two types head movement should be.18 Given that the distinction between specifiers and adjuncts (i.e., substitution and adjunction) has vanished, I do not dwell on this point. Furthermore, In X-Bar Theory, nodes are assigned bar levels derivationally as in 23a, but this option is not available in BPS, which distinguishes only between categories and heads. Thus, when a head, X, adjoins to another head, Y, the structure cannot project to Y as in 23a since Y in this structure has no theoretical status in BPS (see also Harley 2004). Rather, when these two heads merge, forming the projection Y? in 23b, the category cannot be a Y since it is not a terminal/lexical item. In fact, it is not clear how Y? would differ from YP, unless BPS is endowed with additional machinery. Recall that in BPS, Merge of X and Y gives rise to {Y, {X, Y}}, which is indistinguishable from [YP X Y]. 23.

a. X

Y?

b.

Y Y−1

X

Y

The fact that when X adjoins to Y, the resulting category cannot be a head, leads into the next problem with head-movement. As Mahajan (2003) points out, the moved head, X, does not c-command its trace under standard definitions of c-command. Although Kayne (1994: 17–18) argues that a c-command relation holds between the moved head and the elements inside the complement of the host head. The moved head a fortiori c-commands its trace, then. In Chapter 3, however, a revised definition of c-command will be presented that precludes a c-command relation between a 18 See

Harley (2004) for discussion of this point.

2.4

Head Movement

37

moved head and its trace. Baker (1988: 54–55) adopts Aoun and Sportiche’s (1983) definition of c-command, which is better known as m-command. Here’s is Baker’s formulation: 24.

A c-commands B iff A does not dominate B, and for every maximal projection C, if C dominates A then C dominates B.

This version of c-command (really m-command) was developed to accommodate the notion of government in the GB era (Chomsky 1986). While it is quite correct that under this definition a raised head c-commands its trace, it is also true that a head c-commands its specifier (as per the traditional notion of Government). Under an Antisymmetric framework this result is unwelcome as it would create a most unconventional ordering relating between the head of a phrase its specifier. Consider the following scenario. 25.

BP AP

BP

A

B

CP

a

b

C c

Here, B asymmetrically c-commands A, giving rise to the order , and ultimately giving rise to the order Head-Specifier-Complement, in violation of all standard notions of constituency. The elimination of head-movement from UG also solves the problem of countercyclicity. The Extension Condition requires that moved or external elements merge with the root projection only. Since head-movement requires the head to merge into a position lower than the root, cyclicity is violated.19 As the arrow indicates in 26, head-movement does not target the root of the phrase structure (XP), but rather something below it (X). 26.

XP X

YP Y

ZP

19 See Fanselow (2003) and Mahajan (2003) for an extended discussion of this and other problems

with head-movement.

38

2 Theoretical Background

27.

XP X Y

YP X

tY°

ZP

Holding to cyclicity, the possibility remains that the head Y in 26 could raise and merge with the root XP (as in Matushansky 2006; Toyoshima 2000). Under X-bar Theory, it was stipulated that such a movement would be ruled out, since only phrases, and not heads, could occupy the specifier position.20 It has also been noted (Harley 2004; Chomsky 1995b: 321; Toyoshima 2000: 44) that head-movement violates Uniformity of Chains (Chomsky 1994) since, prior to movement, the head is a minimal projection and after movement, the moved element is both a minimal and a maximal projection. Although Kayne (1994) also states that Head-to-Spec movement is unavailable, nothing within Antisymmetry rules it out.21 Let us return to the problem of how the derivation knows whether to move a head or an XP. Under the previous assumption that overt displacement is triggered by the need to satisfy an uninterpretable feature, [uF], this feature must probe a target with a matching feature [F]. Thus, the computation searches downward until it finds the first instance of a matching feature. If this feature is contained within a head that has not projected, then the head is copied and internally merged. If the feature is found on the label of a projection, then the computation targets the node containing that label, which is then copied and internally merged. Under this approach, a head will never be available for movement, unless it is also a maximal projection. This is illustrated in the following structures. Here, the feature [F] is being probed and targeted for movement. Recall, following BPS, that any features that appear on a head, X, also appear on XP, since XP has X as its label. 28.

Probing a feature [F] a. YP Y

XP = {X[F], {X, ZP}} X

ZP

[F] 20 Jackendoff

(1977) actually notes that specifiers, but not complements can be heads, but for different reasons than we are assuming here. Jackendoff’s statement was made under much older assumptions where what are now treated as functional heads were thought to occupy specifier positions (e.g., determiners). Cinque (1996) notes that a bare head cannot appear in specifier position within an Antisymmetric framework. I will return to this point in Section 2.5.2 below and in Chapter 3. 21 Dobrovie-Sorin (1994), for instance, argues that pronominal clitics in Romanian raise to SpecIP, rather than to I, a move made possible due to the fact that clitics, following Chomsky (1995b), are both maximal and minimal projections. Boškovi´c (2002) also argues that clitics are heads that occupy the specifier of a functional projection. Romance clitics are touched on very briefly in Chapter 2.

2.4

Head Movement

b.

39

YP Y

X [F]

In 28a, if the feature [F] is probed by a higher element, only the XP is visible since it is closer to the probe than its head X. Thus, X will never be targeted for movement. In 28b, of course, the head X is the only element bearing the feature [F], so it, of course, can undergo movement. Bobaljik and Brown (1997) propose a solution to the problem that head movement creates for cyclicity. They suggest that head movement proceeds by interarboreal movement (sideward movement in Nunes’ (2004) terms). Their approach assumes that the derivation proceeds in parallel. Thus, in 29, there are two phrase markers being built up simultaneously. 29.

YP + Y

X

ZP

Next, they propose that Y is copied and merges with X. 30.

YP

X +

Y

ZP

Y

X

Finally, they propose that X merges with YP and the lower copy of Y is deleted (presumably at PF). If we assume that the raised head Y must c-command the lower copy, we must assume that X does not dominate Y since not every segment of X dominates Y. 31.

XP X Y

YP X

Y

ZP

Note that the resulting structure in 31 is isomorphic to the one in 27. This approach solves the cyclicity problem since in all cases only the root of a phrase marker participates in Merge, but it still does not answer the question of how the system knows whether to raise a head or a phrase. In the first stage in this derivation shown in 29, the computation could just as easily have chosen to copy YP instead of Y and merge it with X, giving a structure without any head movement. The problem of two heads merging to form a complex head in 30 is problematic for the very reasons discussed above. Namely, once the two heads undergo Merge, the structure formed is a phrase, not a head since complex heads are unformulable in BPS.

40

2 Theoretical Background

Why then, do we get a complex head [X◦ Y X] in example 30, rather than an XP [XP X Y]? Bobalijk and Brown argue that when the two heads are merged, they undergo Pair Merge rather than Set Merge; in other words, the moved head is adjoined to the host head. Since adjunction does not project a new category, but rather just extends the category being adjoined to, then X simply projects another segment of X when Y adjoins to it. Regardless of Bobaljik and Brown’s arguments, the structures they posit are still unformulable within the set-theoretic constraints of BPS. I conclude that head movement as traditionally conceived is incompatible with BPS. Before concluding this section, I point out that head movement has also been analyzed as a purely PF phenomenon based on the putative lack of semantic effects (Boeckx and Stjepanovi´c 2001; Chomsky 2000). The evidence for the semantic import of NI is quite strong, however, ruling out a strictly PF analysis of this phenomenon. The actual properties involved vary from language to language, naturally, however, many common semantic side effects of NI include frozen scope (van Geenhoven 1998), definiteness and specificity (Mithun 1984; Sadock 1980 inter alia) many of which have been discussed above. The problem now becomes how to deal with cases previously thought of as head-movement. An XP-movement analysis must be provided for these cases.22 Generally, when it appears that a head has raised without its complement, a remnant XP-movement analysis is pursued. There is, of course, a vast literature exploring this approach, which cannot be summarized here (Takano 2000 inter alia; Lee 2000; Ambar and Pollock 2002; Baltin 2001; Cummings 2002; Kandybowicz and Baker 2003; Aldridge 2003; Massam 2000; Haegeman 2001, 2000; Müller 1996, 1997, 2004). The current study extends the remnant XP-movement approach to the domain of NI – a process which has been previously treated as involving head movement (Baker 1988).23

2.5 Alternative Accounts of Linearization Before concluding this chapter, I review alternative theories of linearization. As I showed above, the overwhelming majority of the world’s languages are either SVO or SOV. It comes as no surprise, then, that S-C-H order has also been proposed as the universal underlying order, from which SVO languages must be derived. Such approaches do not rely on asymmetric c-command as the basis of linear order, but rather rely on other properties. I will review three such proposals. The first proposal

22 Or,

as Elizabeth Cowper has pointed out to me, an analysis in which no movement takes place can be pursued; that is ‘moved’ heads are initially merged in the higher position rather than raised there from a lower position. 23 . . .at least as far as syntactic analyses are concerned. There are, of course, many analyses of NI which treat this phenomenon as lexical rather than syntactic. We address this issue more at the beginning of Chapter 3.

2.5

Alternative Accounts of Linearization

41

takes S-C-H to be the universal underlying order, while the other two propose that the order of specifiers, heads and complements is set parametrically.

2.5.1 Demerge and Concatenate: SOV as Underlying Order Fukui and Takano (1998) propose a theory of linearization based on BPS that postulates two operations in addition to Merge. Starting with the notion of Merge as a symmetric pair-wise operation that operates bottom-up, they propose a second operation, Demerge, that operates top-down. Demerge acts only on maximal projections. Finally, a third operation, Concatenate, linearizes elements as they are demerged. Thus, starting with the root node, XP in example 32, Demerge acts on the specifier, YP, and demerges it from XP. X’ is not available to Demerge, since it is not a maximal projection. Since only YP was demerged, Concatenate acts on it first and places it before the material of its sister, X’, which has yet to be concatenated. In other words, Concatenate places YP at the left edge of the phonological output (represented by the open < bracket). 32.

XP XP YP

X’


ZP

X

X

At the next level, Demerge acts on X’ (now a maximal projection) and submits ZP to Concatenate. X is not available to Demerge, since it is not maximal projection. This is shown in the next example. 33.

XP

X

As the only element left, X/max , is concatenated after the rest of the derivation, resulting in the ordered sequence, . If YP and ZP are internally complex, Demerge and Concatenate will act on them in the same manner, until the derivation is completely linearized. Under this approach, the X/XP complement asymmetry is not captured. Compare the derivation in 32 with the one below. 34.

XP X’

YP Z

X

42

2 Theoretical Background

Under Fukui and Takano’s approach, YP is demerged and concatenated first as above. Then, Z is demerged and concatenated just as ZP is above. This is because Z is a maximal category (in addition to being a minimal category). Thus, under Fukui and Takano’s approach, there is no difference in how X complements and XP complements are treated, and the asymmetry described above, in which NI constructions are typically N+V, while VO and OV is fairly evenly distributed, is not captured. This approach also fails to capture the numerous cross-linguistic gaps discussed above and in Kayne (2003a; 2009). For instance, Kayne shows that SVO languages commonly possess a constraint against ∗ SVXO order (X an adverb or a PP adjunct), while SOV languages quite often allow SOXV order. The opposite is predicted under Fukui and Takano’s approach.

2.5.2 Parameterized Order Oishi (2003) attempts to eliminate c-command from narrow syntax based on his assumption that only anaphora requires reference to c-command. He argues that anaphora resolution takes place at LF, so there is no reason to assume that narrow syntax can refer to c-command.24 Assuming that it cannot, the only relations available are sisterhood and dominance. Linear order is determined sequentially and counter-cyclically for each pair of sisters. Consider the hypothetical tree in 35. This phrase marker can also be represented as the set in 36, with the labels removed as shown. The aligning procedure operates in a top-down fashion. First, β and its sister are ordered, followed by the heads α and γ. This process is shown in example 37. Oishi suggests that the order <Spec, sister of Spec>, or leftness of the specifier might be universal (see also Richards 2008) and reducible to EPP, although he does not elaborate on this point. This order must be kept separate from that of the head and the complement, which is determined parametrically. 35.

36.

K = {{α}, {β, {{α}, {α, γ}}} = ({β, {α, γ}}, with labels removed)

37.

Aligning procedure a. {β, {α, γ}} b. <β, {a, γ}> c. <β, <α, γ>>

24 It

is not clear, of course, that Binding is evaluated purely at LF. Most recently, Lebeaux (2009) demonstrates that Principle C, for instance, applies throughout the derivation and not just at LF. Thus, narrow syntax must be able to refer to c-command relations.

2.5

Alternative Accounts of Linearization

43

Under this view, the mutually c-commanding heads do not present a problem, since c-command is irrelevant to the narrow syntax. Two heads which are merged together are linearized by the head parameter as stated above. Aside from the stipulative quality of the ‘Spec Left’ condition, this approach suffers from many of the problems with the Headedness Parameter, described above, that Antisymmetry sought to solve. Under the system proposed by Oishi, there are two possible orderings available for any XP in a given language, namely Spec-HeadComplement and Spec-Complement-Head. Thus, each language must specify the head-complement order for each syntactic category. We note incidentally that Frank and Vijay-Shanker (2001) have argued that c-command is actually a primitive relation, and that the notion of dominance is derived from c-command. Their argumentation rests partly on the following observations. Consider the two phrase markers in 38, which do not differ in any linguistically significant sense. 38.

Hypothetical Phrase Markers

a.

b.

A B

C

A B

C

D

E

E

D

F

F

Frank and Vijay-Shanker (2001) observe that dominance relations distinguish between the two trees in 38, but that c-command does not. They offer this observation as support for their claim that c-command is a primitive relation. The validity of this argument rests on the assumption that a theory of grammar should be no more powerful than necessary: it should not be able to make distinctions that are not linguistically relevant. In this respect, c-command is more appropriate than simple dominance since dominance would treat the two trees above as distinct, even though there are no linguistic correlates for these trees. M. D. Richards (2008) proposes a modified Headedness Parameter that includes a re-implementation of the LCA whereby parameterized deletions of certain orderings take place at PF. This is based on the notion that a head and its complement form a point of symmetric c-command (in the sense of Moro 2000), a problem he argues is found with pronominal objects.25

is likely that pronouns of the English type as shown are actually DPs or ϕPs (Rose Marie Déchaine and Martina Wiltschko 2002). Nevertheless, there are assumedly indisputable cases where two heads with lexical material c-command each other. The same issue arises with Nakajima’s proposal below.

25 It

44

2 Theoretical Background

39.

VP V | eat

D | it

Richards states that the same problem doesn’t exist for specifiers, as they asymmetrically c-command the head and complement. He argues that this is responsible for the universal Spec-head order (see also Oishi 2003 above); while much cross-linguistic variation is found in head-complement order. This proposal suffers from some of the same problems discussed elsewhere. Notably, Richards’ problem of symmetrically c-commanding heads is what drives the analysis presented here, accounting for the widespread N+V order in NI constructions. There are some issues that are specific to Richards’ analysis, however. First, it is not quite true that specifiers fail to give rise to LCA violations. A bare head (such as a clitic or lexical root, say) could merge in the specifier of an XP and form a point of symmetric c-command with the next higher head up. In the following example, X and Z form a point of symmetric c-command.26 40.

XP X

YP Z

YP Y

...

Recall that Richards’ observed that the point of symmetric c-command between a head on its complement (when also a head) was problematic for the LCA. This is why he proposed that the order between a head and its complement is parameterized (hence stipulated). Applying the same line of reasoning leads us to posit that the order between X and Z in 40 is also parameterized.27 Another issue with both Oishi’s and Richards’ proposals (though equally problematic with any parameterized headedness based approach) concerns clausal complements. Since Richards’ proposal parameterizes the order between a head and a complement, it is predicted that all complements to V are uniformly to the left or right, depending on the parameter setting. Without any further refinement 26 To

see how this is so, recall that Kayne’s definition of c-command refers to segments of a maximal projection. X c-commands Z because every category that dominates X (namely XP) also dominates Z. Note that YP does not dominate Z since not all segments of YP dominates Z. Thus, Z c-commands X because every category that dominates Z (only XP) also dominates X. 27 40 is also problematic for a traditional Antisymmetric approach, of course. The point here is that Richards’ approach does not completely solve the problem of symmetric c-command that BPS introduces.

2.5

Alternative Accounts of Linearization

45

to the proposal, it is predicted that clausal complements appear to the left of the verb in Germanic OV languages, contrary to fact. I discuss one final concern with Richrards’ proposal with respect to complementizers. Richards’ proposal works nicely for auxiliaries in that it captures the fact that they frequently appear postverbally, from lowest to highest, 41. What the analysis fails to capture is the fact that the complementizer is consistently clause-initial. These facts about German (and other casual OV languages) could be overcome by various movement operations; however, this is exactly what Richards was trying to avoid by dismissing Antisymmetry in favour of the Headedness Parameter. 41.

. . .daß er den Apfel essen that he the apple eat ‘. . .that he has had to eat the apple.’

sollen should

hat has.3SG

Wojdak (2008) proposes an even more strongly derivational account of linearization. For her, each instance of Merge/Move is immediately followed by Spell-Out (see also Epstein et al. 1998). She furthermore distinguishes between two types of linearization conventions. Consider an instance of Merge (α, β). If one of the arguments of the operation Merge is lexically specified as an affix, then it is ordered appropriately before or after the other argument. For instance, if α is a prefix and β is non-affixal, then the order α-β results. If both α and β are prefixal, then the derivation crashes. If neither α nor β is affixal, then linearization is determined by directionality conventions, which are similar to the Headedness Parameter. She proposes that for Merge (α, β), a convention α-initial or α-final stipulates the order. The convention may be universally set for a given language or may vary by category within one and the same language. Note that the affixal properties of a lexical item take precedence over the directionality conventions. In addition to the problems of over generation mentioned above, there are some problems specific to Wojdak’s proposal. In particular, it fails to capture partial mirror effects (in the sense of Baker 1985) in verbal complexes with both prefixes and suffixes. Consider the following Onondaga verbal form. 42.

akhní:no˛ T akopt1.SG . AG ‘I should buy it.’

hnino˛ buy-

T

PUNC

The morphemes involved here are the prefixes for optative mood ( OPT) and agreement, and the aspectual suffix (PUNC). I will discuss clausal structure in more detail in Chapter 4. This order reflects the order of the functional projections in the clausal hierarchy (Mood > Agr > Aspect). More generally, if we assume a clausal hierarchy as in 43, we expect the possible orders in 44, but not those in 45. 43.

CP > MoodP > TP > AspP > vP > VP

46

2 Theoretical Background

44.

a. b. c. d. e. f.

45.

a. b c.

C-Mood-T-Asp-v-V C-Mood-T-Asp-V-v C-Mood-T-V-v -Asp C-Mood-V-v -Asp -T C-V-v -Asp -T -Mood V-v -Asp -T -Mood-C ∗ C-Mood-T-v-V-Asp

∗ C-Mood-Asp-V-v-T ∗ Mood-Asp

-V-v-T-C

The forms in 44 are predicted by Baker’s Mirror Principle. Traditionally, this would be captured by head movement of the verbal head up to progressively higher and higher functional heads, but are also fully compatible with a Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000) approach, where head movement is abandoned in favour of pure phrasal movement. The forms in 45 are predicted as possible under Wojdak’s proposal but are rare or non-existent (see Julien 2002 for in depth discussion). Another smaller problem involves compounding with lexical roots. Wojdak discusses NI in Nuu-chah-nulth, a language with affixal verbal predicates. In Northern Iroquoian and English, it is unclear how linear ordering works. English is clearly SVO and Northern Iroquoian prefers SVO in discourse neutral utterances, although word order is significantly freer in Northern Iroquoian. This suggests that both English and Northern Iroquoian have Merge (V, XP)  V-XP as a directionality convention. It is unclear how the following contrast in English compounds and Northern Iroquoian NI can be achieved in Wojdak’s system. 46.

a. b.

47.

NI in Oneida a. waPkhni:nú: ká:sleht waP-k-hninu-´: FACT -1.SG . AG -buy-PUNC ‘I bought a car.’ b.

John enjoys collecting watches. John enjoys watch-collecting.

waPkePslehtahni:nú: waPkeFACT 1.SG . AG - JOIN ‘I bought a car.’

[Daisy Elijah, speaker] ka-Psleht-Ø 3.SG . NT-car- NFS

Pslehtcar-

aJOIN-

hninubuy-

´: PUNC

It is unlikely that one would want to argue that Psleht is affixal in Oneida and even more so for watch in English. Thus, one has recourse only to the directionality conventions to determine order. Thus, one would have to posit two sets of directionality conventions to account for the data above. Alternatively, one could argue that some movement takes place for these examples, but this is unsatisfying given that

2.5

Alternative Accounts of Linearization

47

Wojdak’s proposal was originally intended to capture ordering effects in NI-type constructions. Given the problems associated with the various proposals above, I do not adopt the proposals of Oishi (2003), Richards (2007) or Wojdak (2008). I go through one final proposal for linearization, which departs significantly from those discussed so far.

2.5.3 Departures from the LCA Nakajima (1999) develops a derivational approach to word order, in which linear order is determined as the derivation proceeds. He adopts Spec-Head-Compl as the base order, but uses a theoretical apparatus substantially different from the LCA. Instead, he appeals to the concepts of ‘label’ and ‘adjunct’ rather than to c-command to formulate his theory of linearization, shown in 48 (Nakajima 1999: 64). 48.

Derivational Linear Precedence Principle (DLPP) When Merge combines items α and β and creates a new term K, either α or β is the leaf of K, and the leaf precedes the other item in temporal order in K.

49.

Leaf When Merge combines items α and β and creates a new term K, α is the leaf of K iff: a. α is the label of K, OR b. α adjoins to K.

50.

Adjunction When Merge combines items α and β and creates a new term K, α is the adjunct of K iff: a. b.

α does not become the label of K, AND β is an already projected term.

Like Kayne’s LCA, these principles establish S-H-C as the base word order. The difference here is that two heads can exist in a configuration of mutual c-command and multiple left-adjunctions to the same functional projection are permitted. One of Nakajima’s motivations for this approach is directly related to the initial merger problem. He notes that under any implementation of the LCA under BPS, a head and its complement symmetrically c-command each other and cannot be linearized.28 He argues that the LCA forces raising of one of two symmetrically c-commanding 28 This

is not quite accurate. Under Uriagereka’s (1999) approach, no point of symmetry arises between a head and a full XP complement. This approach is discussed in full detail in Chapter 3.

48

2 Theoretical Background

heads, and gives English verb phrases such as see it and kick him as evidence that raising is, in fact, not required and therefore that the LCA is not tenable. He adopts Chomsky’s (1995b) assumption that pronouns are bare D heads. There is strong evidence, however, that English pronouns are not simple heads, but rather XPs with internal structure (Rose-Marie Déchaine and Martina Wiltschko 2002). Thus, the English examples that Nakajima offers do not provide clear evidence against the LCA. Clearer examples of pronominals that are simple heads are Romance clitics, which typically must raise from post-verbal position to the IP domain, further calling into question Nakajima’s proposal.

2.6 Conclusion This chapter has presented a brief historical sketch of phrase structure and linearization, and has laid out the properties of BPS and Antisymmetry. In the present work, I make the following assumptions. I adopt the theory of BPS virtually unaltered Chomsky (1994). I also assume the basic ideas of Antisymmetry as proposed by Kayne (1994) and of Dynamic Antisymmetry as proposed by Moro (2000). However, as I have indicated, the implementation of these ideas must be modified in order to bring it into line with BPS. This will be the main order of business in Chapter 2. I have also discussed other proposals for linearization that depart from the basic assumptions of Antisymmetry and have shown that these proposals fail to capture the different behaviour of heads and phrases when they appear in complement position. At the beginning of this chapter I showed that this difference consistently gives rise to word order differences. The theory of phrase structure proposed in the next chapter captures this fact about natural language. This chapter has also outlined various alternative approaches to linearization that do not rely on the LCA or on Kayne’s notion of Antisymmetry. What these proposals all have in common is that they fail to predict the word order effects that arise when a head, as opposed to a phrase, appears in complement position. Namely, they fail to account for the asymmetry in which N+V is more frequent than V+N, while VO and OV are of relatively equal frequency. Oishi’s proposal retains all the original problems of the Headedness Parameter, and Fukui and Takano’s proposal fails to capture the cross-linguistic gaps related to Antisymmetry (discussed above and in Kayne 2003a). Nakajima’s proposal avoids both of these problems, but at the cost of introducing significant additional machinery.

References Aboh, Enoch. 2004. “Snowballing Movement and Generalized Pied-Piping.” In Triggers, edited by Anne Breitbarth, and Henk Van Riemsdijk, 15–48. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Aldridge, Edith. 2003. “Remnant Movement in Tagalog Relative Clause Formation.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (4):631–40. Ambar, Manuela, and Jean-Yves Pollock. 2002. “Topic vs. Comment in Some Subject Inversion Sentences in French and Portuguese.” Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 1 (1):119–38.

References

49

Aoun, Joseph, and Dominique Sportiche. 1983. “On the Formal Theory of Government.” The Linguistic Review 2:211–36. Baauw, Sergio. 1998. “Subject-Verb Inversion in Spanish: Movement as Symmetry Breaker.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 15:1–12. Bach, Emmon. 1968. “Nouns and Noun Phrases.” In Universals in Linguistic Theory, edited by Robert T. Harms Emmon Bach, 91–124. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Baker, Mark C. 1985. “The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation.” Linguistic Inquiry 16 (3):373–416. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Baltin, Mark. 2001. “Movement to the Higher V is Remnant Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (4):653–59. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Jason Brown. 1997. “Interarborial Operations: Head Movement and the Extension Requirement.” Linguistic Inquiry 28 (2):345–56. Boeckx, Cedric, and Sandra Stjepanovi´c. 2001. “Head-ing Toward PF.” Linguistic Inquiry 32 (2):345–55. Boškovi´c, Željko. 2002. “Clitics as Nonbranching Elements and the Linear Correspondence Axiom.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (2):329–40. Broekhuis, Hans. 2006. “The Universal Base Hypothesis: VO or OV?” In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006, edited by Jeroen van de Weijer, and Battelou Los, 28–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Caballero, Gabriela, Michael J. Houser, Nicole Marcus, Teresa McFarland, Anne Phycha, Maziar Toosarvandani, Suzanne Wilhite, and Johanna Nichols. 2008. “Nonsyntactic Ordering Effects in Syntactic Noun Incorporation.” Linguistic Typology 12 (3):383–421. Carstens, Vicki. 2002. “Antisymmetry and Word Order in Serial Constructions.” Language 78 (1):3–50. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Janua Linguarum. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalization.” In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, edited by Roderick Jacobs, and Peter Rosenbaum, 184–221. Washington DC: Georgetown UP. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by Ken Hale, and Samuel J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL. Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. “Bare Phrase Structure.” In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory, edited by Gert Webelhuth, 383–439. Generative Syntax. Oxford; 1. Oxford: Blackwell. Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, edited by Roger Martin, D. Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2004. “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy.” In The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, Structures and Beyond, edited by Adriana Belletti. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On Phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, edited by P. Oltero, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1996. “The ‘Antisymmetric’ Programme: Theoretical and Typological Implications.” Journal of Linguistics 32 (2):447–64.

50

2 Theoretical Background

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Citko, Barbara. 2005. “On the Nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel Merge.” Linguistic Inquiry 36 (4):475–96. Cummings, Constance. 2002. “XP (Remnant) Movement and Verb Serialization in Yoruba.” PhD diss., New York University. Déchaine, Rose Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. “Decomposing Pronouns.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (3):409–42. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Epstein, Samuel, Erich Groat, Ruriko Kawashima, and Hisatsugo Kitahara. 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ernst, Thomas. 2003. “Adjuncts and Word Order Asymmetries.” In Asymmetry in Grammar: Volume I: Syntax and Semantics, edited by Anna Maria di Sciullo, 187–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2003. “Münchhausen-Style Head Movement and the Analysis of Verb Second.” UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 13:40–76. Frank, Robert, and K. Vijay-Shanker. 2001. “Primitive C-Command.” Syntax 4 (3):164–204. Fukui, Naoki, and Yuji Takano. 1998. “Symmetry in Syntax: Merge and Demerge.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7:27–68. Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Guasti, Maria-Teresa, and Andrea Moro. 2001. “Romance Causatives and Dynamic Antisymmetry: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi.” In Current Studies in Italian Syntax, edited by Guglielmo Cinque, and Giampaolo Salvi, 173–88. Amsterdam: North Holland. Guimarães, Maximiliano. 2008. “A Note on the Strong Generative Capacity of Standard Antisymmetry Theory.” Snippets 18:5–7. Haegeman, Liliane. 2000. “Remnant Movement and OV Order.” In The Derivation of VO and OV, edited by Peter Svenonius, 69–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haegeman, Liliane. 2001. Antisymmetry and Verb-Final Order in West Flemish. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3 (3):207–32. Harley, Heidi. 2004. “Merge, Conflation and Head Movement: The First Sister Principle Revisited” In NELS 34, edited by Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf, 239–54. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Hornstein, Norbert, and Jairo Nunes. 2008. “Adjunction, Labelling, and Bare Phrase Structure.” Biolinguistics 2 (1):57–86. Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kandybowicz, Jason, and Mark C. Baker. 2003. “On Directionality and the Structure of the Verb Phrase: Evidence from Nupe.” Syntax 6 (2):115–55. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 2003a. “Antisymmetry and Japanese.” English Linguistics 20:1–40. Kayne, Richard. 2003b. “Antisymmetry, Adpositions and Remnant Movement.” Paper presented at the workshop on Antisymmetry and Remnant Movement, New York University, October 31 – November 1, 2003. Kayne, Richard. 2009. “Why is Syntax Antisymmetric.” Paper presented at the Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Orders, Newcastle University, New Castle, DE. Kayne, Richard. 2010. “Why Are There No Directionality Parameters?” Paper presented at the WCCFL 28, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Koncar, Katarina. 2005. “Living on the edge: Wh-movement in Serbo-Croatian.” MA Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. Koopman, Hilda, and Anna Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kroch, Anthony. 2001. “Syntactic Change.” In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, edited by Mark Baltin, and Chris Collins, 699–729. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lebeaux, David. 1988. “Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar.” PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amhers, MA.

References

51

Lebeaux, David. 1991. “Relative Clauses, Licensing and the Nature of the Derivation.” In Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspective on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, edited by Susan Rothstein, 209–39. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where Does Binding Theory Apply? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lee, Felicia Ann. 2000. “Antisymmetry and the Syntax of San Lucas Quiavini Zapotec.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Mahajan, Anoop. 2003. “Word Order and (Remnant) VP Movement.” In Word Order and Scrambling, edited by Simin Karimi, 217–37. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Massam, Diane. 2000. “VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean Word Order.” In The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, edited by Andrew Carnie, and Eithne Guilfoyle, 97–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matushansky, Ora. 2006. “Head Movement in Linguistic Theory.” Linguistic Inquiry 37 (1): 69–109. doi:10.1162/002438906775321184%U http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10. 1162/002438906775321184. Mithun, Marianne. 1984. “The Evolution of Noun Incorporation.” Language 60 (4):847–94. Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Moro, Andrea. 2004. “Linear Compression as a Trigger for Movement.” In Triggers, edited by Anne Breitbarth, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 387–430. Berlin, New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Moro, Andrea. 2009. “Rethinking Symmetry: A Note on Labelling and the EPP.” Snippets 19:17–8. Müller, Gereon. 1996. “A Constraint on Remnant Movement.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14 (2):355–407. Müller, Gereon. 1997. “Extraposition as Remnant Movement.” In Rightward Movement, edited by Dorothee Deerman, David LeBlanc, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 215–46. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. Müller, Gereon. 2004. “Verb-Second as vP-First.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7 (3):179–234. Nakajima, Takashi. 1999. “Word Order in the Minimalist Program: A Derivational Approach.” PhD diss., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Oda, Kenji. 2003. “Irish as a VP Fronting Language.” In Proceedings of Canadian Linguistic Association 2002. Université de Montréal à Québec. Oda, Kenji. 2005. “V1 and Wh-questions: A typology.” In Verb First: On the Syntax of VerbInitial Languages, edited by Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Sheila Ann Dooley, 107–33. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Oishi, Masayuki. 2003. “When Linearity Meets Bare Phrase Structure.” Current Issues in English Linguistics 2:18–41. Phillips, Colin. 2003. “Linear Order and Constituency.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (1):37–90. Richards, Marc D. 2007. “On Feature Inheritance: An Argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition.” Linguistic Inquiry 38 (3):563–72. Richards, Marc D. 2008. “Desymmetrization: Parametric Variation at the PF Interface.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 53 (2/3):275–300. Richards, Norvin. 1998. “The Principle of Minimal Compliance.” Linguistic Inquiry 29 (4):599–629. Roberts, Ian. 2001. “Head Movement.” In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory edited by Mark Baltin, and Chris Collins, 113–47 Oxford: Blackwell. Rubin, Edward J. 2003. “Determining Pair-Merge.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (4):660–68. Sadock, Jerrold. 1980. “Noun Incorporation in Greenlandic: A Case of Syntactic Word Formation.” Language 56 (2):300–19. Safir, Ken. 1999. “Vehicle Change and Reconstruction in A Chains.” Linguistic Inquiry 30 (4):587–620. Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

52

2 Theoretical Background

Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. “Cyclic Domains in Syntactic Theory.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Stowell, Tim. 1981. “Origins of Phrase Structure.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA. Takano, Yuji. 2000. “Illicit Remnant Movement: An Argument for Feature-Driven Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry 31 (1):141–56. Toyoshima, Takashi. 2000. “Head-To-Spec Movement and Dynamic Economy.” PhD diss., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Travis, Lisa de Mena. 1989. “Parameters of Phrase Structure.” In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, edited by Mark Baltin, and Anthony Kroch, 263–79. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. “Multiple Spell Out.” In Working Minimalism, edited by Samuel Epstein, and Norbert Hornstein, 251–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Dissertations in Linguistics. (DiLi). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Wojdak, Rachel. 2008. The Linearization of Affixes: Evidence from Nuu-Chah-Nulth. New York, NY/Berlin: Springer. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997. “The Germanic SOV Languages and the Universal Base Hypothesis.” In The New Comparative Syntax, edited by Liliane Haegeman, 246–67. London, New York: Longman Linguistics Library.

Chapter 3

Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

In this chapter, I discuss the challenges involved in unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure (BPS) and develop a proposal that captures the insights of both theories. There are two problems in formulating a theory of phrase structure which retains the core properties of both Antisymmetry and BPS. The first has to do with the theoretical framework in which Antisymmetry was developed, namely X-Bar Theory. Kayne’s original formulation does not translate into BPS in a straightforward way. As will become clear, choices have to be made about how to reformulate the LCA under BPS. I will consider various proposals for this as I proceed. The second problem deals with a particular aspect of BPS that seems irreconcilable with Antisymmetry, namely the initial merger of two heads. When two heads are merged at the outset of a derivation, they c-command each other, in violation of the LCA. I refer to this as the Initial Merger Problem. This chapter is organized as follows. In the first section, I outline the problem of mutual c-command inherent to BPS. In the second section I review some previous attempts to bring Antisymmetry and BPS to line with each other. In the third section, I discuss how the LCA can be restated within BPS. In the fourth section, I develop the core proposal of this chapter, in which the principles of Dynamic Antisymmetry come into play. The fifth section discusses some alternative proposals for linearization that are independent of the LCA. The sixth section discusses how the proposal works under a Late Insertion framework. The last section is a summary and conclusion.

3.1 The Problem of Mutual C-Command Antisymmetry was originally formulated to derive the effects of X-bar theory. With the elimination of X-bar theory from UG in favour of BPS (Chomsky 1994), certain aspects of Antisymmetry must be re-examined. Consider first the very outset of a derivation. There is nothing in the work space, so Merge must select two lexical items (i.e., two heads) from the Lexicon to undergo Merge. The following example shows the merger of two heads, α and β.

M. Barrie, Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 84, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_3,  C Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

53

54

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

1.

Note that this representation was originally ruled out in Kayne (1994). Kayne’s original reason for prohibiting structures like 1 was his attempt to derive the principles of X-bar Theory, which did not permit heads in specifier1 or complement position. This type of structure, however, is permissible, and indeed unavoidable in BPS at the outset of a derivation. The problem, of course, is that the two heads c-command each other, in violation of the LCA. Thus, no linear order can be established between these two heads. This is what I will refer to as the Initial Merger Problem. This, of course, is not the first time this problem has been noted. As we will see below Chomsky (1995b) noted the problem and Guimarães (2000) discussed it in more detail in a short paper. Symmetric structures such as this were the foundation of Moro’s (2000) Dynamic Antisymmetry. What I argue here is that the Initial Merger Problem and BPS in general necessitates a re-thinking of Antisymmetry. This is the topic of the remainder of this chapter. First, however, I discuss some previous accounts.

3.2 Previous Accounts Chomsky (1995b) and Alexiadou (1997) both consider the Initial Merger Problem briefly and propose that it serves as a triggers movement. I discuss their contributions here, noting that said contributions are limited to the domains in which they were developed. The goal here is to come up with a general solution to the problem and, indeed, to come up with a way in which both the LCA and BPS can be maintained. Following the discussion on Chomsky’s and Alexiadou’s proposals, I discuss the use of Self-Merge (Guimarães 2000; Kayne 2009) to overcome the Initial Merger Problem and point out several problems with this approach. The section ends with a brief introduction to Nunes & Uriagereka’s and Richards’ proposals to bringing these two theories in line with each other. They will be evaluated against each other in Section 3.3, so my remarks on them here are brief. Chomsky (1995b: 337) noticed the Initial Merger Problem early on, in a brief discussion of Romance clitics. Chomsky had already suggested that the LCA is a PF constraint, and that violations of it can be tolerated in the syntactic component, as long as they are repaired before PF. The particular situation Chomsky was discussing involved Romance clitics, which are generally believed to raise to the IP

1 Other

researchers have actively relied on non-branching specifiers and complements. Boškovi´c (2002), for instance, proposes that syntactic clitics are obligatorily non-branching elements that appear as either the specifier or complement of a functional projection.

3.2

Previous Accounts

55

domain (Kayne 1989, 1991).2 A typical scenario is shown in the Spanish example below, where the verbal form quiero (‘I want’) selects a bare D clitic te (2. SG). In example 2, the verb and the clitic are in a mutual c-command relation, and thus cannot be linearized. Chomsky suggests that the clitic te raises to the IP domain and escapes symmetric c-command. Example 3 shows a typical analysis of leftward head-adjunction of the clitic to Infl, which was fairly standard at the time and remains so to this day (although see Roberts 2010 for another up-to-date view). 2.

VP V

D

quiero

te

3.

‘I love you.’

IP pro

I’

Imin Dj te

VP I

Vi

I

V

D

ti

tj

quiero

Under the framework being developed here, however, head movement is unavailable. The preceding discussion shows how the problem of the linearization of Romance clitics might be solved, but does not provide a general solution to the problem of the initial merger of two heads since the two heads undergoing initial merger will not always be a verb and a pronominal clitic.3 Alexiadou (1997: 31), addressing the Initial Merger Problem, proposes to remedy it by any kind of the leftward movement of the non-projecting element. She considers the case of a bare verbal root symmetrically c-commanding a bare adverbial head versus a branching adverbial phrase and proposes that the structure of the adverbial 2 See Uriagereka (1995a, 1995b) for arguments for a functional projection, FP, which hosts clitics in western Romance. There is also a large literature that suggests that pronominal clitics in Romance are base-generated in their surface position (Burzio 1986; Jaeggli 1986; Strozer 1976; Roberge 1990), thus obviating the problem. 3 Note that the facts are not as simple as they’re made out to be here. There are different kinds of pronouns in Romance, some of which behave as clitics as mentioned here, others of which can function independently. Both kinds have different distributions. Obviously, a full-scale study of the linearization of pronominal elements in Romance is beyond the scope of this monograph. See Moro (2000) for discussion.

56

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

is responsible for the linearization properties of the verb and adverbial. Consider the contrast in the following Greek examples.4 4.

a.

b.

c.

d.

O Janis DET John ‘John behaves well.’ O Janis DET John ‘John behaves well.’ ferete poli behaves very ‘He behaves well.’ ∗ kalo-ferete well-behaves (‘He behaves well.’)

ferete behaves

kal-a well-ADV

kalo-ferete well-behaves kala well poli very

Alexiadou argues that bare adverbs are selected directly by the verbal root, giving rise to the following structure. 5.

VP V

A

ferete

kalo

She then argues that the adverb undergoes head movement and adjoins to V to satisfy the LCA. She likens adverb incorporation to NI and proposes that both take place to satisfy a similar set of licensing conditions, of which satisfying the LCA is only one part. She also appeals to the defective nature of the IN and the adverb that undergoes incorporation to drive this process. Ultimately, my proposal here is clearly in line with much of Alexiadou’s discussion; however, there are additional complications involved with both the LCA and BPS and how they can be brought in line with each other. This will form much of the discussion in the following section, but first I turn to some additional previous work on this topic. I now turn to three specific accounts of Antisymmetry which specifically acknowledge its incompatibility with BPS. The first is that of Guimarães (2000), which looks specifically at the Initial Merger Problem. Guimarães’ solution is to admit unary branching (i.e., non-branching structures) in order to avoid LCA violations. The second is that of Uriagereka (1999), and Nunes and Uriagereka (2000). They propose that only terminal elements (essentially, heads) participate in the 4 Alexiadou (p. 3) notes that the -a morpheme is an adverbial marker in Greek (akin to -ly in English). She does not explicitly mention the function of the -o marker in the incorporated forms.

3.2

Previous Accounts

57

LCA. As a result, all specifiers must undergo Spell-Out, thereby becoming islands for movement. I will show that this proposal suffers from problems as there are undeniable cases of movement out of some specifiers. Finally, Richards’ (2001) proposal, which most closely approximates the proposal put forth here, reformulates the LCA so that it retains the core tenets of BPS, but with fewer problems than that of Uriagereka’s and Nunes and Uriagereka’s proposal. He proposes that all nodes participate in the evaluation of the LCA. I now turn to the discussion these three proposals.

3.2.1 Guimarães (2000) and Self-Merge Guimarães (2000) acknowledges the paradox described in the second chapter concerning the apparent incompatibility of BPS and Antisymmetry. His solution is to allow for non-branching or vacuous projections in order to avoid symmetric c-command. He suggests that vacuous projections are fully compatible with BPS, thus allowing the computational component to retain the essence of that theory, while still satisfying Antisymmetry. His argument proceeds as follows. The operation, Merge, takes two objects, α and β, and places them in a single complex structure, K, with label γ such that K = {γ, {α, β}}. Nothing in this definition precludes α and β from being identical, however. In other words, an element, α, can merge with itself (Self-Merge).5 Guimarães, in fact, argues that in the absence of evidence against Self-Merge, to exclude it from UG would be an unwarranted stipulation. Once α undergoes Self-Merge we obtain the following set: K = {γ, {α, α}}. Note that the set {α, α} is identical to the set {α}, following the Extensionality Axiom of Set Theory (Partee et al. 1993).6 Consequently, when α merges with itself, it in fact forms the set K={γ, {α}}. The following example illustrates Self-Merge with a hypothetical verb selecting a bare noun. In this case, the noun has undergone Self-Merge. 6.

VP V

NP N

In order to prevent Self-Merge from taking place all over the derivation, Guimarães assumes, following Collins (1997) and Chomsky (2000), that Merge is costly.7 Thus, 5 Note that Self-Merge is just a label of convenience. Guimarães does not intend for the term to refer to an operation distinct from Merge. 6 This axiom states that if a given element appears more than once in the same set, then this set is equivalent to an otherwise identical set in which the element in question appears only once. 7 Recently, however, Chomsky (2008) assumes that not only is Merge free, but that Move is free, too. If so, some other restriction on Self-Merge would have to exist. Furthermore, Chomsky

58

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

Self-Merge (and Merge in general) can take place only when required by the derivation. Since Self-Merge is required only to ensure that the LCA can linearize that part of the derivation created by the initial merger of two heads, it is predicted that it will take place only in this situation, that is, only at the very beginning of the derivation, when two heads would otherwise be merged (although see below). Related to Guimarães’ proposal is Kayne’s (2009), which proposes that SelfMerge is constrained by a different property of grammar. Specifically, only lexical categories, which constitute an open class, can undergo Self-Merge. Kayne adopts Collins’ (2005) proposal that only uninterpretable/unvalued features can be the locus of parametric variation. Furthermore, Kayne adopts Chomsky’s (2001) proposal that unvalued features must be valued immediately upon entering the derivaiton. If this is true, then items which undergo Self-Merge cannot bear uninterpretable features, which means that items that undergo Self-Merge cannot be the locus of parametric variation. Assuming that the set of parameters is finite, then the set of items that cannot undergo Self-Merge is a closed set and the set of items that can is an open set (i.e., lexical categories). Kayne further proposes that only nouns are lexical categories. Verbs are either true light verbs (assumedly verbs like do or make) or are derived from nouns (such as laugh). Thus, Kayne essentially argues for the structure in example 6 as well; however, he argues that Self-Merge happens whenever there is a noun in the derivation. The Initial Merger Problem is taken care of by assuming that a noun must be one of the two elements that kick-starts the derivation. I make note of the following observations on these two related proposals first. Note that Guimarães’ approach requires substantial look-ahead on the part of the grammar. He invokes the notion of invasive interfaces (Boeckx 1999), which ‘look down’ into the derivation and effect changes to satisfy constraints at the interface. Thus, as the LCA is a PF constraint, PF can effect changes at an earlier stage of the derivation so that when the derivation reaches PF, it does not violate LCA (or any other PF constraint). Invasive interfaces, then, is the antithesis of Procrastinate (Chomsky 1993). I show below, however, that Guimarães’ implementation of the principle of invasive interfaces is problematic in several regards. Turning to Kayne’s proposal, I observe that it drastically alters our understanding of lexical categories and the noun-verb distinction. He notes that under his proposal the categorizing head n can be dispensed with. Although this proposal prevents the Initial Merger Problem from taking hold with respect to a verb taking a nominal complement, it fails to prevent the same problem when the verb takes and adverbial complement (in the sense of Larson 2004). These are attested in Greek, as shown above (Alexiadou 1997; Rivero 1992), Chukchi (Spencer 1995) and in Blackfoot, based on the following example (Frantz 1991).8

suggests that Merge does not take place to satisfy unvalued features, since these can be valued long-distance by Agree. Rather, Merge takes place to satisfy a poorly understood Edge Feature (EF). Assumedly, EF cannot be satisfied by Self-Merge, however. See Kayne (2009a) for further discussion. 8 I discuss the Blackfoot facts in more detail in Chapter 5.

3.2

7.

Previous Accounts

59

nitsikkamiyowatsi nitIkkamiy1fastØ‘I ate the apple quickly.’

owateat.TR-

tsi MOOD

One would have to amend Kayne’s proposal to include adverbs with nouns to account for what is essentially the same problem and same set of empirical facts. Self-Merge, itself, also presents an array of problems. First, Guimarães assumes that the LCA is a PF phenomenon, violations of which are repaired in the syntax as per invasive interfaces. There is a look-ahead problem with this approach, however. If the LCA is not computed until PF, violations of it should be tolerable in the narrow syntax, as long as they are taken care of promptly (i.e., before PF). This is not Guimarães’ solution, however. The PF violation (namely the LCA violation) never exists in the syntax. Steps are taken (namely Self-Merge) to ensure that the violation never happen to begin with. It is unclear, then, exactly how the LCA is a PF constraint under Guimarães’ approach. Guimarães is concerned only with the Initial Merger Problem; however, there is another situation in which two heads appear in a situation of symmetric c-command other than at the start of the derivation. Consider the following hypothetical structure, in which the specifier of XP is a head, Z. There is no violation of the LCA here as Z asymmetrically c-commands X, and X asymmetrically c-commands the material inside YP.9 Thus, no Self-Merge can take place at this point following either Guimarães’ or Kayne’s proposals (assuming Z is not nominal). 8.

XP Z

XP X

YP

Now, if another head, W, merges with XP, a problem arises as W and X are in a symmetric c-command relation. 9.

WP W

XP Z

XP X

YP

9 That Z asymmetrically c-commands X is not entirely obvious. First, it is clear that X does not c-command Z since it is not the case that every category that dominates X also dominates Z. Specifically, XP dominates X but does not dominate Z since not every segment of XP dominates Z. Now, in order to see how Z c-commands X we must realize that the condition that every category that dominates Z also dominate X is vacuously satisfied since there are no categories that dominate Z. The discussion below elaborates this point.

60

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

At this point, one could simply stipulate that the specifier and complement positions are available only to XPs (be it formed in the traditional manner or by Self-Merge). This, however, is simply a notational variant of X-Bar Theory and lacks any independent motivation. If we push Gruimarães’ proposal, though, one might presume that W must undergo Self-Merge before undergoing Merge with XP since the grammar would detect an impending LCA violation after simple merger of a bare W. Consider the structure resulting from such Self-Merge in example 10. 10.

?P WP W

XP Z

XP X

YP

It is unclear what element would project in this phrase marker, but let us consider both possibilities in turn. If W projects (?P = WP), then XP and Z both asymmetrically c-command W, giving rise to the incorrect linear order. If X projects (?P = XP), then WP asymmetrically c-commands Z, giving rise to <W, Z> and Z asymmetrically c-commands W (vacuously as described above), giving rise to a contradiction. Thus, Self-Merge of W does not salvage the situation. Since Z is the cause of the problem, a solution along the lines of what Guimarães proposes would involve Self-Merge of Z. However, this would require even more look-ahead than described above. Z would have to know that the XP it is about to become a specifier of will itself eventually merge with another head, W here, that has phonological content. This requires more foresight than one would wish to endow UG with. In other words, the decision to undergo Self-Merge should be made locally (Collins 1997). 11.

WP W

XP ZP Z

XP X

YP

Having dispensed with Guimarães’ mechanism of Self-Merge as a solution to the Initial Merger Problem (and a fortiori Kayne’s proposal on Antisymmetry and the noun-verb distinction), I now turn to Nunes and Uriagereka’s treatment of the LCA within a BPS framework.

3.2.2 Nunes and Uriagereka (2000) Nunes and Uriagereka (2000) and Uriagereka (1999) analyze CED effects (Huang 1982) within an Antisymmetric and Minimalist framework and develop a theory of

3.3

The LCA and BPS

61

Multiple Spell-Out to account for them. They, too, note the incompatibility of the LCA and BPS and propose the following reformulation of the LCA. 12.

LCA = A lexical item α precedes a lexical item β iff α asymmetrically c-commands β. (Nunes and Uriagereka 2000: 23)

The crucial difference between the version of the LCA in example 12 and the original version in Kayne (1994) is that the LCA in 12 applies to heads rather than to categories. I will compare the empirical effects of this and Richards’ proposal below in Section 3.3 as both proposals will be evaluated against the same set of data.

3.2.3 Richards (2001) Richards (2001) assumes that the LCA is evaluated over all nodes in the tree (or syntactic objects in the BPS sense), in contrast to Kayne’s original proposal, where the LCA was evaluated among all non-terminal nodes (and Nunes and Uriagereka’s proposal, where the LCA is evaluated over all terminal nodes, or heads). Richards’ assumptions about linearization are as follows (Richards 2001: 2). 13.

Spell-Out considers the set A of pairs of asymmetrically c-commanding XPs and Xs in the tree which the syntax gives it, and generates from this a set of instructions for linearization; if <α, β> is in A, then the image of α (that is, the terminals dominated by α) precedes the image of β.

Again, this has significant empirical consequences that I outline in Section 3.3.

3.2.4 Conclusion In the previous two sections, I considered three possible ways to solve the problem of mutually c-commanding heads. Guimarães (2000) and Kayne (2009) proposed to permit vacuous projections in phrase structure, essentially modifying BPS but leaving the basic tenets of Antisymmetry unchanged. I have shown, however, that this move is unsatisfactory in several regards. I also very briefly introduced Nunes and Uriagereka’s and Richards’ proposals. The difference between these two proposals is that Nunes and Uriagereka version of the LCA is evaluated only among heads, whereas Richards’ version of the LCA is evaluated among all syntactic objects. The details will be spelled out in the forthcoming sections. I will show that Richards’ version of the LCA, in which all syntactic objects are considered in the evaluation of the LCA, captures the empirical facts in a more straightforward way.

3.3 The LCA and BPS There have been several attempts to recast the LCA within BPS, given that the LCA was originally formulated in an X-bar theoretic framework (Epstein et al. 1998; Guimarães 2000; Nunes and Uriagereka 2000; Oishi 2003; Uriagereka 1999;

62

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

Richards 2001; Richards 2008). I discuss here Kayne’s original formulation of the LCA within the context of BPS. First, it is clear that the structure in example 14 is not a valid phrase marker in BPS, as there is no inherent distinction between a minimal projection and a terminal in this framework. For instance, there is no distinction between C and c, for example. This structure also contains unary branching, which is ruled out in BPS (see the discussion in Section 3.2.1 above). 14.

DP D d

BP AP

BP

A

B

CP

a

b

C c

Instead, let us consider the phrase marker in 15, where I assume, for now, that AP and CP have internal structure. 15.

DP d

BP BP

AP …a…

b

CP …c…

If A is defined in terms of non-terminals (that is, where A consists of a set of ordered pairs <α, β>, α and β non-terminals, and α asymmetrically c-commands β) we run into serious problems very quickly. In 15, AP asymmetrically c-commands CP, but BP does not enter into a c-command relation with anything.10 Thus, the only ordering of non-terminals is {<AP, CP>}, which gives rise to the non-total ordering {}. Furthermore, if another head is merged with DP, as in 16, no new orderings are computable. 16.

EP e

DP d

BP AP …a…

BP b

CP … c…

10 Recall that for Kayne (1994), c-command is a relation that holds only among non-terminals, not

among the lexical heads themselves.

3.3

The LCA and BPS

63

Since a formulation of the LCA in terms of non-terminals does not result in a usable system, that is, it does not give a total ordering of heads, let us consider various alternatives. The LCA can be reformulated in terms of terminals, or heads, which is the approach taken by Uriagereka (1999) and Nunes and Uriagereka (2000). There is another logical possibility, namely, that in which the LCA is reformulated in terms of all nodes (or syntactic objects) in the tree (Richards 2001). I will consider both of these approaches, and, ultimately, will adopt the all-nodes approach of Richards (2001). Let us consider first a reformulation of the LCA in which A is determined by the set of syntactic objects in the tree, and d(A) is reformulated accordingly. I use the term syntactic object as defined by Chomsky (1995a). A syntactic object is any lexical item (LI) drawn from the lexicon or any set, {α, {α, β}} such that α and β are syntactic objects (i.e., the merger of two syntactic objects). 17.

A = the set of ordered pairs {<X, Y>} such that X and Y are syntactic objects and X asymmetrically c-commands Y.

18.

d(A) is the mapping from A to the set of ordered heads {<x, y>}, such that x is dominated by X and y is dominated by Y.

Note, however, that Kayne’s (1994) definition of c-command, repeated in 19, cannot be used here, since it was defined for categories (XPs) only. 19.

X c-commands Y iff X and Y are categories, and X excludes Y and every category that dominates X dominates Y. (Kayne, 1994: 18).

I therefore adopt the revised definition for c-command in 20, which does not limit the relation to XPs, but rather is defined for all syntactic objects in the tree. 20.

x c-commands y iff x and y are syntactic objects, and x excludes y and every category that dominates x dominates y.

If we reconsider the tree in 16, we observe the following results for A and d(A), where d(A) reduces to the linear order <e, d, a, b, c>. This gives us the desired results, namely a total, irreflexive, non-contradictory ordering of the terminals of the phrase marker. 21.

A = {(e, d), (e, BP), (e, AP), (e, a), (e, b), (e, CP), (e, c), (d, a), (d, b), (d, CP), (d, c), (AP, b), (AP, CP), (AP, c), (b, c)}

22.

d(A) = {(e, d), (e, a), (e, b), (e, c), (d, a), (d, b), (d, c), (a, b), (a, c), (b, c)}

We now turn to the other logical possibility in which A is defined solely in terms of heads. First, note that stating the LCA in terms of heads alone has a certain appeal since it reduces the number of ordered pairs that must be considered. Also, PF must ultimately produce a linear order of heads, not phrases; it therefore seems reasonable to state the LCA in terms of heads. Consider the following definition for the set A.

64

23.

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

A is the set {<X, Y>} of all ordered pairs of heads such that X asymmetrically c-commands Y.

Let us first consider a simpler version of example 15, without any specifiers. This is shown in 24. 24.

DP d

AP a

BP b

CP …c…

Under this definition of the LCA, the set A consists of the following set of ordered pairs, {, , , , , } which give the linear order . Note that under this approach there is no need to make reference to the image of A, d(A). The LCA can therefore be re-stated as in 25, which is essentially Nunes and Uriagereka’s (2000) definition for the LCA. 25.

A is a linear ordering of T, where T is the set of all heads.

Let us now turn to complex specifiers, as in 26. I consider atomic specifiers (specifiers consisting only of a head) later. 26.

DP d

BP AP a

BP FP

…f…

b

CP …c…

The structure of AP itself is identical to that of BP in 24 above. The linearization of AP thus occurs in the same manner, giving the order . There is, however, no c-command relation between either of the heads a and f inside AP and any of the other heads in the phrase structure below the specifier position (i.e., b or lower). This is because nothing inside the specifier c-commands out of the specifier, since only heads can enter into a c-command relation. Thus, linear order cannot be established between the heads a and f of AP, and the rest of the structure. Although d asymmetrically c-commands the material inside AP, this is not sufficient to allow for a total ordering. Based on the mechanism developed so far, the set A for the structure in 26 would appear as in 27, which would then reduce to the six possible orderings shown

3.3

The LCA and BPS

65

in 28. Since A does not give rise to a total, irreflexive, non-contradictory ordering, the phrase structure in 26 cannot be linearized, and the derivation crashes at the PF interface. 27.

A = {, , , , , }

28.



Uriagereka (1999) recognizes this problem and proposes that complex XPs must undergo Spell-Out before merging into the specifier position of another phrase. Thus, the derivation must permit Multiple Spell-Out, with Spell-Out taking place each time a complex XP is merged into specifier position. Thus, the AF node in example 26 undergoes Spell-Out before it is merged in the specifier position of BP. typeface in the forthcoming examples. When d This is represented by the merges with BP the result is the structure in 29, where AP has undergone Spell-Out and is internally linearized. 29.

DP d

BP BP b

CP …c…

At this point, Uriagereka does not decide how AP is linearized with the rest of the structure. He offers two choices. Either AP is somehow linearized before b and after d, as the phrase marker suggests, or the linearization of the Spelled-Out element is not handled by syntax, but rather by some performance system. Uriagereka pursues the latter option, but does not give a definitive account.11 Multiple Spell-Out as conceived above has empirical consequences as discussed by Uriagereka (1999), Nunes and Hornstein (2000) and Nunes (2004). They argue that it captures CED effects (Huang 1982) as shown in the pair of sentences in 30. The explanation goes as follows. The DP [a picture of who] is the complement of the verb in 30a. When wh-movement takes place, this DP has not yet been Spelled Out since it is not in a specifier position. Thus the wh-phrase who is free to raise. In 30b, on the other hand, the DP [a picture of who] is a derived subject in SpecTP. Before the DP moves into specifier position it undergoes Spell-Out. This DP, {a, }, is then effectively frozen for further operations (but see below).

11 Note that we cannot simply treat AP as an atomic element (i.e., treat it as though it were a head)

because it’s in a symmetric c-command relation with d. The resolution of symmetric c-command is discussed below.

66

30.

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

CED Effects in English a. b.

Whoi ∗ Who i

did Ashleigh put a picture of ti on the wall? was [a picture of ti ]j put tj on the wall?

Multiple Spell-Out, as developed by Uriagereka (1999), Nunes and Uriagereka (2000), and Nunes (2004), seems to account nicely for subject island effects. Following Cinque (1999), adjuncts are taken to be specifiers of separate functional projections in the main structure of the clause. Thus, this approach classifies adjuncts and specifiers together and predicts that they block extraction (see the papers cited above for more discussion on the full range of CED effects). Thus, if we were to accept Uriagereka and Nunes’s proposal, we would have a viable reformulation of the LCA within BPS and capture CED effects for free. We will see below, however, that this approach undergenerates. The formulation of A in terms of heads alone, aside from being theoretically more motivated, appears to account elegantly for CED effects. However, the account proves to be overly simplistic as follows: Under this approach, extraction from a specifier should never be permitted. This clearly cannot be the case however if we consider the following data.12 31.

Extraction from a Specifier a. b.

Which room did John talk to his brother in t? Who did John talk to t in the kitchen?

Both sentences in 31 are grammatical. Let us investigate standard proposals on these structures in light of Nunes and Uriagereka’s approach. Under an analysis that assumes that the locative PP is in the specifier of a functional projection, along the lines of Cinque (1999; 2010), we would predict that the first sentence is ungrammatical, while the second sentence is grammatical, contrary to fact since both are grammatical. Consider the structure in 32, in which the locative PP appears in the specifier of a LocP.13 I assume for simplicity that the PP complement of the verb raises to some licensing position (Koizumi 1995; Lasnik 1995). Koizumi and Lasnik, of course, dealt mainly with DP complements, however. Since I ultimately reject the Multiple Spell-Out approach taken here I do not delve into the details of the placement of DP (and PP) complements any further.

12 Another approach to these adjuncts which is commonly (and tacitly) assumed is that they are not

subject to the LCA and are right-adjoined in the traditional manner. Under Nunes and Uriagereka’s approach, such adjuncts are still not linearizable with the rest of the structure, so the following discussion still holds. 13 Note that I have followed a traditional analysis that uses head movement since a remnant movement or PF head movement account of these facts is beyond the scope of this monograph.

3.3

The LCA and BPS

32.

67

CP DPi

CP

which C room didj

IP DPk

IP

John

I

vP

tj tk

vP

v

XP

talkl

PPm

XP

to his X brother

LocP PP

LocP

in ti Loc

VP tm

V tl

In this structure, both the locative PP and the direct object appear in specifier positions, and thus are required to undergo Multiple Spell-Out, and will be unavailable for subextraction. Crucially for us, however, the locative PP should not allow subextraction and the Multiple Spell-Out analysis, coupled with a Cinquean view of locative adjuncts, incorrectly predicts that this sentence should be ungrammatical. Alternatively, we could adopt a Larsonian VP shell for structures such as these, in which the ‘adjunct’ is the complement of the lower V head. Now we predict that the first sentence is grammatical and that the second sentence is ungrammatical, again contrary to fact. Consider this time the structure in 33. 33.

CP DPi

CP

which room C

IP

did DP John

IP I

vP v talk

VP PP

to his brother V

VP PP in

tj

68

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

Here, the locative PP can be freely extracted from since it is not a specifier; however, the complement PP, to his brother, which is in a specifier position, is not available for subextraction, contrary to fact. Curiously, if the locative PP is absent, then subextraction from the complement PP is predicted to be grammatical, since it would then appear in a complement position, rather than in a specifier. Thus, even if I explain this conundrum, the Multiple Spell-Out approach outlined above predicts the existence of a language that differs in the extraction possibilities of the object depending on the presence or absence of VP level adjuncts in the clause as discussed for 33 above. So far as I know, no such language exists. Thus, under any view of the structure of clauses with locative PP adjuncts, Nunes and Uriagereka’s approach is untenable.14, 15 To be sure, consider the following example that drives the nail in the coffin for this approach. Here, both PPs have been extracted from, which should be impossible under the Multiple Spell-Out approach. Which roomi was Johnj talked to tj in ti ?

34.

Stepanov (2001a; 2001b; 2007) argues that CED effects are not a unitary phenomenon. Instead, he argues that the impossibility of extracting from subjects and from adjuncts requires two different explanations. Part of the empirical support for this approach lies in the vast array of cross-linguistic variation with respect to extraction from subjects, while extraction from adjuncts is by and large uniformly disallowed in natural language (although see Truswell 2007 for a discussion on the possibility of extraction from adjuncts). Stepanov argues that the impossibility of extracting from subjects in English is due to the fact that subjects are moved constituents (see below for details).16 What I would like to concentrate on here is the impossibility of extracting from subjects. As Stepanov points out, there is a great deal of cross-linguistic variation here. The generalization that he derives is that extraction is possible from subjects only in those languages where the subject remains in situ. Consider the following examples (Stepanov 2007, (1a) English and (23a) Turkish, respectively).

14 See

also Sheehan (2009) for additional arguments against Nunes and Uriagereka.

15 One could conceivably argue that both analyses above are possible and that somehow the choice

is made that will give rise to a convergent derivation. It is possible to show that extraction from both positions can happen simultaneously. Consider the following sentence. i.

Which roomj was Johni spoken to ti in tj ?

This sentence, while slightly odd, is still acceptable. Ultimately, one of the two PPs from which the nominal is sub-extracted must appear in a specifier position. 16 Stepanov also argues that adjuncts are added to the derivation post-cyclically (following Lebeaux 1988; Speas 1990). By the time the adjunct is added post-cyclically, it is too late for one of its subconstituents to be extracted and raised to the specifier of a higher probe. By then, the probe and goal are in separate phases.

3.3

35.

The LCA and BPS

69

Variation in sub-extraction from subjects ∗ Who does [a picture of t ] [ t hang on the wall? a. j j i vP i b. [Opi [Ahmet-in ti git-me-si]-nin ben-i go-INF - AGR - GEN I-ACC Ahmet- GEN üz-dü-˘g-ü ev house sadden- PST- COMP - AGR Lit. ‘the house [which [that Ahmet went to __ ] saddened me]’

While the extraction of who in the English example in 35a is ungrammatical, as expected, the extraction of relativization in the Turkish example in 35b is wellformed (which the English counterpart is ungrammatical). Stepanov shows that the subject remains in situ in the Turkish data under consideration. These data support Stepanov’s claim that extraction out of a moved constituent is barred. This makes an interesting prediction about extraction from the subjects of stage- and individuallevel predicates. Kratzer (1995) argues that subjects of individual-level predicates are merged in the IP domain, not predicate-internally. If Stepanov’s proposal is correct, extraction from the subject of an individual-level predicate should be possible in principle, although other factors might result in degraded judgments. The data in 36 support Stepanov’s proposal.17 36.

Extraction out of Subjects of Individual-Level Predicates a. Who would naked pictures of be funny to look at? b. Which continent are the animals on generally quite ferocious? c. The people from that city are cold. d. Which city are the people from cold?

In 36a and b, the subject has been extracted from with individual-level predicates. The predicate in c is ambiguous between a stage-level reading (where ‘cold’ refers to body temperature) and an individual-level reading (where ‘cold’ refers to temperament and means roughly ‘unfeeling’). However, once the subject is extracted from as in d, only the individual-level reading is available. Stepanov accounts for these facts as follows. Assuming the copy theory of movement, PF must delete lower identical copies of moved constituents. Stepanov also 17 The judgments aren’t as clear cut as one would hope. Many examples are significantly degraded,

although still not as ungrammatical as the stage-level counterparts. i. ?∗ What are books about interesting? ii. ?∗ What is a book about interesting? iii. ∗ What is a book about on the table? iv. What is there a book about on the table? I am not sure what accounts for the degraded status of i. and ii., perhaps the type of DP plays a role; however, the generalization still holds that extraction from subjects of individual-level predicates is less degraded than extraction from subjects of stage-level predicates.

70

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

assumes an operation, Scan, which evaluates chains for identity at PF. Extracting an element from a moved constituent destroys the identity relation in the original movement, as shown below. 37. [who] was [a picture of who] taken [a picture of who]

In 37, Stepanov argues that deletion under identity at PF can happen in either of two orders: first the lower copy of a picture of who can delete, then the lower copy of who can delete (38 and 39, respectively). 38.

[who] was [a picture of who] taken [a picture of who]

39.

[who] was [a picture of who] taken [a picture of who]

Alternatively, the lower copy of who can delete first, but then we run into a problem, because the lower copy of a picture of who is now distinct from the higher copy, which is now, a picture of who. 40.

[who] was [a picture of who] taken [a picture of who]

41.

[who] was [a picture of who] taken [a picture of who]  crash

Stepanov argues that the operation Scan takes place all at once. Under this view, Stepanov claims, Scan is unable to evaluate the identity or lack thereof of the two copies of a picture of who because the two copies are at once identical and nonidentical, pending deletion of who in the higher copy. Since Scan cannot operate on this derivation, it crashes. There is a problem with this approach, however, with respect to chain formation at PF for deletion purposes. Consider again the input to PF before deletion. Who actually forms a three-member chain. It is true that one of the chains is part of a larger chain since the lower two instances of who are located inside links of the chain formed by the two instances of a picture of who, but if we assume that Scan looks through the derivation for identical copies, it will find all three copies of who and mark the lower two for deletion. 42.

[who] was [a picture of who] taken [a picture of who]

43.

[who] was [a picture of who] taken [a picture of who]

There is no problem, then, in forming a chain from the two instance of a picture of who, since the two copies are now identical. There is, of course, no problem if Scan evaluates the chain for a picture of who first, as described above. Thus, it does not in fact matter which chain is evaluated first. The output is the same in both cases, and this sentence is incorrectly predicted to be grammatical.

3.4

Proposal

71

Finally, I note the following data, which shows that sub-extraction from nominals moved a short distance is possible (and, in reference to the discussion above that sub-extraction from specifiers is possible). In the following example, the passivized object is raised to a low position (Rezac 2006) but, nonetheless, still allows subextraction. 44.

Whoj were there [XP [naked pictures of tj ]i [VP plastered ti all over town]?

Despite the problems with Stepanov’s analysis, he clearly shows that CED effects cannot be treated as a unitary phenomenon as in Nunes and Uriagereka (2000). The next section proposes a unification of BPS and Antisymmetry, which contains a solution to the Initial Merger Problem. The proposal adopts the results of the discussion above, namely that the LCA must be reformulated to be computed over all nodes.

3.4 Proposal The previous sections have pointed out that the initial merger of two heads creates a configuration of symmetric c-command, which must be resolved in order for the LCA to linearize the structure. The point of symmetry in 45 can be eliminated by raising the complement to specifier position in AP:18 45.

AP a

46.

b AP

bi

AP a

ti

At this point, b, strictly speaking, c-commands a, since every category that dominates b (none, in fact) also dominates a. In other words, there is no category that dominates b that does not dominate a. Crucially, the category AP dominates a but 18 It has often been argued that complement-to-specifier raising within the same projection is ruled

out (Abels 2003; Grohmann 2003; Pesetsky and Torrego 2001). Kayne (2004), in particular, rules this type of movement out based on feature checking as follows. Since phrases move to check features, it follows that movement can take place only to a new feature checking position. Thus, any phrase that checks its features in the complement of a head, H, will have no further features to check against H in SpecHP. Since I propose that b in 46 moves to SpecAP not to check a feature, but to eliminate a point of symmetry, I assume this movement is not problematic. This proposal is consistent with a view of syntax in which complement-to-specifier movement for feature checking is ruled out. See also Matushansky (2006) and Toyoshima (2000).

72

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

does not dominate b. Thus, b vacuously, and asymmetrically, c-commands a since b is undominated, and b and a can be linearized (see Kayne 1994: 133, fn 3). Before continuing, I would like to remark that, although not crucial to the forthcoming analysis, this proposal is compatible with the Copy Theory of movement (Chomsky 2000 et seq.) whereby Copy Deletion (specifically the choice of which copy to delete) takes place along the lines suggested by Nunes (2004). Thus, traces are used here as a shorthand for copies that are deleted at PF. Note that this does not rule out the possibility of pronouncing lower copies altogether; however, lower copies that violate the LCA (such as ti in 46) cannot be realized. The formulation of the LCA and c-command assumed thus far captures the fact that by the end of the derivation only a single tree (i.e., a single root node) can remain. Assume the following subtrees have been formed in parallel derivations. 47.

AP bi

XP yj

AP a

XP

ti

x

tj

Considering the pair {b, y} and taking the definition of c-command literally, b c-commands y, since every maximal projection that dominates b (which, again, is none) also c-commands y. Thus, the ‘structure’ in 47 is unlinearizable and crashes at the PF interface. This is a welcome result as it captures that notion that a derivation does not converge unless it forms a single phrase marker without further stipulation. Now, once a new head, c, is merged with AP as in 48, b and c are in a relation of symmetric c-command, in violation of the LCA. 48.

CP c

AP bi

AP a

ti

In 48, b and c are dominated by the same set of maximal projections, namely CP. b is not dominated by AP since not every segment of AP dominates b. Every category that dominates b also dominates c (thus, b c-commands c) and every category that dominates c also dominates b (thus, c c-commands b). Asymmetric c-command can be established between c and b the same way as between a and b above. That is, AP can raise to the specifier of CP. This gives us the tree structure shown in 49 and the linear order of heads shown in 50.19 19 Another

option, of course, is to raise b to SpecCP. I discuss this option below.

3.4

Proposal

73

49.

CP APj bi

CP

a

50.

c

AP

tj

ti

b
By this process, however, the complement of every head will necessarily move into the specifier of that head for the entire derivation! If another head, d, merges with the derivation CP will have to raise to the specifier of DP to eliminate symmetric c-command. Consider, however, a situation in which c does not have any phonological material. In such a case, it is unnecessary for c and b to be linearized (Moro 2000).20 Recall that the LCA is a PF constraint, and PF does not care about linearizing elements that do not have any phonological content. Now let’s consider what happens if c in 48 is phonologically empty. No further movement is necessary. If another (phonologically specified) head, d, is merged with the phrase marker in 48 giving 51, asymmetric c-command holds between d and b. 51.

DP d

CP c Ø

AP bi

AP a

ti

Here, asymmetric c-command holds between d, b and a, giving the surface order d < b < a, as suggested by the phrase marker shown. The remaining head, c, does not participate in linear order since it is phonologically empty. We have just seen that merger of a phonologically empty head halts Complementto-spec roll-up of the derivation. I now examine the consequence of the initial merger of a non-projecting phonologically empty head. In other words, two heads, a and b, merge, where b is phonologically null and a projects. At the outset, this structure presents no problem for the LCA, since there is only one head that needs to be linearized – a. Next, another head, c, merges with the structure thus formed. The result is shown in 52. In the phrase marker in this example, c asymmetrically c-commands a, thus establishing the linear order c < a. b is not ordered with respect to a, but this does not matter, since b is phonologically null and thus not subject to 20 Moro (2000) suggested that empty heads other than traces (such as pro) do not need to be linearized. He also conjectured that the amount of movement in a given language should be inversely proportional to the relative number and distribution of empty categories in the language, which is in line with the proposal here.

74

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

the LCA. In this scenario, Complement-to-spec roll-up never takes place. Observe further that if more phonologically specified heads are merged into the structure in 52, linear order can still be established for all the phonologically specified heads. Example 53 shows another head, d, which asymmetrically c-commands c, which in turn asymmetrically c-commands a. This structure can be linearized as d < c < a as it stands, with b not entering the linearization process as it is phonologically null. 52.

CP c

AP a

b Ø

53.

DP CP

d c

AP a

b Ø

Now consider the situation in which the projecting head in initial Merge is phonologically null. This is essentially the same as 51. The phrase marker in 54 shows that c asymmetrically c-commands b, thus c precedes b. a and b are not in an asymmetric c-command relation; however the LCA does not see a for the purposes of linearization, so this tree converges with the linear order c < b. 54.

CP c

AP a

b

Ø

The presence of a phonologically null head does not necessarily stop Complementto-spec roll-up. Consider again the case where a phonologically null head, a, selects another head, b, as its complement. As above, no movement is required. But now, suppose that another head, c, merges with AP, and AP projects, so that c is in SpecAP. This is shown in 55. 55.

AP c

AP a Ø

b

3.4

Proposal

75

At this point, no movement needs to take place, since c asymmetrically c-commands b. Now, another head, d, merges with AP and d projects giving the structure in 56. d and c are in a symmetric c-command relation. 56.

DP d

AP c

AP a

b

Ø

Unless d is phonologically empty, AP must raise to SpecDP to eliminate symmetric c-command and satisfy the LCA. This is shown in 57. 57.

DP APi c

DP d

AP a

ti

b

Ø The LCA is thus compatible with BPS if, following Chomsky (1995b) and Moro (2000), we eliminate the purely X-bar theoretic constraints on phrase structure assumed by Kayne (1994). Heads may occupy complement and specifier positions as BPS has no such ban, and the LCA ignores phonologically empty heads. Finally, BPS necessitates the adoption of Dynamic Antisymmetry (Moro 2000), whereby the LCA is a PF constraint, and violations of it trigger movement in overt syntax. The reader can probably anticipate the forthcoming discussion. Noun Incorporation arises by a verb selecting a bare noun as a complement. The ensuing symmetry triggers the noun to raise to SpecVP. In a non-NI construction such as the standard verb-object order in English, no roll-up is triggered because the verb asymmetrically c-commands all the material inside the object DP. Consider the following example with the plausible structure below. Although the precise details of the structure of DPs will be considered in more detail in the following chapters. This brief illustration shows that the verb asymmetrically c-commands the overt material (the, apple) inside the DP. 58.

John ate the apple.

76

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

59.

VP V

DP

eat

D

NumP

the

Num

nP √

n

apple

One final concern here is if an element appears in the specifier of DP that creates a configuration of symmetric c-command with the verb. Such plausible scenarios could likely arise with possessors and with wh-XPs at the left edge of DP. Full DP possessors will always contain internal structure, so let us restrict ourselves to pronominal possessors.21 Following Déchaine and Wiltschko (2002), even pronouns are internally complex, consisting of a DP and ϕP (not to mention whatever functor is responsible for the possessive marker). Another plausible scenario in which something appears in the specifier of DP is when a wh-adjective phrase appears inside a DP. 60.

I wonder how big a house John bought.

As with possessors above, the precise structure must be known to accurately evaluate the effect of the proposed revision to the LCA on structures such as 60. Following Abney (1987), however, we can assume that how heads a DegP which takes the adjective as a complement. Thus, although how big plausibly appears in SpecDP, and the DP how big a house itself plausibly appears in SpecCP, the matrix verb asymmetrically c-commands enough material in the embedded clause such that it can be ordered with respect to every head in its complement. Consider the following relevant structure. 61.

VP V

CP

wonder

DP DegP Deg

aP

CP DP

D

how a

C

NumP

TP John bought

a house big

21 If

we adopt Alexiadou (2002), (alienable) possessors are introduced in the specifier of a functional projection below DP, thus obviating this discussion, since the verb in this case necessarily asymmetrically c-commands the possessor.

3.5

Alternatives to Complement-to-Spec Roll-Up

77

In 61, V asymmetrically c-commands Deg, aP, D, NumP, C and TP (but not DegP, DP, or CP).22 This is enough to ensure that that wonder is ordered before how big a house John bought. This proposal crucially relies on being able to identify phonologically empty heads. The danger here, of course, lies in the possibility of conjuring up a phonologically null head wherever needed to stop complement-to-spec roll-up, thereby achieving the correct word order for the language under consideration. Wiltschko (2004; 2009) proposes that a lexical object, LO, contains phonological information, π, semantic information, λ, and categorial information, κ. 62.

LO = <π, λ, κ>

Furthermore, she continues, at most one of these entries can be absent. Thus, phonologically null heads must contain semantic information and a categorial label (that is, it cannot be an adjunct). It follows, then, that a phonologically null head must have some semantic import. I will adopt Wiltschko’s proposal here, which prevents us from conjuring up mystery functional projections without any semantic content. To conclude, this section has gone through the core theoretical proposal of this monograph. Specifically, it has shown that BPS and Antisymmetry are compatible if we adopt the principles of Dynamic Antisymmetry. This allows us to overcome the Initial Merger Problem by allowing the non-projecting head to undergo Complement-to-Spec movement. Successive waves of this roll-up movement take place until a phonologically null head is reached. In the next section, I discuss some possible alternatives to Complement-to-Spec roll-up.

3.5 Alternatives to Complement-to-Spec Roll-Up I have proposed a theory of phrase structure in which the LCA is satisfied by Complement-to-spec roll-up of successively merged heads until a phonologically null head is reached. One could envision other alternatives to the mechanism developed here. For instance, once the structure in 63 is obtained, one could imagine that b above, rather than AP, could raise to SpecCP to satisfy the LCA. 63.

CP c

AP bi

AP a

ti

22 Assuming a split CP (Rizzi 1997), in which the wh-phrase appears in the specifier of a functional

projection lower than ForceP obviates this discussion.

78

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

Such a movement would derive the structure in 64. 64.

CP bi

CP c

AP ti

AP ti

a

The structure in 64 satisfies the LCA, but gives rise to the linear order rather than . Another logical possibility is to simply bar the initial merger of two phonologically specified heads altogether and ensure either that one of the heads that participates in initial merger is phonologically null or that the complement is not a head, but rather a previously formed full XP. I will examine each of these options in turn in this section.

3.5.1 Spec-To-Spec Movement and Romance Clitics The first alternative for eliminating symmetric c-command is raising the offending specifier rather than pied-piping the entire XP that contains it. These two possibilities are shown in 65. 65.

Rectifying a Head and Specifier in Symmetric C-Command

a.

b.

CP

b

CP

CP c

APj AP

ti

bi AP

a

CP AP

a

c

tj

ti

ti

I suggest here that the default approach to eliminating symmetric c-command is that in 65b. What I propose is that the syntax obeys some formulation of Shortest Move in deciding which constituent to raise to eliminate symmetric c-command. Furthermore, I assume that the derivation looks down from the top and moves the first constituent possible that will eliminate the symmetric c-command, which in 63 is AP. The issue of pied piping may be a concern here, since the derivation involves moving a larger unit: AP rather than only b. Under a minimalist approach, this might appear counter-intuitive. I would like to suggest that the size of the constituent does not matter for Economy considerations. Rather, all that matters is how many

3.5

Alternatives to Complement-to-Spec Roll-Up

79

nodes are crossed in moving the constituent.23 Consider for instance the following paradigm. 66.

Pied-Piping a. Which cat’s collar did you lose? b. ∗ [Which cat]i did you lose ti ’s collar? c. Which cat do you wonder whether Mary lost its collar? d. Which cat’s collar do you wonder whether Mary lost it?

The traditional explanation for the contrast in 66a and b is that the phrase [DP which cat’s collar] is the smallest XP that can be moved, without violating the Stranded Affix Filter (Lasnik 1981). If the stranded affix in question has a resumptive pronoun as a host, then the issue of size becomes irrelevant. Note that both 66c and d are grammatical. Crucially, either which cat or which cat’s collar can raise, as there is a resumptive pronoun to host the possessive morpheme. Thus, whenever phonological material is pied-piped, be it to satisfy EPP or eliminate symmetric c-command, I propose that the weight of the moved element, that is how much phonological material it possesses, does not play a role directly in the syntax, other than to ensure that all principles of grammar are satisfied.24, 25 To sum up, the LCA violation in 63 is resolved by raising the closest syntactic object possible to eliminate symmetric c-command. In this case AP raises to SpecCP. Now, I investigate whether it is possible to move just the head, b in 63. This idea presented here is still somewhat speculative but proceeds as follows: If b has some 23 This

is also strongly suggested by Ross’ (1967) discussion on relative clauses where multiple outcomes are permitted: i. ii. iii. iv.

These are the reports that the government prescribes the height of the lettering on the covers of. These are the reports, the covers of which the government prescribed the height of the lettering on. These are the reports, the lettering on the covers of which the government prescribes the height of. These are the reports, the height of the lettering on the covers of which the government prescribes.

24 Note

that Ross (1967) accounted for some of these effects with the Left Branch Condition. Consider the following examples. i. ii.

∗ ∗

How is she [t tall]? Which did you steal [t book]?

In both cases, the left side of the constituent has been extracted. There are languages in which constructions such as these are grammatical (see Boškovi´c 2005; Moro 2000). Thus, a general prohibition as proposed by Ross is too strong. See the authors cited for explanations of Left Branch Condition effects. 25 See Cable (2010) for detailed discussion about pied-piping and more examples of phrases of varying sizes undergoing this process.

80

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

unfulfilled requirement or unchecked feature,26 then the syntax will opt to move b instead of AP, to bring b closer to fulfilling its requirement. An example of such a scenario is clitic climbing in Romance. Romance pronominal clitics must raise to a tensed IP domain (Kayne 1989, 1991). When a verb and a clitic are merged, they form an instance of symmetric c-command, which is resolved by raising the clitic to SpecVP. The following example shows the VP portion of the Italian sentence, lo vedo, ‘I see it.’ 67.

VP Di lo

VP ti

V vedo

Wurmbrand (1998) has argued that certain infinitival complements are bare VPs. If the VP is selected by a modal verb, the modal and the clitic form a point of symmetric c-command; however, the clitic has an independent need to raise to the IP domain, so only the clitic raises, while the rest of the VP remains. The structure in 68 illustrates this point for the sentence, lo posso vedere (Italian; ‘I can see it.’) where only the relevant parts of the tree are shown. Crucially, the clitic alone raises to the IP domain, rather than the entire embedded VP, as would be suggested by my proposal above.27 68.

IP Di lo

IP I

VP V

VP

posso ti can.1SG

VP V

ti

vedere see.INF 26 This

statement sounds more compatible with a theory of feature checking that relies on Greed rather than on Attract. One can think of it as a way of saying that b has some feature that will enter into an Agree relation later in the derivation. In the case considered here, the “unfulfilled requirement” is for a pronominal clitic in Romance to appear in the IP domain – a fact not quite clearly understood, but commonly accepted. See also Stroik (2009) for a related proposal. 27 Still unexplained are the cases where clitic climbing does not take place: iii.

Posso vederlo. can.1SG see.INF. CL .3. SG ‘I can see it.’

3.5

Alternatives to Complement-to-Spec Roll-Up

81

The goal of this section was to outline a possible ramification of the proposal developed here rather than to give a comprehensive account of clitic climbing in Romance. I have shown that the clitic’s need to appear in the IP domain might trigger movement of the clitic in violation of the Economy constraint outlined above. In other words, the point of symmetric c-command between the modal verb and the clitic is resolved by raising the clitic rather than the VP that contains it because of the clitic’s need to appear in the IP domain.

3.5.2 Avoidance of the Initial Merger Problem As mentioned above, another possible solution to the Initial Merger Problem is to avoid it altogether; that is, at initial Merge, one or both of the two heads must be phonologically null. It is difficult to imagine this scenario as a general solution to the problem, however, as it would require some ad hoc constraint requiring at least one of the heads involved in initial merger to be null – a rather odd constraint.28 One would have to imagine a scenario in which the structure resulting from Complementto-spec roll-up is ill-formed either morphologically or otherwise. In this case, no convergent derivation emerges from the Numeration in which initial merger of two phonologically specified heads takes place. Thus, some other construction (and corresponding Numeration) must be used. I briefly consider such a proposal here and point out some problems therewith. Consider, for instance, a preposition that takes either a bare noun or a full DP as a complement. First, I discuss how this situation plays out under the current proposal and examine some Russian data that illustrates this point. Here are the two possible scenarios. 69.

Complements to prepositions a.

PP

PP P

N

Ni

PP P

b.

ti

PP P

DP

no movement necessary

D …

In 69a, the bare noun must raise to SpecPP to satisfy the LCA as shown; whereas in 69b, the LCA is satisfied without any further movement. The resultant structure 28 Under

a non-dynamic view of Antisymmetry, the LCA would simply rule such structures out, but then noun incorporation would remain mysterious under this view.

82

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

in the first example (linear order ) may violate some morphological filter or otherwise be illicit. As a result, bare nouns would not be permitted in this scenario. Only full DP complements would result in a grammatical structure.29 Babyonyshev (2004) discusses deverbal nouns in Russian with object complements. The following examples bear on the discussion (data from Babyonyshev 2004). 70.

Russian Deverbal Nouns with Complements a.

∗ unizhenie

tebja (Vanej) humiliation 2.SG . GEN (Vanya.INSTR) (‘the humiliation of you (by Vanya)’)

b.

unizhenie mamy (Vanej) (Vanya.INSTR)’ humiliation mom.GEN ‘the humiliation of mom (by Vanya)’

c.

unizhenie ego i ego brata humiliation 3.SG . M . GEN and his brother.GEN ‘the humiliation of him and his brother’

d.

unizhenie tebja, Petra humiliation 2.SG . GEN, Petr. GEN ‘the humiliation of you, Petr Petrov’

e.

rukovodstvo vami leadership you.INSTR ‘the leadership of you’

f.

∗

Petrova Petrov. GEN

tebja unizhenie (Vanej) humiliation (Vanya.INSTR) 2.SG . GEN (‘the humiliation of you (by Vanya)’)

Babyonyshev argues that tebja (‘you-GEN ’) in a is a bare D complement to the deverbal noun, while mamy (‘mom-GEN ’) in b is a full DP. This is illustrated in 71 and 72. 71.

NP N

D

unizhenie

tebja

29 Note that this is akin to Kayne’s (1994) original proposal for postpositions. See Kayne (2003) for a more recent treatment of postpositions in an Antisymmetric framework.

3.5

Alternatives to Complement-to-Spec Roll-Up

72.

83

NP N

DP

unizhenie

D

N mamy

Babyonyshev argues that 71 violates the LCA because the noun and the pronoun are in a symmetric c-command configuration. This structure, thus, cannot be linearized and the derivation crashes at the PF interface. Example 72, on the other hand, does not violate the LCA. This structure can be linearized, and the derivation converges. Note that 71 cannot be salvaged by Complement-to-spec roll-up as shown by the ungrammaticality of 70f. To show that 70a is not ungrammatical simply because of the use of a pronoun here, Babyonyshev offers the data in 70c and 70d. These two examples contain a pronoun conjoined with a DP and a pronoun with a DP in apposition, respectively. In both cases, the complement is now a complex phrase, and the sentences are grammatical, showing that a pronoun is possible in these constructions. The problem with a, then, is not the fact that the complement contains a pronoun, but that it contains only a pronoun. The N head and the D head stand in a symmetric c-command configuration, in violation of the LCA. On a final note, Babyonyshev offers 70e as evidence for an Antisymmetric account of the data. This sentence contains a ‘bare’ pronoun as a complement, too, but is nevertheless grammatical. The difference, Babyonyshev argues, is that pronouns in the instrumental and other inherent Cases are selected by a null preposition. Thus, the structure for 70e would appear as follows. 73.

NP N rukovodstvo leadership

PP P

D

Ø

vami you.INSTR

This structure does not violate the LCA, and thus converges at PF. The upshot of this discussion is that one possible solution to the Initial Merger Problem is to avoid any structure which would place two heads in a configuration of symmetric c-command. If movement cannot resolve an instance of symmetric c-command created by initial merger of two phonologically specified heads because all possible movements violate some other condition, then all derivations with that starting point will inevitably crash. If such a situation holds generally in a given language, then the only convergent derivations will be those in which

84

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

initial merger involves on phonologically null head. Note, though, that this is a significant departure from what was argued for earlier regarding the LCA. Based on Chomsky’s suggestion, Moro argued at length that the LCA was active at PF only. Babyonyshev’s proposal effectively makes the LCA a constraint on structure building, a proposal which is clearly at odds with the proposal put forth here. There are, however, a number of problems with the proposal that would need to be resolved before we could accept the LCA as a constraint on structure building rather than on PF structure. First, the ensuing discussion runs counter to the proposal in Déchaine and Wiltschko (2002) that pronouns have a high degree of internal structure. Thus, the pronoun tebja would look something like the following. 74.

DP D

P

tebja

N

When this structure merges with a deverbal noun, no LCA violation is incurred and the structure should converge, contrary to fact. Another problem lies in the morphology of the pronouns themselves. Assuming that Case is mediated by KP (Travis and LaMontagne 1992; Bittner and Hale 1996), the pronouns above must possess a more articulated structure than Babyonyshev assumes. Consider the following paradigm (Murray and Smyth 1999: 231). 75. nominative accusative genitive dative instrumental prepositional

1st person ja menja menja mnje mnoj obo menje

2nd person ty tebja tebja tebje toboj o tebje

3rd person masc. on ego ego emu im o njom

Given the morphological complexity of these forms, maintaining the position that these forms are bare D heads is untenable assuming the Single Engine Hypothesis. Finally, I note the existence of pronominal objects as complements to verbs that appear to the right of them.30 76.

Anna vidit Anna sees ‘Anna sees me.’

menja me.ACC

It is unclear how the pronominal object can appear directly to the right of the verb given that this very structure was argued to incur an LCA violation in the nominal 30 Thanks

to Tanya Slavin for providing this example.

3.6

Linearization and Late Insertion

85

constructions above. Given these problems, I suggest that the ungrammatical nominal forms above must have an alternative explanation and hold fast to the position that the LCA is a PF constraint.31

3.6 Linearization and Late Insertion The approach developed so far requires the overt syntactic component of the grammar to treat elements with overt phonological material differently from phonologically null elements. This requires the grammar to be able to distinguish these two types of elements. Under a Distributed Morphology (DM) approach (Halle and Marantz 1993; Marantz 1997), lexical items are not inserted into the derivation until PF. This seems incompatible with the approach taken here, as it gives the overt syntax no phonological material to work with. I will show in this section that the incompatibility can be eliminated through the use of p-signatures (Hale and Keyser 2003). Hale and Keyser (2003) develop the notion of a p-signature as a marker requiring the insertion of phonological material at PF. The p-signature is a way of letting the syntax know during the course of the derivation where phonologically specified lexical items will eventually appear. If there are two heads in the derivation in a symmetric c-command relation and both of these heads have p-signatures, then PF can determine, during the syntax, that these two heads will incur an LCA violation at PF, and force movement to take place to resolve this violation. Thus, the analysis presented so far is compatible with a Late Insertion model such as Distributed Morphology, as long as p-signatures are assumed. Hale and Keyser (2003) also introduce the notion of a defective p-signature in reference to denominal and deadjectival verbs. Let us take as an example the deadjectival verb thicken. Hale and Keyser (2003: 64) propose the following representations and structures in the derivation of this word.32 77.

Head

Complement

{v, [[Ø]en]}

{ , [thick]}

√

31 Although

I cannot offer an alternative account of the asymmetry that Babyonyshev discusses, I do note similar facts in English. This parallelism invites a unified analysis that cannot be offered by Antisymmetry (Dynamic or otherwise). The last example below underscores this fact, since whatever structural fact would rule i. out should also rule iv. out. iv. v. vi. vii.

32 See

∗?

the humiliation of you the humiliation of you and your brothers the humiliation of you, John Peterson the picture of you

Harley (2004) for an explicit analysis of conflation.

86

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

78.

{v, [[thick]en]} {v, [[thick]en]}

{√}

Example 78 shows the process of conflation of an adjectival root into a phonologically defective verbal head to derive the deadjectival verb thicken. Hale and Keyser propose that the adjective thick has a full p-signature and that the verbal head –en has a defective p-signature. The defective p-signature attracts the full p-signature of the adjective to the verbal head position, giving rise to the structure in 78. Hale and Keyser propose that conflation as described here must take place under strict complementation defined as follows. (2)

Strict Complementation: A head X is the strict complement of a head Y iff Y is in a mutual c-command (i.e., sister) relation with the maximal categorical projection of X. (Hale and Keyser 2003: 59)

Crucially, conflation can take place only under mutual c-command. Given the facts above on conflation, namely, that a verbal head with a defective p-signature must conflate with a lexical head with a full p-signature, and the theory of phrase structure developed in this chapter, I propose that the distinction between defective and non-defective p-signatures can be dispensed with. Since the two heads that undergo conflation are always in a mutual c-command relation, the proposal here dictates that the complement must raise to the specifier of the head to satisfy the LCA. Thus, there is no need to appeal to the distinction between defective and non-defective p-signatures if I adopt the theory outlined here. A verb such as thicken, then, is derived as follows.33 79.

vP

vP

v

√

√i

[p-sig en ]

thick

thick

vP v

ti

[p-sig en ]

Note that the p-signature can signal the insertion of a phonologically empty allomorph. Thus, the structure of these ducks and these sheep is the same. Crucially, the head Num has a p-signature that signals the insertion of the plural morpheme at Spell-Out. The fact that the particular allomorph of the plural morpheme that 33 Traditionally

in DM roots are inserted in the overt syntax (as shown in 79) while various allomorphs are inserted at PF (Embick and Noyer 2007). In subsequent chapters I discuss data where it is argued that complex roots that carry grammatical information, such as mice, are found. Under this view, the form mice is inserted in the nP node. This is clearly problematic for the standard view of DM; however, this issue is not pursued further here.

3.6

Linearization and Late Insertion

87

appears with the lexical item sheep is [Ø] does not play a role in terms of linearization. What does matter for the LCA is that Num in English has a p-signature and so must be linearized. Thus, we have the following possible scenarios (among others). In the first two cases, a head with a p-signature merges with a root. In the third case, a head without a p-signature merges with a root. The first two will trigger roll-up as above, but the third will not. The first two scenarios differ by containing a different feature make up in the selecting functional head. 80.

a.

XP

XP √

X[F1]

√i

XP X[F1]

[p-sig]

ti

[p-sig]

b.

XP

XP √

X[F2]

√i

XP X[F2]

[p-sig]

ti

[p-sig]

c.

YP √

Y

no movement

At PF, vocabulary insertion takes place. Let us assume that the language contains the following vocabulary items: X[F1] ↔ [ba]; X[F2] ↔ [Ø]. 81.

a.

XP √i

XP X[F1]

ti

ba

b.

XP √i

XP X[F2]

ti

Ø

c.

YP Y

√

88

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

Thus, 81b and 81c have the same surface form, but the underlying structures and set of movements to derive them are different.34

3.7 Summary This chapter has discussed several previous attempts to reconcile Antisymmetry with BPS. While other researchers have tried to avoid the Initial Merger Problem, I have used it to provide a Dynamic Antisymmetric view of Bare Phrase Structure. In the next chapters, I will derive the primary empirical generalization described in Chapter 1, namely that NI constructions are typically N+V, while VO and OV order is equally distributed. I have argued that when a verb merges with a bare noun, the result is an instance of symmetric c-command which is then resolved through movement, as Moro has proposed. The central idea here, then, is this: When two heads are merged and both have phonetic content, these two heads form a point of symmetry which is resolved by raising the complement to the specifier position. Each successive merger of a head with phonological content triggers further raising of the complement in a Complement-to-spec roll-up fashion. I have also discussed the problems of bringing the LCA in line with BPS and have shown that Richards’ (2001) approach can solve these problems. The next chapter discusses noun incorporation in Northern Iroquoian in detail, and shows how the proposal developed here can account for the data.

References Abels, Klaus. 2003. “Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Abney, Stephen. 1987. “The English Noun Phrase and its Sentential Aspect.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA. Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2002. “Some Notes on the Structure of Alienable and Inalienable Possessors.” In From NP to DP, edited by Martine Coene, and Yves d’Hulst, 167–189. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Babyonyshev, Maria. 2004. “Deriving the Restrictions on Pronominal Complements of Nouns.” In Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, edited by Ji-Yung Kim, Yury A. Lander, and Barbara Partee, 263–278. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996. “The Structural Determination of Case and Agreement.” Linguistic Inquiry 27 (1):1–68. Boeckx, Cedric. 1999. Relativizing Spell-Out. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut. Boškovi´c, Željko. 2002, “Clitics as Nonbranching Elements and the Linear Correspondence Axiom.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (2):329–340.

34 See

N. Richards (2010) who comes to the same conclusion regarding overt and covert material, but for different reasons.

References

89

Boškovi´c, Željko. 2005. “On the Locality of Left Branch Extraction and the Structure of NP.” Studia Linguistica 59 (1):1–45. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. Cable, Seth. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement and Pied-Piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by Ken Hale, and Samuel J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL. Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL. Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. “Bare Phrase Structure.” In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory, edited by Gert Webelhuth, 383–439. Generative Syntax. Oxford; 1. Oxford: Blackwell. Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, edited by Roger Martin, D. Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On Phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, edited by P. Oltero, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Collins, Chris. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Collins, Chris. 2005. “A Smuggling Approach to the Passive in English.” Syntax 8 (2):81–120. Costa, João. 1997. “Positions for Subjects in European Portuguese.” In The Procedings of the 15th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Brian Agbayani, and Sze-Wing Tang, 49–63. Stanford: CSLI. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. “Decomposing Pronouns.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (3):409–42. Embick, David, and Robert Rolf Noyer. 2007. “Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, edited by Gillian Ramchand, and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Epstein, Samuel, Erich Groat, Ruriko Kawashima, and Hisatsugo Kitahara. 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frantz, Donald G. 1991. Blackfoot Grammar. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Guimarães, Maximiliano. 2000. “In Defense of Vacuous Projections in Bare Phrase Structure.” University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 9:90–115. Hale, Ken, and Samuel J. Keyser. 2003. A Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistic in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by Kenneth Hale, and Samuel J. Keyser, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harley, Heidi. 2004. “Merge, Conflation and Head Movement: The First Sister Principle revisited” In NELS 34, edited by Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf, 239–54. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. “Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.

90

3 Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. “Three Issues in the Theory of Clitics: Case, Doubled NPs, and Extraction.” In Syntax and Semantics: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, edited by Hagit Borer. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Kayne, Richard. 1989. “Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing.” In The Null Subject Parameter, edited by Osvaldo Jaeggli, and Ken Safir, 239–61. Dordrecht: Reidel. Kayne, Richard. 1991. “Romance Clitics, Verb Movement, and PRO.” Linguistic Inquiry 22 (4):647–86. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 2003. “Antisymmetry and Japanese.” English Linguistics 20:1–40. Kayne, Richard. 2004. “Some Notes on Comparative Syntax: With Special Reference to English and French.” In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, edited by Adriana Belletti, 277–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kayne, Richard. 2009. “Antisymmetry and the Lexicon.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8 (1):1–31. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. “Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA. Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. “Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates.” In The Generic Book, edited by Gregory N. Carlson, and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 125–75. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Larson, Richard K. 2004. “Sentence Final Adverbs and ‘Scope’.” In Proceedings of NELS 34, edited by Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf, 23–43. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications. Lasnik, Howard. 1981. “Restricting the Theory of Transformations: A Case Study.” In Explanations in Linguistics, edited by Norbert Hornstein, and David W. Lightfoot, 152–73. London: Longmans. Lasnik, Howard. 1995. “Last Resort and Attract F.” In The Sixth Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America, edited by Gabriele Hardison, D., and R. Westmoreland. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Lebeaux, David. 1988. “Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar.” PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amhers, MA. Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2):201–25. Matushansky, Ora. 2006. “Head Movement in Linguistic Theory.” Linguistic Inquiry 37 (1):69– 109. doi:10.1162/002438906775321184%U http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ 002438906775321184 Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Murray, John, and Sarah Smyth. 1999. Basic Russian: A Grammar and Workbook. London: Routledge. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nunes, Jairo, and Juan Uriagereka. 2000. “Cyclicity and Extraction Domains.” Syntax 3 (1):20–43. Oishi, Masayuki. 2003. “When Linearity Meets Bare Phrase Structure.” Current Issues in English Linguistics 2:18–41. Partee, Barbara H., Alice ter Meulen, and Robert Wall. 1993. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. “T-To-C Movement: Causes and Consequences.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 355–426. Current Studies in Linguistics. (CSLing). Cambridge, MA; 36. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rezac, Milan. 2006. “The Interaction of Th/Ex and Locative Inversion.” Linguistic Inquiry 37 (4):685–97. doi:10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.685. Richards, Marc D. 2008. “Desymmetrization: Parametric Variation at the PF Interface.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 53 (2/3):275–300. Richards, Norvin. 2001. “A Distinctness Condition on Linearization.” In 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Karine Megerdoomian, 470–483. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering Trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

References

91

Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1992. “Adverb Incorporation and the Syntax of Adverbs in Modern Greek.” Linguistics and Philosophy 15 (3):289–331. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In Elements of Grammar: A Handbook in Generative Syntax, edited by Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Roberge, Yves. 1990. The Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments. Montreal, PQ: McGillQueen’s University Press. Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ross, John. 1967. “Constraints on Variables in Syntax.” PhD diss., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Sheehan, Michelle. 2009. “Labelling, Multiple Spell-Out and the Final-over-Final Constraint.” In Incontro di Grammatica Generativa XXXV, edited by V. Moscati, and E. Servidio. Siena: University of Siena Working Papers in Linguistics. Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht; 21. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Spencer, Andrew. 1995. “Incorporation in Chukchi.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 71 (3):439–89. Stepanov, Arthur. 2001a. “Cyclic Domains in Syntactic Theory.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Stepanov, Arthur. 2001b. “The End of CED?” In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Karine Megerdoomian, and Leora Bar-el. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Stepanov, Arthur. 2007. “The End of CED? Minimalism and Extraction Domains.” Syntax 10 (1):80–126. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00094.x. Stroik, Thomas S. 2009. Locality in Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Strozer, Judith. 1976. “Clitics in Spanish.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Toyoshima, Takashi. 2000. “Head-To-Spec Movement and Dynamic Economy.” PhD diss., Cornell University: Ithaha, NY. Travis, Lisa de Mena, and Greg LaMontagne. 1992. “The Case Filter and Licensing of Empty K.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37 (2):157–74. Truswell, Robert. 2007. “Extraction from Adjuncts and the Structure of Events.” Lingua 117 (8):1355–77. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995a. “Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance.” Linguistic Inquiry 26 (1):79–123. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995b. “An F Position in Western Romance.” In Discourse Configurational Languages, edited by Kiss É. Katalin, 153–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. “Multiple Spell Out.” In Working Minimalism, edited by Samuel Epstein, and Norbert Hornstein, 251–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wiltschko, Martina. 2004. “Expletive Categorical Information: A Case Study of Number Marking in Halkomelem Salish.” In Northeast Linguistics Society (NELS). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications. √ Wiltschko, Martina. 2009. “ Root Incorporation: Evidence from Lexical Suffixes in Halkomelem Salish.” Lingua 119 (2):199–223. Wurmbrand, Susi. 1998. “Infinitives.” PhD diss., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Chapter 4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

The main testing ground for the theory of phrase structure proposed in this monograph is NI in Northern Iroquoian. In this chapter, I present a thorough account of NI in Northern Iroquoian arguing that NI is syntactic. I show that the theory of phrase structure developed in the previous chapter is sufficient to provide an explanatorily adequate account of NI and its properties. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 4.1 introduces Northern Iroquoian languages and gives some relevant background on their syntactic structure. Section 4.2 offers a comprehensive description of the properties of NI in this group of languages. Section 4.3 presents the analysis of NI, showing how the morpheme order follows from the theory of phrase structure proposed here. Section 4.4 shows how the analysis accounts for the properties of NI in Northern Iroquoian and presents an analysis of doubling constructions, which have traditionally been problematic for syntactic analyses of NI. Section 4.5 is a summary and conclusion.

4.1 Northern Iroquoian Languages The Iroquoian family is split into two subgroups: Southern Iroquoian, which consists solely of Tsalagi (also known as Cherokee) and Northern Iroquoian, the extant languages of which include of Mohawk, Oneida, Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga and the more distantly related Tuscarora. See Michelson (1988) and Mithun (2001) for more details on the classification within the Iroquoian family. All of the extant Northern Iroquoian languages are critically endangered, although Mohawk less so as it has had some recent success in revitalization efforts (Hoover and Center 1992). In this monograph, I examine mostly Oneida and Onondaga but will occasionally make use of Mohawk data from various sources. Oneida is spoken by about 300 people in Oneida-of-the-Thames, near London, Ontario and in Oneida Nation, near Green Bay, Wisconsin. Onondaga is spoken by fewer than 100 people in Six Nations, south of Brantford, Ontario and near Syracuse, New York. Mohawk is spoken by about 3,000 people, mostly in the Akwesasne Reservation, which straddles Ontario, Quebec and New York. The Oneida data comes mostly from Michelson and Doxtator (2002) and my own field work conducted in Oneida-on-the-Thames, M. Barrie, Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 84, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_4,  C Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

93

94

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

which is marked (Daisy Elijah, speaker). The Onondaga data come primarily from Woodbury (1975, 2003)1 and from my own field work, which is marked (Nora Carrier and Gloria Williams, speakers).

4.1.1 Clause Structure of Northern Iroquoian This section outlines the fundamental properties of clause structure in Northern Iroquoian. The template in 1 shows the morpheme order for the Northern Iroquoian verbal complex (Lounsbury 1949, 1953; Abbott 2000; Woodbury 2003; Froman et al. 2002). The following discussion outlines the properties of the various elements of the verbal complex. Since NI is the topic of Section 4.2, I postpone the discussion of the incorporated noun (IN) until then. 1.

Morpheme Order in the Northern Iroquoian Verbal Complex mood agreement IN verb applicatives aspect expanded asp

The mood morphemes include future ( FUT), factual (FACT) and optative (OPT) markers and instantiate the head of a MoodP.2 The agreement markers (called ‘pronominal prefixes’ in the Iroquoian literature) are portmanteau morphemes that agree with both subject and object. I leave aside the details of the morphology of agreement prefixes as it does not bear on the current topic and assume a simple AgrP for the purposes of exposition, though this is an over-simplification.3 Since the goal of this chapter is to discuss the syntax of the verbal complex in Northern Iroquoian below the level of the vP, I will not be concerned with an in depth analysis of the agreement and mood morphology. Next, applicatives (causatives and benefactives, i.e., high applicatives) appear under ApplH , following Pylkkänen (2002, 2008). The aspect and expanded aspect markers head an AspP. The aspect marker is obligatory and includes punctual ( PUNC), which requires a mood morpheme, and stative (STAT) and habitual (HAB), which do not. They translate roughly as perfective and non-perfective aspect, respectively. There is nothing resembling a true tense marker 1 Note that the data from Woodbury (1975) use a different orthography and different set of morpheme labels from that adopted here and in Woodbury (2003). I have retained the original orthographic form, but have updated the morpheme labels to be consistent with the current discussion. The orthography and glossing in Woodbury (2003) is consistent with that found here with the following difference. The Onondaga community in Six Nations (where I conduct fieldwork) ˛ / for a back nasal vowel, whereas Woodbury (2003) uses /u˛/ as per the conventions in the uses /o Syracuse Onondaga community. 2 The label ‘mood’ is used here for convenience. In the Iroquoian literature the mood morphemes fall under a larger class called ‘pre-pronominal prefixes’, so called because they appear before the pronominal prefixes (agreement). In addition to mood, it includes locatives, negative, repetitive among others. More than one pre-pronominal prefix can appear in a verbal complex, thus suggesting a more articulated structure than presented here. 3 Elsewhere (Barrie 2005), I have proposed that the agreement morpheme is actually composed of three independent morphemes that sometimes undergo fusion. See also Lounsbury (1953) for Oneida, Chafe (1960c) for Seneca, and Béjar and Rezac (2009) for Mohawk.

4.1

Northern Iroquoian Languages

95

in Northern Iroquoian.4 Following the mirror principle (Baker 1985) the morpheme order in 1 suggests the phrase structure in 2. 2.

MoodP AgrP

Mood Agr

TP T

vP v

AspP Asp

ApplHP VP

ApplH V

Next, I discuss each of the functional heads in 2 in detail, starting from the bottom and working our way up. This structure shows ApplH P as a high applicative in the sense of Pylkkänen (2002, 2008). Recall from Chapter 1 that Pylkkänen’s analysis of low applicatives was not adopted. Nevertheless, I use the label ApplH as a convenient label for elements which clearly are introduced into the structure by a distinct functional projection. Note that in Northern Iroquoian they are marked by overt morphology (shown below). High applicatives in Northern Iroquoian include the causative and the benefactive, as illustrated in the following Oneida examples (Michelson and Doxtator 2002). 3.

4.

wahlúnyahteP wahlunyFACT3. SG . M . AG make‘He made it out of something.’ waPkheyahyóhalehseP waPkheFACT1. SG . AG .3. SG . F. PAT‘I washed the fruit for her.’

Pt-

eP

CAUS -

PUNC

ahyfruit-

ohalewash-

Pse-

P

BEN -

PUNC

Indirect objects are not morphologically marked in Northern Iroquoian.5 Again, consider the following example from Oneida (Daisy Elijah, speaker), which contains an indirect object (a source). 4 This remark requires some qualification. Baker and Travis (1997) argue that the future marker indicates mood and not tense (note that it appears to the left of the agreement as do the other mood markers). One of the expanded aspect suffixes is sometimes referred to as a past tense marker (Foster 1986; Abbott 2000), although Foster states that it refers only to remote past events. 5 Based on the translations given above, these sentences were originally thought to be examples of possessor stranding. Michelson (1991) shows quite clearly that this is not the case but rather that the ‘possessor’ is an argument of the verb.

96

5.

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

wahiPslehtahni:nú: John waliPslhethninuFACT 1.SG . AG .3.SG . M . PATcarbuy‘I bought John’s car.’ OR ‘I bought a car from John.’

´: PUNC

Following the discussion in Chapter 1, the indirect object is introduced in a predicative PP (see below for details). To summarize, Northern Iroquoian high applicatives are morphologically marked and appear in the clausal structure as shown in 3 and 4. Indirect objects, however, are not morphologically marked on the verb (other than by agreement). I return to the structure of indirect objects and how they fit into the clausal architecture below. Turning now to aspect, the structure in 2 represents aspect as inner aspect in the sense of Travis (1991, 2010). Travis notes that some intriguing relationships between aspect and the direct object fall into place if the clause includes an inner aspect phrase. In particular, she relates inner aspect to completedness. Independently, Kratzer (2004) draws a strong connection between telicity and accusative Case. Barrie (2003) capitalizes on Kratzer’s insights and proposes an analysis of pronominal marking in Iroquoian that relates telicity or boundedness to accusative Case.6 Also, Dyck (1992) observes that accusative Case agreement in Cayuga is available only when the event is telic (in monotransitives). Given the relation between telicity or boundedness and the internal argument (made explicit by accusative Case marking in Oneida), I assume an inner aspect phrase in the sense of Travis; that is an aspect phrase where completion is encoded. The expanded aspect suffixes in Northern Iroquoian are optional and encode finer aspectual distinctions not afforded by the obligatory aspectual markers discussed in the preceding paragraph. I will have little to say about them here and will simply assume that they instantiate a second Asp2 above the first aspect head. As demonstrated by Baker (1996) word order in Mohawk in quite free. All six logically possible orderings of S, V and O are well-formed utterances in Mohawk, a fact that can be easily replicated for other Northern Iroquoian languages (though see Mithun Williams 1974, where she reports that only 3 of the logically possible word orders are available in Tuscarora). Baker (1991) uses the lack of well-known subjectobject asymmetries to argue that overt nominals in Mohawk are merged directly into clause-peripheral positions along the lines of Jelinek’s (1984) Pronominal Argument Hypothesis. I take a different tack here, however, following the vein of much recent work on polysynthetic languages (Russell and Reinholtz 1996, 1997; Davis 1997). I assume that nominal expressions are merged in argument position inside the VPshell and are subsequently raised to the left periphery, although nothing hinges on this assumption for the purposes of the discussion. This concludes the discussion on clause structure in Northern Iroquoian. I turn now to the structure of nominal phrases. 6 I remain agnostic here as to whether telicity or boundedness (in the sense of Depraetere 1995) is the more appropriate choice.

4.1

Northern Iroquoian Languages

97

4.1.2 Nominal Structure in Northern Iroquoian There are morpho-syntactically three kinds of nouns in Northern Iroquoian languages. What I will call standard nouns for convenience consists of a nominal root, a prefix and a suffix. Atomic nouns are monomorphemic (or consist of a single morpheme that is reduplicated). Deverbal nouns are derived from verbal structures. Standard nouns comprise the largest class of nominals in Northern Iroquoian consists of a nominal root, a nominal prefix (NPREF ) and a noun-forming suffix (NFS), as shown in 6a. (Abbott 2000; Froman et al. 2002; Lounsbury 1949, 1953; Willliams 1976; Woodbury 2003; Chafe 1960a–d). When the nominal is incorporated, as in 6b, neither the prefix nor the suffix appears.

b.

ohnaná:taP ohnanaPtNPREFpotato‘potato’ waPkathnanaPtu:t : waPkFACT I‘I baked potatoes.’

(Michelson and Doxtator 2002) aP NFS

v

a.

at-

hnanaPtpotato-

SRFL-

utbake-

:

v

6.

PERF

In Onondaga, the noun prefix for inanimate nouns (which includes some animals) is /ka-/ for man-made things and /o-/ for naturally occurring things. The noun-forming suffix for inanimates is /-aT /. For animate nouns, the noun prefix is replaced by an agreement morpheme, and the noun-forming suffix is /-h/. In other Northern Iroquoian languages, the pattern of noun prefix and the noun-forming suffix can be idiosyncratic. Below are some Onondaga examples (Nora Carrier, Gloria Williams, speakers). 7.

a.

b.

c.

d.

oyo˛´ :daT oNPRE‘beak’ ganákdaT kaNPRE ‘bed’ ago˛´ :gweh ak3. SG . F ‘woman’ dehno˛´ :gweh tek3. DU . M ‘two men’

yo˛ tbeak-

aT

naktbed-

aT

o˛ kweperson-

h

o˛ kweperson-

h

NFS

NFS

NFS

NFS

98

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

In place of the noun-forming suffix, one can find an internal locative suffix in both Onondaga and Oneida. The following examples show these various possibilities. 8.

gaho˛ wago˛´ :wah kaho˛ wNPREboat‘in the boat’ ganakdagó:wah kanaktNPRE bed‘in the bed’

a.

b.

ko˛ wah INT. LOC

ko˛ wah INT. LOC

Aside from the obligatory morphology and the internal locative one can also find a variety of derivational suffixes in Northern Iroquoian languages, including a collectivizer (a kind of plural marker) and an external locative, among several others. These morphemes appear after the noun-forming suffix. 9.

haT se˛:hnihsho˛´ T ah haaT se˛hniNPREwhite.person‘white people’

a.

ganakdaT geh kanaktNPRE bed‘on the bed.’

b.

h-

sho˛ T ah

NFS -

COLL

aT -

keh

NFS -

EXT. LOC

Next, I turn to atomic nouns. As their name suggests, these nouns are typically monomorphemic; however, forms which are based on a monosyllabic root are obligatorily reduplicated. Atomic nouns usually refer to specific kinds of animals. 10.

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

dagús jí:hah gítgit gáT gaT kháT khaT gwísgwis jiT de˛T ah

‘cat’ ‘dog’ ‘chicken’ ‘crow’ ‘crow’ ‘pig’ ‘mouse’

Atomic nouns cannot appear with the internal locative suffix, a fact easily accounted for by assuming that this suffix occupies the same slot as the noun-forming suffix, which atomic nouns lack. Note that there is no semantic incongruity with expressing such forms as this concept can be expressed periphrastically. 11.

∗ dagus-

go˛´ :wah catINT. LOC (‘inside the cat’)

4.1

Northern Iroquoian Languages

12.

99

dagús gayaT dago˛´ :wah takús kayaT tacat NPREbody‘inside the cat’

ko˛ wah INT. LOC

Atomic nouns can appear with the same range of additional derivational suffixes illustrated in 13, however. 13.

gitgit-geh (Onondaga, Nora Carrier and Gloria Williams, speakers) chicken-EXT. LOC ‘chicken coop’ / ‘chicken house’ / ‘on the chicken’

The proposed structure for a full DP, with all elements in their base-merged positions, is shown in 14. I have arbitrarily placed the noun prefix under Agr as it is morphologically related to the set of verbal agreement markers. I assume that the root raises higher than n, but not as high as Agr. Foreshadowing the forthcoming √ analysis of NI, I propose that the point of symmetric c-command between n and triggers movement of the root to SpecnP; however, I leave the precise analysis of the structure of DPs to future research as the precise details are not directly relevant.7 14.

DP D

AgrP Agr o-

NumP Num

nP n a

hnana t

7 A referee points out that the NZLR in NI constructions is systematically different from the NZLR in run-of-the-mill nominals (DPs). There are some instances where NZLR appears in both (Woodbury 2003: 178).

i.

ii.

agadu˛nhétshä:T ak1.SG . ACC‘my life’

atu˛nhelife/soul-

tshR-

aT

NZLR -

NFS

honadu˛nhétshädah honatu˛nhe3.SG . M . ACClife/soul‘They have life in them.’

tshR-

adabe.in-

NZLR -

h STAT

Note, crucially, that NZLR is closer to the root than the noun forming suffix. I assume, then, that is a true n that categorizes the root. The noun forming suffix is a slightly higher projection, and the categorizing head in 14 is a phonologically null n. NZLR

100

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

How are we to understand the difference between the standard nouns and the atomic nouns? One possibility that can be discounted is to assume a phonologically null allomorphy of Agr and n for the atomic nouns. If this were the case, it would be mysterious why the atomic nouns disallowed the internal locative. Such forms are not semantically ill-formed given the well-formedness of 12. Rather, it seems that the atomic noun ‘root’ contains higher functional information in it (in particular Agr and n) and that this root lexicalizes an entire DP (or AgrP).8 This brief section has introduced the basic clause structure and nominal structure for Northern Iroquoian. In particular, I have shown that Northern Iroquoian has both high and low applicatives and inner aspect, although the structure of low applicatives will be introduced in Section 3.3. I now turn to a comprehensive description of NI in Northern Iroquoian.

4.2 Patterns of NI in Northern Iroquoian NI is highly productive in Northern Iroquoian languages; however, it is subject to various lexical restrictions (see Woodbury 1975 for Onondaga, for example). Specifically, there are many verbal and nominal roots which must incorporate, many which optionally incorporate and many which cannot incorporate. It is precisely these kinds of lexical restrictions that have led authors (Mithun 1984; Rosen 1989) to claim that NI is a lexical process in these languages. In this section I discuss these lexical restrictions in some detail below and conclude that they are not problematic for a syntactic account if NI. Recall from Chapter 1 that a long-standing debate in the literature on NI has been whether it is derived syntactically or lexically. Many authors have argued that NI is a lexical process (Di Sciullo and Williams 1987; Mithun 1984, 1986; Rosen 1989; Mithun and Corbett 1999). Others have argued for a syntactic analysis (Baker 1988, 1993, 1996; Hale 2001; Sadock 1980, 1985, 1986; Wiltschko 2002; Baker et al. 2005). Recall that in the discussion in Chapter 1, I gave several compelling arguments against a lexical analysis of NI. One additional argument for a lexical treatment of NI in Iroquoian is its putative lack of productivity. I show below that much of the apparent lack of productivity of NI in Iroquoian can be explained by independent factors in the language.

8 Hirose (2003) presents a comprehensive analysis of a similar phenomenon for verbal roots based on data from Plains Cree. Essentially, he proposes that transitivity and thematic information is bundled together in English verbs, which lexicalize an XP, while this information is broken down into separate morphemes in Plains Cree, which lexicalize individual functional heads in that language. I leave the implications of Hirose’s proposal for the Northern Iroquoian facts for future research.

4.2

Patterns of NI in Northern Iroquoian

101

4.2.1 Productivity of NI I begin the discussion of the productivity of NI by examining the various kinds of verbal roots involved in this process.9 Consider first the following list, which contains several verbal roots that obligatorily trigger incorporation in Northern Iroquoian (Michelson and Doxtator 2002). 15.

Verbal roots that obligatorily trigger NI in Oneida aaks atatyeeshtat-N11 -hsluniat-N-ik at-N-kalatat at-N-kehlu-

to grab a body part to be bad, not the way it should be to be extended along to be a duration in time to drop, let fall10 to dress, prepare, trim, fix up. to fill up completely to raise up, lift up for oneself to put things here and there for oneself

v

v

The following pair of examples illustrates that NI is obligatory for these verbs (Daisy Elijah, speaker). 16. a.

b.

NI with a- (‘to grab a body part’) waPshakohnyá:saP waPshakohnyaPs- aP FACT 3.SG . M . AG .3. SG . F. PATneckgrabPUNC ‘He put his arms around her neck.’ (Daisy Elijah, speaker) ∗ yenyalá:ke wa:shákoP ye-nyal-ake waP-shako-a-P FACT-3. SG . M . AG .3. SG . F. PAT- grab- PUNC 3. SG . F -neck-LOC (‘He put his arms around her neck.’)

Woodbury (1975: 42) argues for Onondaga that these verbs fall into two groups: those that are adjectival and those that express positional relationship. This coincides 9 In the forthcoming analysis I adopt Marantz (1997, 2001) and assume that roots are acategorial. In this chapter, I continue to use the terms ‘verbal root’ and ‘nominal root’ for clarity. The reader can substitute ‘verbal root’ for ‘root that is categorized by v0 ’ and likewise for ‘nominal root’. 10 The morphosyntax of this verb is actually quite complex. In the form given (root Λ- with causative a suffix -ht) this verb must incorporate, often giving rise to non-compositional or idiomatic meanings. With translocative or cislocative morphology, this verb is free to incorporate or not. This kind of idiosyncratic behaviour is found with a number of other roots, too. 11 The capital ‘N’ in the glosses indicates the position of the incorporated noun when the noun is not in initial position.

102

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

with the class of verbs in 15. Overall, this class of verbal roots is quite small. I suggest, pending further research, that they can be analyzed as light verbs in the sense of Johns (2007) and thus require a lexical root. In Oneida, there is a large set of verbs for which NI is obligatory when the semireflexive marker /-at/ is present. This morpheme precedes the incorporated noun, as shown in 17. Many of these verbal roots can appear without the semi-reflexive, in case NI is optional. NI is obligatory only if the semi-reflexive is present with these verbal roots. The following examples illustrate the possibilities. Note that obligatory NI is not a general property of the semi-reflexive. NI is obligatory only with this set of roots when the semi-reflexive is present (Daisy Elijah, speaker). 17.

18.

teyothnekato:té: teyoDUC3.SG . N / F. PAT‘The water is still.’

SRFL -

hnekliquid-

atotebe still-

hnekliquid-

atotebe still-

´:

atotebe still-

´:

´: STAT

∗ teyohnekato:té:

teDUC-

19.

at-

yo3.SG . N / F. PAT-

STAT

∗ teyoto:té:

teDUC-

yo3.SG . N / F. PAT-

STAT

In 17, the semi-reflexive marker happens to be obligatory with this particular verbal root, and so NI is obligatory. As mentioned, some verbs may appear without a semireflexive marker, in which case NI is optional.12 20.

21.

22.

12 The

waPewisaka:látateP waPyeFACT 3.SG . F. AG‘She raised the window.’

wisice/glass-

waPehalá:tateP owísheP waPyeFACT 3.SG . F. AG‘She raised the window.’

halatatraise-

(Daisy Elijah, speaker) kalatateP raisePUNC

eP PUNC

o3.SG . N-

wisglass-

eP NFS

waPkatwisakalá:tateP waPkatwiskalatat- eP FACT 1.SG . AGSRFL glass- raisePUNC ‘I raised my window up.’ or ‘I raised the window up for myself.’

underlining in the Oneida examples indicates that that portion of the word is whispered. This phenomenon occurs in phrase-final position.

4.2

23.

Patterns of NI in Northern Iroquoian

103

∗ waPkatkalátateP

owisheP katFACT- 1. SG . AG - SRFL -

waP-

kalatatraise-

eP

o3. SG -

PUNC

wisglass-

eP NFS

In examples 20 and 21, we see that NI is optional with the unaugmented root kalatat- (‘raise up’). In examples 22 and 23, however, the semi-reflexive morpheme is present, and NI must take place. The semi-reflexive marker in this context has the semantic effect of either what one may call a ‘reflexive benefactive’ (to do something for oneself) or to show ownership of the object. The inherent ambiguity of this marker is shown by the two readings given in 22. Thus it appears that with a few exceptions it is the presence of a benefactive semi-reflexive that forces NI for these verbs. The first five entries in example 15 are the only obligatorily incorporating verbs listed in all of Michelson and Doxtator (2002) that do not appear with the semi-reflexive marker. At the moment, there is no standardly accepted explanation for the fact that the benefactive semi-reflexive makes NI obligatory (though see Alboiu and Barrie 2009 for one explanation). What is important is that, except for a very small handful of roots, obligatory NI is not a lexical property of the verbal root, but rather a property of the semi-reflexive marker. Recall that for some of these verbs the semi-reflexive marker is obligatory. This does not affect the generalization just noted that it is the presence of the benefactive semi-reflexive that forces NI. Moving on, I examine another set of verbs, which must appear with a dummy noun in the unincorporated form. This is unlike the verbs in example 15, which must incorporate a lexical root. The following examples illustrate the dummy noun in the absence of NI (Michelson and Doxtator 2002).

PlhDN

waPkhek ho:lókeP waPkheFACT 1.SG . AG .3. SG . F. PAT‘I put a blanket over her.’

olokcover.up

s HAB

v

25.

khePlho:lóks khe1. SG . AG .3. SG . F. PAT ‘I’m covering her up.’

k hblanketv

24.

olokcover.up-

eP PERF

Examples 24 and 25 show that the verbal root -olok- (‘cover up’) incorporates a lexical root (as in 25), or, if no lexical root is available, it incorporates a dummy nominal root (as in 24). Let us surmise that the dummy noun is a kind of light noun, n, that satisfies the transitivity requirement of the verb. It is unlikely that this requirement could be formulated in terms of Case theory as it is generally assumed that incorporated nouns do not require Case (and cannot be valued for Case) (Baker 1988). Likewise, theories of Argument Structure are not promising since it is only a

104

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

small group of predicates that require dummy nouns. Thus, it is unlikely that this set of transitive verbs has a distinct argument structure from the set of transitive verbs at large. Whatever the ultimate explanation for the requirement on the part of the verb to appear with an overt complement, I explain here the linearization properties. By far the largest class of verbs in Northern Iroquoian languages consists of those that optionally take incorporated nouns (for Onondaga, see Woodbury 1975: 43). The fact that this class of verbs is so large suggests that NI is a productive process, and not lexically constrained. Some possible forms, with and without NI, are shown in 26 and 27 (Michelson and Doxtator 2002). 26. a. kuyawíheP kuawigive1. SG . AG .2. SG . PAT‘I give it to you.’ b. waPukhwístuP waPukFACT 3.SG . N / F. AG .1. SG . PAT‘She/someone gave me money.’ 27. a. waPtyakyata:tú: waPteakyFACT DUC 1.DU . EXCL . AG ‘We two(excl) traded.’ b. t tyatatnawi:lú: tetyaDUCFUT 1.DU . INCL . AG ‘You and I will trade teeth.’

heP HAB

hwist- umoney-give-

P

atat-

´:

REFL-

v

atatREFL-

ugive-

PUNC

PERF

nawil- u´: tooth- give- PUNC

v

Finally, I discuss verbal roots that prohibit NI. A large number of such verbs are in complementary distribution with roots that obligatorily incorporate. Several such pairs for Oneida are given in 28 (Michelson and Doxtator 2002). Incorporating and non-incorporating verbal roots in Oneida incorporating root

non-incorporating root

translation

aks kalenyisakatykaPihalkalatat-

hetk alenyehsakutyekaPhalhalatat-

to be ugly to disperse to look for to lose, leave to like the taste of to hang up to lift up, raise

v

v

28.

4.2

Patterns of NI in Northern Iroquoian

105

What these data show is a simple case of root allomorphy, akin to the choice of root for the words destroy and destruction in English. The root destroy- is inserted in verbal contexts and destruct- is inserted in nominal contexts. Likewise in Oneida, aks - (‘to be ugly’) is inserted in contexts when a noun is incorporated and hetk (‘to be ugly’) is inserted otherwise. There are additionally some verbal roots which are simply resistant to incorporation for reasons that have nothing to do with the discussion in the preceding paragraph. Woodbury (1975: 44, ex (1.64b; 1.65c)) discusses the following Onondaga examples. (Note that Woodbury does not show the ungrammatical examples with NI; I infer these from her discussion.) v

v

29.

a. waT shakohe:wáhtáT neT eksáT a waT shako- he:wahtFACT he:her- punish‘He punished the girl.’ b. waT hatkáthwáT neT kaT háhsæ:T waT haatkathwFACT 3.SG . M . AG look.at‘He looked at the basket.’

aT

neT

PUNC NE

aT

eksáT a girl

neT

PUNC NE

kaT háhsæ:T basket

Woodbury states that there are three classes of such verbs: those that take abstract objects, those that take only animate patients (29a above), and those that do not involve direct contact with the object (29b above). I assume that the lack of NI with these verbs reduces to a selectional restriction on the verb. Just as certain verbs in English select for DP and/or CP complements, verbs in Northern Iroquoian languages have the option of selecting for bare nominal roots or not. Based on the observations and discussions above NI can be treated as a syntactic process generally available to all non-unergative verbs, rather than as a lexical process with different degrees of applicability, where some verbs are lexically specified not to allow incorporation, some are lexically specified to optionally allow it, and others are lexically specified to require it. Apparent exceptions to this generalization can be explained independently. As just shown, many verbal roots that must undergo incorporation are allomorphs of verbs that optionally take incorporated nouns, but surface in a different form when no noun is incorporated. The remaining verbal roots that must undergo incorporation, which do not have a non-incorporating counterpart, can be divided into two groups. The first group, which is the smaller group, are taken to be light verbs in the sense of Johns (2003, 2007). Such verbs do not constitute a lexical root and must therefore, incorporate a nominal lexical root.13 The larger group of obligatorily incorporating verbal roots all appear with a semireflexive marker that gives rise to a reflexive benefactive interpretation. When the semi-reflexive marker does not appear on the verbal root, NI is not obligatory. It is 13 Note

that the class of verbs that I am claiming are light verbs is not semantically equivalent to the set of verbs that Johns claims to be light verbs.

106

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

thus the semi-reflexive marker which, for unknown reasons, makes incorporation necessary. The remaining idiosyncratic facts concerning the availability (or lack thereof) of NI with specific verbal and nominal roots is not enough to justify the presence of an entirely separate generative lexical module within UG.

4.2.2 Nominal Roots The majority of nominal roots are free to undergo NI into a verbal structure or appear as free-standing DPs in Northern Iroquoian, so I will not mention them here. There are many nouns that cannot incorporate into a verbal root for various morphological reasons, which I discuss next. There is also a small set of nouns that must incorporate, which I discuss last. Northern Iroquoian nouns that cannot incorporate fall into two categories. First, there are atomic nouns discussed above such as the Oneida kóskos (‘pig’), which does not appear with a noun prefix or noun-forming suffix. Such nouns are semantically no different from standard nouns that obligatorily appear with a prefix and a suffix. That is, they are referential and can appear with demonstratives as standard nouns can. Recall that I suggested above that such nouns spell out a constituent larger than an nP. The forthcoming analysis shows that INs are bare nPs, thus precluding atomic nouns from undergoing NI. There are also nouns that are derived from entire Oneida sentences such as kaya táklase (‘goat’, lit. ‘its body stinks’). These words must appear fully inflected with verbal morphology in order to function as a noun. Thus a bare root cannot be extracted to participate in NI. In both cases, there is no semantic reason to bar these nouns from participating from NI. Also, the fact that they cannot incorporate does not need to be relegated to the lexicon, since their failure to participate in this process can be explained by morphological factors. Next, I discuss a small set of nouns that must undergo NI into a verbal root. These are listed in example 30. h

h

30.

Obligatorily-incorporating nominal roots -ahsak sl -ahuhs-atshat-ely Pt-nut-ohsl-oPkw-unh-

frost sense of hearing fog, steam intention, purpose hill year round object life

(Michelson and Doxtator 2002)

v

v

Note, however, that the nominal roots in example 30 are not freely occurring, and many of them appear in only a few words. Seen in this light, these roots behave more like English bound roots such as /-ceive/ in their limited distribution, as in the following example (Michelson and Doxtator 2002: 451).

4.3

31.

Analysis

107

okahló:kwaP o3.SG . FZ‘eyeball’

kahleye-

oPkwround.object

aP NFS

It is likely, then, that words such as those in example 31 are lexically listed, however they form a small fraction of the set of nouns that can undergo NI into the verbal complex. There is yet another class of roots that do undergo obligatory NI. Each of these nominal roots, listed in 32, has an allomorph that appears in non-incorporating contexts. Nominal roots in complementary distribution incorporating root

non-incorporating root

translation

-naskw -nyey -atsy

-tshen -ny ht -ks

animal snow dish

v

v

32.

v

Thus, like the verbal roots in 28 above, some nominal lexical items exhibit allomorphy depending on whether they are incorporated. In this section I have shown that the variation in the ability of verbal and nominal roots to participate in NI structures is only illusory. Most verbal and nominal roots may participate in NI, but are not required to. When NI is required or disallowed, there are independent morphological reasons for the lack of choice, and a lexical item’s ability to participate in NI does not need to be listed in the lexicon directly. While there is clearly a lack of productivity of NI in some environments, it is not enough to justify dismissing a syntactic analysis of NI.

4.3 Analysis 4.3.1 Previous Analyses This section summarizes previous research on NI in Northern Iroquoian, concentrating on the various syntactic analyses that have been proposed. I point out various theoretical and empirical shortcomings of these prior analyses, which I overcome in the Dynamic Antisymmetric approach proposed here. I commence with Baker’s syntactic analysis of NI in Mohawk, which remains one of the most influential analyses of NI to date. Baker (1988, 1996) undertook a comprehensive cross-linguistic study of NI, which included a in depth discussion of Mohawk. He proposes that the head of a bare NP moves alone to incorporate into the verb.

108

4

33.

(Mohawk; Baker, 1996: 281)

S NP

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

VP

I

V

NP

N

V

N

bedi

buy

ti

In example 33, English words have been used in place of the Mohawk, as in Baker’s original example. In Baker’s view, NI takes place because the verb in Mohawk must discharge its θ-role to an element internal to the verb.14 Under the assumptions being made here, head-movement is unavailable, and the movement of the head noun of the direct object will therefore have to be re-analyzed as phrasal movement. Second, the structure in 33 does not follow general principles of BPS, because the object NP is a non-branching projection. Since syntactic structure under BPS can be built only by Merge, non-branching structures cannot be created. Baker et al. (2005) depart somewhat from the Morphological Visibility Condition and argue that the different patterns of NI found in the world’s languages can be reduced to differences in how copies are erased. They maintain that NI is syntactic and proceeds by head movement of N to V. Specifically in Mohawk, when a copy of the raised noun (the IN) is erased, it reduced to its default value – 3rd person neuter, which is phonologically null in this language. Thus, the failure of the verb to trigger agreement is not the result of NI and agreement being in complementary distribution (as per the MVC). Rather, the verb does agree with the IN; however, the agreement morpheme in question is Ø. However, as Koenig and Michelson (2008) point out, sentences with 3rd person neuter objects are syntactically intransitive rather than transitive with a null object agreement marker. Case agreement with the single argument of an intransitive verb varies with respect to aspect. Specifically, stative (perfect) aspect triggers accusative agreement with the single argument of an intransitive verb. In transitive constructions, however, there is no variation in Case agreement. The subject is marked with nominative Case and the object is marked with accusative Case, regardless of aspect. Consider the following Onondaga examples (Gloria Williams and Nora Carrier, speakers). 14 This is the essence of Baker’s (1996) Polysynthesis Parameter – that all θ-roles must be discharged to a morpheme internal to the word that assigns the θ-roles. I will not be concerned directly with theoretical status of the Polysynthesis Parameter here, although I do show an alternative approach to the difference in availability of NI in Oneida and English in the conclusion. Specifically, I show that language-internal properties can be shown to be responsible for the lack of NI in English rather than having to appeal to macro-parametric variation.

4.3

34.

Analysis

a.

b.

c.

d.

hge´˛ haT k1. SG . AG‘I see it.’

109

ke˛see-

wahge´˛ h wakke˛fish1.SG . PAT‘I have seen it.’

haT HAB

h´ STAT

hege´˛ haT he1. SG . AG :3. SG . M . PAT‘I see him.’

ke˛see-

haT

hege´˛ h he1. SG . AG :3. SG . M . PAT‘I have seen him.’

ke˛fish-

h´

HAB

STAT

Now, when NI takes place in the environment of stative (perfective) aspect, we observe accusative Case marking on the subject. Consider the following Onondaga example (Woodbury 2003). 35.

agade˛naT tshähni:no˛´ h akate˛naT t1.SG . PATgroceries‘I have bought groceries.’

shRNZLR -

hnino˛ buy-

h´ STAT

If null object agreement were indeed present in 35, then we would expect nominative Case agreement with the subject rather than the accusative Case agreement. I conclude that 3rd person neuter objects do not trigger agreement at all and that such constructions are syntactically intransitive. The consequence for Baker et al. is that they cannot maintain that N-to-V raising leaves a copy in which only the default values for the noun remains. This is imperative for their analysis, though, as it allows them to maintain the distinction between NI in Mohawk and Mapudungun. Wiltschko (2002), following Sportiche (1996, 1998) and Lin (2000), assumes a version of the split DP hypothesis, which can account for the complementarity of NI and agreement marking without appealing to Baker’s (1996) Polysynthesis Parameter. Under the Split DP Hypothesis, DPs are formed discontinuously as in 36.

110

4

36.

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

DP D

AgrP Agr

VP NP

V’ V

Thus, in a sentence such as the boy slept, the NP boy raises from under VP to somewhere in DP to be licensed by D. Wiltschko assumes that for Mohawk, DP and AgrP are collapsed into a single head. The lack of a pure DP independent of AgrP explains the lack of overt determiners in Mohawk and related languages. Wiltschko gives the Mohawk sentence in 37 the structure in 38, where NP is the noun ka-nakt-a (‘bed’). I leave aside, for the moment, the distinction between subject and object agreement. 37.

wa-

k1. SG . AG ‘I bought the/a bed.’ FACT-

38.

nhinubuy-

´

ne

PUNC

NE

ka-nakt-a N . PREF -bed- NFS

(Wiltschko, 2002, ex. (6))

DP = AgrP D’ = Agr’ Di = Agr

VP V

NPi

Unlike languages such as English and French, Mohawk can delay movement of the NP to the specifier of DP until LF. This delay gives the observed word order, with the NP to the right of the verb. NI takes place when there is no DP/AgrP projection above VP. The bare noun does not have a licensing position to raise to at LF and must incorporate into the verb. A consequence of this explanation is that it obviates the polysynthesis parameter, so that the differences between languages can be captured by setting various microparameters. It also introduces very little new machinery to UG, making use of independently existing operations. However, there are some technical problems with the analysis. Wiltschko states that the VP-internal NP is bare, since the determiner element is in the head of DP, outside VP. However, determiner morphemes may appear on full, unincorporated NPs, as shown in 39 (Daisy Elijah, speaker).

4.3

Analysis

39.

111

wahihninú: laó:slet waPlihninu´: FACT1. SG . AG .3. SG . M . PATbuyPUNC ‘I bought his car.’ or ‘I bought the car from him.’

laohis-

Psleht car

Here, overt determiner morphology – the possessive marker /lao-/ = ‘his’ appears on the unincorporated nominal. This is inconsistent with the proposal that VP-internal arguments are bare NPs. There is also morphology that is arguably a D head in the example that Wiltschko provides in 37: the morpheme /ka-/, which she glosses as NsS (neuter singular subject). Another problem is the co-indexing of NP and D in 38. These two elements are not, in fact, related. The NP is the direct object, the bed, and D is the subject of the sentence, the speaker. It is not clear, then what triggers LF raising of NP to D, since the two elements do not seem to share any features. Wiltschko’s account has one further problem in the context of our approach. If the verb in 38 has merged with a bare noun, BPS dictates that the nominal should be a head, not a phrasal projection. Clearly, this analysis is built in an X-bar-Theoretic framework. Thus, it is unclear from Wiltschko’s discussion whether incorporation takes place via XP-movement or head-movement. Hale (2001) argues that nouns are merged in their incorporated position and NI involves no syntactic movement per se. Crucially, Hale’s analysis is syntactic and not lexical, since the incorporated nouns are merged in the syntax. Hale argues that neither a pronominal argument nor a bare nominal (the kind found in incorporating structures) needs to raise out of VP for Case or to satisfy some EPP requirement on a higher functional head. They are licensed in situ. Thus, NI boils down to the bare nominal remaining in its merged position rather than raising out of the VP. Hale discusses the following example (Hale 2001 (cited from Baker 1996: 293)). 40.

Wa’-

ka3.SG . AG ‘The baby fell.’

wírbaby-

FACT-

v’fall-

ne’ PUNC

The overt nominal wir (‘baby’) in 40 is the subject of an unaccusative verb. As such, Hale states that, by hypothesis, it originates in the specifier of the verbal projection.15 Hale’s discussion suggests that he had in mind a structure like 41. 41.

VP V'

N baby

V

?

fall 15 Hale

does not give any justification for placing the argument of an unaccusative in the specifier of VP as opposed to the complement; however, we might assume that Hale had some version of UTAH (Baker 1985) in mind.

112

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

This structure is problematic under a BPS approach (Chomsky 1994) since there is no complement. Rather, we would expect the structure in example 42: 42.

VP V

N

It is unclear how one would maintain the structure in 41 as given under a BPS approach. However, the approach advocated here can deal with this problem quite nicely if we assume that the verb and the nominal head are merged as in 42. Antisymmetry then forces the nominal head to raise to the specifier of VP, giving rise to the structure in 43, which is for all intents and purposes identical to 41. 43.

VP N baby

VP V

tN°

fall

I have reviewed three accounts of NI in Iroquoian and have concluded that none of these accounts offers a fully satisfactory analysis of NI that respects BPS and excludes head-movement, although Hale’s analysis is on the right track. The following section develops just such an analysis.

4.3.2 NI as Phrasal Movement Following Baker’s (1988, 1996) inter alia syntactic approach to NI and Marantz’ (1997) arguments against lexicalism in general, I proceed with the syntactic analysis of NI developed here. I depart from Baker’s analysis in one very important aspect. While Baker assumes that head-movement is a permissible operation in UG (Baker 2009), the framework I adopt here does not. NI must therefore be recast as phrasal movement. In the rest of this section, I develop a Dynamic Antisymmetric, phrasalmovement account of NI in Northern Iroquoian. On the surface, NI in Northern Iroquoian appears to involve incorporation of a bare lexical root, devoid of any inflection. Consider example 44, however, which contains an incorporated noun and a nominalizer. The lexical root, which has been incorporated, atokw (‘take out of water’), also appears as the lexical root of a verbal complex (Michelson and Doxtator 2002). 44.

waPutokwaPtslóhaleP waPuatokwFACT 3. SG . F. AG take.out.of.water ‘She washed the spoon.’

PtslNZLR

ohalewash

P PUNC

4.3

Analysis

113

Example 44 shows the deverbal root atokw and its nominalizer Ptsl incorporated onto the verb ohale. The joiner vowel is inserted epenthetically to satisfy phonotactic constraints of the language, and plays no role in the syntax (Michelson 1988). Example 45 shows several more examples of deverbal roots in Oneida with their nominalizers (Michelson and Doxtator 2002). 45.

Root -atku -atlahti -atle -atnutekt -atshanunya -atsheyal -atyanlu -atyaPtawiPt -aPnhaluk -aPnuk

Nominalizer Psl Ptsl Psl Ptsl hsl hsl hsl Ptsl hsl hsl

Translation of nominalized form snake sock grandchild lid, cover happiness shyness ghost dress, shirt, jacket, coat, blouse rope onion

v

The nominalizer affix generally appears only when the root incorporates into the verb, but sometimes appears in other contexts as well.16 Assume, following Ogawa (2001) and Marantz (2001), that lexical roots are categorized as nouns by virtue of a light noun or nominalizer, n. When the nominalizer and the bare root merge, they are in a symmetric c-command relation as shown in 46. 46.

nP n

√

sl

atokw

The symmetry in example 46 arises from the fact that the bare verb is simultaneously a minimal and maximal projection. This is an inevitable consequence of first merge, since first merge always involves two heads, of which only one projects. The √ symmetry is eliminated by raising to Spec,nP as shown in 47. 47.

nP √i atokw

nP n

ti

sl

16 Most

commonly, the nominalizer appears between the root and a locative suffix, which has led to the suggestion that the locative affixes are incorporating verbs (Baker 1988). In some cases, the nominalizer appears in all nominal forms. In those cases, I assume the verbal root and nominalizer together form a single root that has been reanalyzed as a nominal root.

114

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

At this point, the nP merges with the verbal root (really, an uncategorized lexical root at this point). √P

48. √

nP √i

ohale

nP n

atokw

ti

sl

√

Now, the two lexical roots are in symmetric c-command relation, since atokw is not √ dominated by nP. nP therefore raises to Spec ohale P to resolve this symmetry. √P

49.

√P

nPj √i atokw

√

nP n

ti

tj

ohale

sl

In 49, nP asymmetrically c-commands the root ohale, thus atokw and n are ordered before ohale by the LCA. Furthermore, atokw asymmetrically c-commands n, so it is ordered before n. At this point I have derived the correct morpheme order for the sentences in 44, a typical NI structure found in Oneida.17 Specifically, the incorporated nominal root precedes the nominalizer, which in turn precedes the verbal root. I will continue with the derivation of the remainder of the clause later, but first, let us consider the incorporation of nominal roots. Recall that I assume that lexical roots are category neutral. I use the term nominal root as a term of convenience to refer to roots that commonly appear in nominal

17 Baker’s (1996) Morphological Visibility Condition originally accounted for the complementarity of agreement and NI in Mohawk, about which the current proposal has nothing to say. In more recent work, however (Baker et al. 2005), examples of NI are discussed where the verb agrees with the incorporated noun. The current proposal is compatible with both types of NI, leaving the difference to fall out from other aspects of the grammar.

4.3

Analysis

115

constructions and do not appear with an overt nominalizer in NI constructions. Consider the following example (Daisy Elijah, speaker).18 50.

waPkneskwahni:nú: é:lhal waPkneskwFACT1.SG . AG - animal‘I bought a dog.’

hninubuy-

:´ PUNC

elhal dog

The undifferentiated root, neskw (‘animal’) must appear with a nominalizer, which I propose is realized by a phonologically null allomorph. Recall that heads with p-signatures are subject to the LCA and must be linearized. The fact that this particular n happens to be realized by a null allomorph is immaterial (and in fact cannot be made reference to since the particular exponents are not inserted until PF). Thus, the derivation proceeds much the same as above (see also Richards 2010). 51.

nP nP

i

neskw

ti

n Ø

The nP formed merges with the root hninu (‘buy’). As before this root and the incorporated root form a point of symmetry, which is resolved by moving the nP to SpecVP. 52.

P nPj nP

i

neskw

P

n

tj ti

hninu

Ø

Up to this point I have only discussed the structure within the VP with respect to NI. I now move farther up the tree, starting with ApplP, if present, and then moving on to AspP. Recall from the beginning of the chapter that applicative and aspectual morphology appear to the right of the verbal head. This indicates that 18 Note that Baker assumes that overt nominals such as elhal (‘dog’) in 50 are merged directly into

an adjoined position high in the tree. I postpone the treatment of NI with full DP doubles until the end of the chapter.

116

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

the VP, including an incorporated nominal if there is one, must raise to the left of these two functional heads, leapfrogging (or snowballing, in Aboh’s (2004) terms) into the highest specifier position each time. Also, tense and agreement morphology appear to the left of the verbal head and incorporated noun, suggesting that the complex must raise only as far as the specifier position in AspP. This is expected, since v is phonologically null. It thus allows Complement-to-spec roll-up to stop once the verbal complex has raised as far as SpecAspP. The resulting structure for the sentence in 50, repeated here, is given in 54. 53.

waPkneskwahni:nú: waPkFACT 1. SG . AG ‘I bought a dog.’

54.

é:lhal neskwanimal-

:´

hninubuy-

PUNC

elhal dog

MoodP Mood

TP

wa

T

AgrP Agr k

vP v

AspP

(ApplP)l √Pk

(ApplP) √P (Appl) tk

nPj √i neskw n

AspP

√

nP ti

Asp

tl

´:

tj

hninu

Note that there is no asymmetric c-command relation between the root, neskw, and v, since the same set of maximal projections dominates both heads (namely, MoodP, √ TP, AgrP and vP – the in question is not dominated by VP or AspP, since there is at √ least one segment of each of these projections that does not dominate ). This does not matter, however, since v has no phonological content. Agr does asymmetrically √ c-command in 54 however, so the LCA is satisfied. The next example shows the complete derivation for the incorporation of a deverbal root, using the sentence in 44, repeated below. 55.

waPutokwaPtslóhaleP waPuFACT 3.SG . F. AG ‘She washed the spoon.’

atokwPtsltake.out.of.water- NZLR-

ohalewash-

P PUNC

4.3

Analysis

56.

117 MoodP

Mood wa

AgrP Agr

TP

u

T

vP v

AspP AspP

Pi nPj

atokw

n

ti

tj

nP

k

Asp

P

tk ohale

sl √

As above there is no asymmetric c-command relation between , atokw, and v, since the same set of maximal projections dominates both heads (namely, MoodP, TP, AgrP and vP – V1 is not dominated by nP, VP or AspP, since there is at least one segment of each of these projections that does not dominate V1 ). This does not matter, however, since v has no phonological content. Crucially, however, Agr does √ asymmetrically c-command in 56, so the LCA will be satisfied. Finally, I take up NI in ditransitives, which was briefly discussed at the beginning of the chapter. Consider again the Oneida sentence in example 5, repeated here as 57 (Daisy Elijah, speaker). 57.

wahiPslehtahni:nú: John waliPslhethninuFACT1.SG . AG3. SG . M . PATcarbuy‘I bought John’s car.’ OR ‘I bought a car from John.’

´: PUNC

John John

Assuming, following Beck and Johnson (2004), that the indirect object is introduced by a predicative PP, we get the following partial structure for this sentence. 58.

P PP hninu

PP sleht

19 Recall

P

tJohn19

that I assume that full DP arguments raise to a position in the left periphery.

118

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

This configuration does not satisfy the LCA since the verb, hninu (‘buy’), and the noun, Psleht (‘car’), c-command each other. As above, Complement-to-Spec √ roll-up is triggered and PP raises to Spec P. The configuration of arguments in the PP demands some explanation. This is exactly the opposite configuration for Pyllkänen’s ApplP, where the indirect object is in SpecApplP and the direct object is the complement of Appl. However, the Spec-Head relation has recently been called into question (Chomsky 2005). The configuration here, however, is the same as argued in Larson (1988, 1990). Also, Hallman (2004) proposes that selection and feature checking must take place in a symmetric c-command relation, rather than in a Spec-Head relation. Under this view, the structure in 58 can be understood as follows. The P head selects the indirect object (which later raises to the left periphery20 ) in a symmetric c-command relation, that is as a complement to P. The verb selects the theme argument as a direct object. Note that even though it is the verb that selects the direct object, the direct object is in SpecPP. This is not a problem since the verb and the direct object c-command each other. Thus, the theme and verb are in a symmetric c-command relation in 58, as required. Thus, the very structure that is required for selection in turn triggers displacement. In this section, I have argued that NI is driven by the grammar’s need to satisfy the LCA by eliminating instances of symmetric c-command. In the simplest case, a verb selects a bare noun, entering into a symmetric c-command relation with it. Symmetry is eliminated by Complement-to-Spec movement of the noun to SpecVP. In the case of incorporated deverbal nouns, the nominalizer selects a bare noun. Complement-to-Spec roll-up is triggered as just illustrated, causing the noun to raise to SpecnP. The verb then merges with the structure thus formed, giving rise to another instance of symmetric c-command. Again, symmetry is eliminated by the nP raising to SpecVP. In the next section, I address some of the other properties of NI in Northern Iroquoian.

4.4 Properties of Iroquoian NI This section discusses some of the other properties of Iroquoian NI. Many of these properties are discussed at length elsewhere in the literature (Mithun 1984; Rosen 1989; Baker 1996). These include the restriction of NI in ditransitives to themes (and the inability of goals to undergo NI), modifier stranding, and the doubling of the incorporated nominal. One other property that has not been discussed in the literature before is NI in conjoined structures. This section presents new data from Oneida on this last topic.

4.4.1 NI in Ditransitives We have already seen an example of NI in a ditransitive at the end of the previous section, in which NI of the theme argument took place. In virtually all languages that 20 See

the discussion on p. 3.

4.4

Properties of Iroquoian NI

119

permit NI, only the theme internal argument can undergo NI; the goal/source argument cannot.21 The following examples from Mohawk (Baker 1996: 207) illustrate this fact. 59.

a.

t-a’-khey-athvni-tsher-u-’ CIS - FACT-1 S S/F S O-ball-NZLR -give-PUNC ‘I gave the ball to the baby.’

b.

ne NE

owira’a baby

# t-a’-ke-wir-u-’ ne athvno CIS - FACT-1sS-baby-give- PUNC NE ball ‘I gave the baby to the ball.’ (NOT ‘I gave the ball to the baby.’)

In 59, the theme is incorporated in the first sentence. In the second sentence, wir (‘baby’) is incorporated, and the construction can be understood only with wir as the theme, not the goal. As mentioned briefly above, the theme argument is the direct object of the verb, as demonstrated by the fact that it appears with accusative Case in the vast majority of nominative-accusative languages. The goal/source argument, on the other hand, is typically marked with some other oblique Case such as dative. Thus, the goal/source argument is the applied argument, introduced by PP. Also, as explained above, Hallman (2004) argues that feature checking and selection take place under mutual c-command, suggesting the following structure for indirect objects. 60.

VP V

PP theme

PP P

goal/source

In this configuration, the verb and the theme c-command each other, and the applicative head and the goal/source argument, P, also c-command each other. Thus, only the theme enters into a relation of symmetric c-command with the verbal head. This explains the virtual cross-linguistic absence of goal/source NI. This argument is never in a symmetric c-command configuration with the verb to trigger Complement-to-Spec roll-up.22 21 Putative NI in English obeys this constraint, too. Thus, gift-giving is an acceptable structure in English, while ∗ neighbour-giving, meaning ‘giving to one’s neighbours’ is not. Likewise, a child-stealer is someone who steals children – not someone who steals from children. 22 This account suggests the possibility of goal/theme incorporation in languages that have an overtly realized P head. In such a case, P and the goal/theme c-command each other, triggering the nominal to raise to SpecPP. When the verb merges with the PP complex, Complement-toSpec roll-up will once again be triggered. Whether such a language exists or not I leave for future research. A referee notes that Pylkkänen’s low ApplP (the analogue of the P head under consideration here) is typically not realized morphologically in most languages, suggesting a reason for the relative rarity of the incorporation of goals.

120

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

An example of the incorporation of a theme was shown above and is repeated here, with the accompanying VP structure (Daisy Elijah, speaker). 61.

wahiPslehtahni:nú: John waliPslhetahninu´: FACTI:himcarEPEN buyPUNC ‘I bought John’s car.’ OR ‘I bought a car from John.’

62.

John John

VP V

PP

hninu

nP

PP

sleht

tJohn

P

In 62, the verb and the nominal root are in a symmetric c-command configuration, triggering Complement-to-Spec raising of the PP to SpecVP. I have represented the source argument, John, as a trace as I assume that overt DPs raise to a topic or focus position in the overt syntax.23 The VP complex thus formed is merged with an aspectual morpheme, which triggers raising of the VP to SpecAspP. The final derivation is shown below (DP, John, not shown). 63.

MoodP Mood

AgrP

wa

Agr

TP

li

T

vP

1. v

AspP √Pk

AspP √P

PPj nP √i sleht

23 It

PP nP

n

P

√

Asp tj

tk

:´

tJohn hninu

ti

is possible that Case in Oneida is checked in situ and thus does not need to move to a Case checking position, suggesting that Oneida lacks A-movement altogether. See Ritter and Rosen (2005) for a proposal along these lines for Algonquian.

4.4

Properties of Iroquoian NI

121

This section has shown that one of the core properties of NI, its inability to apply to goal/source arguments, can be explained with the Dynamic Antisymmetry approach proposed here. The next section discusses NI with overt DPs.

4.4.2 NI and Overt DPs One of the original challenges to a syntactic approach to NI is the fact that incorporated nouns can be doubled by full DPs. Baker (1996) proposes that full DPs in Mohawk (and in Northern Iroquoian in general) are adjoined outside the clause, in the spirit of Jelinek’s (1984) Pronominal Argument Hypothesis. As we saw above, however, there is significant evidence to suggest that full DPs do originate with the VP. What I will suggest here is a structure in which DPs are merged in argument position, while still maintaining a syntactic account of NI.24 I propose that the IN and the full DP double are initially merged as a constituent. I argue that the DP is dominated by a kind of classifier phrase (ClP), the specifier of which contains the IN.25 First, I establish that the IN is the specifier of ClP and not the head. Recall that the IN often contains both a root and an overt nominalizer. Given the absence of head movement in the current framework, a non-monomorphemic element cannot be a head. Furthermore, even under a head movement approach, I would have to assume that the ClP layer is broken down into two projections (one headed by the root and one headed by the nominalizer) to allow head movement to take place. Finally, there is some empirical evidence to suggest that the IN occupies the specifier of ClP. The following Oneida example (Daisy Elijah, speaker) shows a conjoined DP, pig and apple where the classifier for pig (-neskw-) is incorporated, and the classifier for apple, kahik, is a full DP. Given the background assumptions here (no generative Lexicon or head movement), the form kahik cannot occupy a single head position, but is rather syntactically complex – a full DP. The fact that the IN alternates with a full DP in some instances suggests that it occupies the specifier position of ClP rather than the head position. waPkneskwahni:n-ú: kóskos oPkhále swahiyo:w neP kahik waP- kneskw- hninu- ´: kóskos FACT- 1 SG . AG animal- buyPUNC pig v

oPkhále and

swahiyo:w neP kahik apple fruit v

64.

‘I bought a pig and an apple.’ 24 See

Russell and Reinholtz (1997) for a detailed approach in which arguments are merged inside the VP in Cree. 25 This kind of classifier is clearly different from those found in East Asian languages (Li 1999; Cheng and Sybesma 1999). I merely use the term here in the vein as Aikhenvald’s (2003) discussion on verbal classifiers. Whether there is any connection between the two is left to future research.

122

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

Let us consider doubled NI in a non-conjoined structure. Consider the following Oneida example (Daisy Elijah, speaker). 65.

waP-

k1.SG ‘I bought a pig.’

neskwanimal-

FACT -

a-

hni:nbuy-

EPEN -

ú: PUNC

kóskos pig

The DP is built up unremarkably and requires no special comment. The IN is built in parallel and consists of a root and a nominalizer, n, with a null allomorph. The root and n form a point of symmetric c-command and trigger one round of roll-up. 66.

nP

DP

√i

nP

koskos ti

neskw n

The ClP is now formed with nP as its specifier and DP as its complement. This ClP complex is the selected by the verbal root and merges with it. √P

67. √

ClP

hninu

nP

√i

ClP nP

Cl

DP

ti

neskw n

koskos

In 67, the classifier root, -neskw- and the verbal root are in a relation of symmetric c-command. Note that neither nP nor ClP dominates the nominal root since there are segments of both of these projections that do not dominate the nominal root. √ The only projection that dominates the nominal root is the matrix P. Thus, both √ roots are dominated by the same set of projections – just the P – and give rise to an LCA violation. This is alleviated in the usual way discussed above. I assume that the DP raises to a higher position to check Case or to the left periphery to a topic or focus position. The exact details do not matter here, as long as the DP vacates the ClP (shown in here by a trace, tDP ). √P

68.

√P

ClPj nP √i neskw

nP Cl n

√

ClP

ti

tDP

hninu

tj

References

123

This section has shown that many of the core properties of NI including the fact that a theme argument, but not a goal argument, may be incorporated, and the possible doubling of the incorporated noun by a full DP, can be captured by the theory of Dynamic Antisymmetry proposed here.

4.5 Conclusion In this chapter, I have argued for an analysis of NI and DPs in Oneida that is based on Dynamic Antisymmetry and BPS. Specifically, I proposed that NI in Oneida has the effect of eliminating symmetric c-command between the verb and its internal argument. Incorporation of a deverbal noun requires an overt nominalizer, or n. When the nominalizer merges with the deverbal noun, the noun raises to SpecnP to satisfy the LCA, and when the nP complex merges with the verb, the nP raises to SpecVP, in the Complement-to-Spec roll-up manner described. In both cases, Complement-to-Spec movement of N is eventually halted by the null v. DPs in Northern Iroquoian were discussed briefly, and the internal order of the morphemes was accounted for by the proposal presented here – namely, Complement-to-Spec movement of N triggered by the need to satisfy the LCA. The nominalizer merges with the noun, creating a structure that violates the LCA due to symmetric c-command. This is resolved by raising the noun to SpecnP. The nP then merges with a phonologically null Num. Although the noun and the Num are in a symmetric c-command relation, no movement is required since the head of NumP is null. Now, when the overt D merges with the NumP, no further movement needs to take place to satisfy the LCA. At the end of the chapter, I discussed some general properties of NI in Iroquoian, including the fact that the theme, but not the goal/source argument of a ditransitive can under incorporation, and NI doubled by an overt DP. Both of these properties were shown to fall out from the theory of phrase structure proposed here. The next chapter discusses nominal compounding in English, German and Persian, NI in Tamil, and adverb incorporation in Blackfoot. It will be shown that these languages have constructions similar to NI in Northern Iroquoian, which can be accounted for by the framework proposed in Chapter 3.

References Abbott, Clifford. 2000. Oneida. Munich: Lincom Europa. Aboh, Enoch. 2004. The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alboiu, Gabriela, and Michael Barrie. 2009. “Phasehood, Case and Noun Incorporation.” In NELS 38, edited by Anisa Schardl, Martin Walkow, and Muhammad Abdurrahman. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Baker, Mark C. 1985. “The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation.” Linguistic Inquiry 16 (3):373–416. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

124

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

Baker, Mark C. 1991. “On Some Subject/Object Non-asymmetries in Mohawk.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9 (4):537–76. Baker, Mark C. 1993. “Noun Incorporation and the Nature of Linguistic Representation.” In The Role of Theory in Language Description, edited by William Foley, 13–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Baker, Mark C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mark C. 2009. “Is Head Movement Still Necessary?” Lingua 119 (2):45–56. Baker, Mark C., and Lisa deMena Travis. 1997. “Mood as Verbal Definiteness in a “Tenseless” Language.” Natural Language Semantics 5:213–69. Baker, Mark C., Roberto Aranovich, and Lucía A. Golluscio. 2005. “Two Types of Syntactic Noun Incorporation: Noun Incorporation in Mapudungun and Its Typological Implications.” Language 81 (1):138–76. Barrie, Michael. 2003. “Pronominal Agreement in Iroquoian Nouns and Verbs.” Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 21:1–14. Barrie, Michael. 2005. “ϕ-Features in the Onondaga Agreement Paradigm.” In 2005 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference, edited by Claire Gurski: http://ling.uwo.ca/ publications/CLA-ACL/CLA-ACL2005.htm Beck, Sigrid, and Kyle Johnson. 2004. “Double Objects Again.” Linguistic Inquiry 35 (1):97–123. doi:10.1162/002438904322793356. Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2009. “Cyclic Agree.” Linguistic Inquiry 40 (1): 35–73. doi:10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.35%U http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ ling.2009.40.1.35 Chafe, Wallace. 1960a. “Seneca Morphology I: Introduction.” International Journal of American Linguistics 26 (1):11–22. Chafe, Wallace. 1960b. “Seneca Morphology II: Irreducible Nouns and Verbs; The Modal Verb.” International Journal of American Linguistics 26 (2):123–30. Chafe, Wallace. 1960c. “Seneca Morphology III: Expanded Pronominal Prefixes.” International Journal of American Linguistics 26 (3):224–33. Chafe, Wallace. 1960d. “Seneca Morphology IV: Expanded Bases.” International Journal of American Linguistics 26 (4):283–89. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Rint Sybesma. 1999. “Bare and Not-So-Bare Nouns and the Structure of NP.” Linguistic Inquiry 30 (4):509–42. Chomsky, Noam. 1994. “Bare Phrase Structure.” MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. “Three Factors in Language Design.” Linguistic Inquiry 36 (1):1–22. Davis, Henry. 1997. “Turning the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis on its head.” Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas, University of Manitoba, March 22. Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. “On the Necessity of Distinguishing Between (Un)boundedness and (A)telicity.” Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (1):1–19. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dyck, Carrie. 1992. Case Assignment and Agreement in Cayuga. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto. Foster, Michael K. 1986. “Updating the Terminology of Tense, Mood and Aspect in Northern Iroquoian Descriptions.” International Journal of American Linguistics 52 (1):65–87. Froman, Frances, Alfred J. Keye, Lottie Keye, and Carrie Dyck. 2002. English-Cayuga/CayugaEnglish Dictionary. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Hale, Ken. 2001. Navajo Verb Structure and Noun Incorporation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hallman, Peter. 2004. “Symmetry in Structure Building.” Syntax 7 (1):79–100. Hirose, Tomio. 2003. Origins of Predicates: Evidence from Plains Cree. London: Routledge. Hoover, Michael J., and the Kanien’kehaka Raotitiohkwa Cultural Center. 1992. “The Revival of the Mohawk Language in Kahnawake.” Canadian Journal of Native Studies 12 (2):269–87.

References

125

Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. “Empty Categories, Case, and Configurationality.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2 (1):39–76. Johns, Alana. 2003. Restricting Noun Incorporation. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto. Johns, Alana. 2007. “Restricting Noun Incorporation: Root Movement.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25 (3):535–76. Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Karin Michelson. 2008. “Revisiting the Realization of Arguments in Iroquoian.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago, IL, January 3–6, 2008 Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. “Telicity and the Meaning of Objective Case.” In The Syntax of Time, edited by Jacqueline Guéron, and Jacqueline Lecarme, 389–424. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Larson, Richard K. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3):335–91. Larson, Richard K. 1990. “Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff.” Linguistic Inquiry 21 (4):589–632. Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1999. “Plurality in a Classifier Language.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8 (1):75–99. Lin, Vivian. 2000. “Determiner Sharing.” In Proceedings of WCCFL 19, edited by Roger Billerey, and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen, 274–87. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Lounsbury, Floyd Glenn. 1949. “Iroquoian Morphology.” PhD diss., Yale University, New Haven, CT. Lounsbury, Floyd Glenn. 1953. Oneida Verb Morphology. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2):201–25. Marantz, Alec. 2001. “Words.” Paper presented at the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Southern California, February 23–25, 2001. Michelson, Karin. 1988. A Comparative Study of Lake-Iroquoian Accent. SNLLT. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Michelson, Karin. 1991. “Possessor Stranding in Oneida.” Linguistic Inquiry 22 (4):756–61. Michelson, Karin, and Mercy Doxtator. 2002. Oneida-English/English-Oneida Dictionary. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Mithun, Marianne. 1984. “The Evolution of Noun Incorporation.” Language 60 (4):847–94. Mithun, Marianne. 1986. “On the Nature of Noun Incorporation.” Langauge 62 (1):32–37. Mithun, Marianne. 2001. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mithun, Marianne, and Greville G. Corbett. 1999. “The Effect of Noun Incorporation on Argument Structure.” In Boundaries of Morphology and Syntax, edited by Lunella Mereu, 49–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mithun Williams, Marianne. 1974. “Word Order in Tuscarora.” In Papers in Linguistics from the 1972 Conference on Iroquoian Research, edited by Michael K. Foster, 27–35. Ottawa: National Museum of Man. Ogawa, Yoshiki. 2001. A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. “Introducing Arguments.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering Trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ritter, Elizabeth, and Sara Thomas Rosen. 2005. “Agreement Without A-Positions: Another Look at Algonquian.” Linguistic Inquiry 36 (4):648–60. Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1989. “Two Types of Noun Incorporation: A Lexical Analysis.” Language 65 (2):294–317. Russell, Kevin, and Charlotte Reinholtz. 1996. “Hierarchical Structure in a Non-configurational Language: Asymmetries in Swampy Cree.” In The Proceedings of the 14th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Jose Camacho, Lina Choueiri, and Maki Watanabe, 431–45. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

126

4

Noun Incorporation in Northern Iroquoian

Russell, Kevin, and Charlotte Reinholtz. 1997. “Nonconfigurationality and the Syntax-Phonology Interface.” In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 15, edited by Brian Agbayani, and Sze-Wing Tang. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Sadock, Jerrold. 1980. “Noun Incorporation in Greenlandic: A Case of Syntactic Word Formation.” Language 56 (2):300–19. Sadock, Jerrold. 1985. “Autolexical Syntax: A Proposal for the Treatment of Noun Incorporation and Similar Phenomena.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3 (4):379–439. Sadock, Jerrold. 1986. “Some Notes on Noun Incorporation.” Language 62 (1):19–31. Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. “A-Reconstruction and Constituent Structure.” Irving, CA: University of California. Sportiche, Dominique. 1998. Reconstruction and Constituent Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Travis, Lisa de Mena. 1991. “Inner Aspect and the Structure of VP.” Paper presented at the 22nd Meeting of the Northeast Linguistics Society, University of Delaware, Delaware. Travis, Lisa de Mena. 2010. Inner Aspect: The Articulation of VP. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Willliams, Marianne Mithun. 1976. A Grammar of Tuscarora. New York, NY: Garland Press. Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. “Agreement Morphemes as Determiner: Reanalyzing the Polysynthetic Properties of Mohawk.” In Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas, 7, edited by Leora Bar-el, Linda Tamburri Watt, and Ian Wilson. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics. Woodbury, Hanni. 1975. “Noun Incorporation in Onondaga.” PhD diss., Yale University. Woodbury, Hanni. 2003. Onondaga-English/English-Onondaga Dictionary. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Chapter 5

Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

In this chapter, I propose analyses for a variety of constructions that resemble noun incorporation in a number of languages using the theory of phrase structure developed in Chapter 3. This chapter is organized as follows. In Section 5.1, I discuss the general structure of the extended nominal projection, although I do not make any strong claims on a universal nominal hierarchy. This section also relates linear order in NI constructions to the structure of nominals. In Section 5.2, I discuss NI in Sierra Popoluca. In Section 5.3, I discuss the patterns of noun incorporation found in English gerunds and give an analysis of these structures using a Dynamic Antisymmetric formulation of Bare Phrase Structure. In Section 5.4, I look at related phenomena in German. Specifically, I examine noun+verb compounding in German progressive-beim constructions. Section 5.5 examines a kind of NI in Persian ‘long’ infinitives. Next, in Section 5.6, I look at a construction in Tamil which has been argued to be noun incorporation. Section 5.7 looks at adverb incorporation in Blackfoot and shows that it arises as a symmetry breaking operation, too. Section 5.8 is a brief conclusion.

5.1 The Structure of Nominals and V/IN Order1 This first section discusses the structure of the extended nominal projection and how it related to the order between the verb and the IN. The structure of the extended nominal domain has been the subject of interest to a great many researchers since Abney’s (1987) influential DP hypothesis (Ritter 1992, 1993; Valois 1991; Megerdoomian 2008; Travis 1992; Wiltschko 2008; Ghomeshi 2003). The following structure shows a typical extended nominal projection based on the references just mentioned.2 1 Note that some of the material presented in this section is based on joint work with Martina Wiltschko. 2 Not included in the discussion here is the set of root modifiers as discussed in Wiltschko (2008) or how adjectives fit in to the structure (Cinque 2010). This section is intended to be a brief introduction to some of the nominal projections used here and to relate nominal structure to linear properties of NI.

M. Barrie, Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 84, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_5,  C Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

127

128

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

1.

KP K

DP D

AgrP AgrP

nP n

NumP Num

nP n

√

A couple points bear mentioning here. First, I do not pretend to present a universal functional hierarchy for the nominal domain or even argue that one exists (indeed, some of the references above discuss variation in the nominal hierarchy). Such a task is beyond the purview of this monograph. As such, in the discussions of individual languages below, the reader will see that the structure of nominals varies from language to language. Second, the reader will notice that there are two nP projections in the structure above. I adopt Newell’s (2008) distinction between vP and vP and extend this to the nominal domain (though I do not adopt the orthographic convention here). For Newell, v is a verbalizing head (such as -ate or -ize in English) whereas v is the head that introduces the external argument and assigns accusative Case.3 The lower n head (Newell’s n) is a nominalizing head (such as -ion or -er in English). The higher n head is argued to play a similar role as v. It defines a phase and introduces a possessor. Crucially, as a phase head, the higher n determines a domain for stress assignment (Marvin 2003). I adopt Ghomeshi’s (2003) proposal that the count/mass distinction is encoded on Num as follows.4 2.

Number Heads a.

Num [plural]

b.

Num [mass]

Additional evidence for this claim comes from the following English paradigm (discussed in detail below). 3 Note that Harley (2007) has argued for the same distinction based on the presence of passive forms with verbalizing morphology (The butter was clarified, The metal was flattened, etc.) 4 It is often assumed that a mass reading results from the absence of Num (Borer 2005), that is, bare nouns are all inherently mass nouns and are made countable by Num. Following previous work (Barrie and Wiltschko 2010), I assume that mass is not the absence of number, but rather is a marked feature. Note also that the structure of the Num head may be more complex than shown here (Cowper 2005; Cowper and Hall 2009; Harley and Ritter 2002; Harbour 2007).

5.1

3.

The Structure of Nominals and V/IN Order

a. b. c.

129

Maxwell enjoys washing glasses Maxwell enjoys washing glass. Maxwell enjoys glass-washing.

In 3a and b, the noun glass obligatorily receives a count and mass interpretation, respectively. In 3c, however, the form glass is vague between these two readings. Spanish dialects with overt morphology and agreement for mass (Penny 1970; Hualde 1992) also support a representation as in 2. Consider the following Asturian Spanish data. 4.

a. b. c.

nígr-u [‘black’ - SG . MASC] négr-a [‘black’ - SG . FEM ] négr-o [‘black’ - MASS]

5.

a.

el kafé négr-o coffee.MASC black- MASS the.MASC ‘the black coffee’ la boróna négr-o cornbread.FEM black- MASS the.FEM ‘the black cornbread’ la maéra tába piece.of.wood.FEM was the.FEM ‘the piece of wood was dry’

b.

c.

sék-a dry- FEM

What we observe here is that adjectives agree not only with number (plural and singular) but also with mass. Thus, mass, rather than being the absence of number, in fact interacts with number. Given the variable size of the IN and the theory of phrase structure proposed in Chapter 2, I predict that smaller INs are more likely to appear with N+V order while larger INs are more likely to appear with V+N order. To understand why this is so, let us consider the following hypothetical structures, where V is used to represent the verbal root for clarity. 6.

130

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

Recall that in order to get N+V order, Complement-to-Spec roll-up must take place up until the verbal root is introduced into the derivation. In order for this to happen, every head merged into the derivation must have some phonological content (or at least have an allomorph with phonological content). Thus, in the case where a bare verbal root merges with an IN that is itself a bare nominal root, N+V order is expected universally (the first small tree shown above). If the IN contains just one functional projection, then it must have phonological content in order to ensure roll-up past the verbal root (the 2nd small tree shown above). In the remaining trees, all the heads shown in boldface must have phonological content in order to ensure N+V order. Thus, the larger the IN, the less likely it is that every single functional projection is phonologically specified. I will now attempt to relate the results above with the observation in Caballero et al. (2008) that N+V order, while more common cross-linguistically, shows a distinct preference for lexicalized forms.5 Given the discussion above we expect smaller INs to be more susceptible to N+V order. Likewise, we also expect smaller INs to be more likely to undergo lexicalization. That is, smaller syntactic phrases are more likely become lexicalized than larger ones. Thus, the findings of Caballero et al. are predicted from the proposal put forth here. This brief section has discussed the general shape of nominals assumed here, allowing for variation among individual languages. It has also show how the preference for N+V order in lexicalized NI constructions arises. The next section discusses N+V order in English gerunds.

5.2 NI in Sierra Popoluca The first instance of NI I cover in this chapter is fairly prototypical, but underscores a point that will be important in the following chapter. NI in Sierra Popoluca (a Mixe-Zoquen language spoken in Veracruz, Mexico) has N+V order and alternates with non-NI constructions. Consider the following data (de Jong Boudreault 2009: 646), where the nominal kapeel (‘coffee’) can be incorporated or not.6 7.

a.

Pa+kapeljaPppa Pa+kapeel=jaPp-pa X . ABS +coffee=grind- INC ‘I’m going to grind coffee.’

b.

Pi+pinhpa kapeel Pi+pinh-pa kapeel 3.ERG+pick-ERG coffee ‘He collects coffee.’

5 Thanks

to Jan-Wouter Zwart for pressing this matter. following abbreviations are used in the Sierra Popoluca data: ABS – absolutive; CMP – completive; ERG – ergative; INC – incompletive; NEG – negative; NZLR – nominalizer (source document uses NOM); X – 1st person exclusive. + is used to mark clitic boundaries. 6 The

5.2

NI in Sierra Popoluca

131

As is typical with NI constructions, direct objects, instruments, and locatives can incorporate (de Jong Boudreault 2009: 655).7 The IN itself can consist either or a bare root or a root with a nominalizer added (de Jong Boudreault 2009: 648), as shown in 8. Free-standing nominals may be modified by undergoing compounding or by the adjunction of a relative clause; however, the IN may not be modified in this manner (de Jong Boudreault 2009: 657f.), as shown in example 9. 8.

dya Pa+Pi-kxjuypa dya Pa+Pi-ks-i=juy-pa NEG XABS +dekernel-NZLR =buy- INC ‘We didn’t buy corn.’

9.

a.

Pam+watpa tum Pan+suyatti-k Pan+wat-pa tum Pan+suyat=ti-k X . ERG+make- INC one XPSR+palm=house ‘I’m going to make a house of palm leaves.’

b.

Pam+pinhpa Pan+ki--i pi titzniPwi-Pi-p Pan+pinh-pa Pan+ki--i pi Ø+ti-tz-neP-W+PpV X . ERG+gather- INC XPSR+wood 3 ABS +dry-PERF - CMP - REL ‘I’m gathering wood that’s dry.’

c.

∗ Pa+suyatti-kwatpa

Pa+suyat=ti-k=wat-pa X . ABS+palm=house=make-INC (‘I build palm houses.’)

d.

∗ Pa+ti-tzki--i pipinh-pa

Pa+ti-tz=ki--i Pi=pinh-pa X . ABS+dry=wood=pick- INC (‘I’m gathering dry wood.’)

Finally, de Jong Boudreault (2009: 651ff.) discusses the stress pattern of NI in Sierra Popoluca. She specifically notes that the verbal complex containing the IN, including the various clitics indicating tense and aspectual distinctions, act as a single domain for stress assignment.

7 de Jong Boudreault notes that agent incorporation is not to be found in any of the texts she has worked with, but has found one example under elicitation, suggesting its rarity.

i.

Pa+tzaanywás Pa+tzaanyi=was-W X . ABS +snake=bit-CMP ‘I was bitten by a snake.’

I leave the implications of this to future research, but I do note that the passive translation (as opposed to ‘A snake bit me.’) suggests that the snake is less agentive and perhaps enters the derivation as an oblique argument within the DP (such as an instrument). It is also reminiscent of English NI-type compounds such as horse-drawn carriage.

132

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

The stress patterns that occur on complex predicates composed of a verb and an incorporated noun exhibit the same distribution, showing that these forms make up a single phonological word. (de Jong Boudreault 2009: 653)

Thus, based on the assumptions I made in Section 5.1, the IN does not project up to the higher n that constitutes a stress domain. I conclude, then, that the IN in Sierra Popoluca is a bare nP, consisting only of a root and a low, categorizing n head. The derivations for 7a and 8 are as follows. The n head selects the bare root as a complement, forming a point of symmetric c-command. This is alleviated by raising the root to SpecnP. The verbal root then selects the nP as a complement, forming another point of symmetry between the two roots, which again is removed by another round of Complement-to-Specifier roll-up. The derivations are shown below for 7a and 8, respectively. 10.

√P

a.

√P

nPj √i

√

nP

kapeel n

√P

b.

ti

ja p

Ø

√P

nPj tj

√i

√

n

iks n

ti

tj

juy

i

This concludes this brief section on NI in Sierra Popoluca, which illustrates many canonical properties of NI, including N+V order. In particular, this NI constructions in this language (as well as in Northern Iroquoian as discussed in the previous chapter), constitute a single domain for word-level stress assignment, which I have attributed to the lack of a higher phase-denoting n head in the extended nominal domain. Instead, the IN in this language consists of a bare, category-denoting nP. The root within the nP and the verbal root form a point of symmetric c-command, in violation of the LCA and trigger Complement-to-Spec roll-up. Next, I turn to a discussion of English gerunds.

5.3 English Gerunds This section analyzes putative NI in English gerunds such as the one found in the following example.8 8 As a referee notes, this form is typically restricted to gerunds. Unfortunately, I have no insight to offer here as to why this should be so. Under the current proposal, NI takes place before the entire unit is categorized. That is ‘elk-hunting’ is formed by the merger of the root ‘hunt’ with the nP ‘elk’. This complex form is subsequently built up into a gerund form. While acknowledging that this fact about NI in English gerunds still requires an explanation, the author has heard the following spontaneous utterances from non-linguist native speakers of English. ‘I haven’t cherry-picked in a long time.’ (referring to the act of picking cherries off a tree) ‘We’re going out to Calgary this weekend to house-hunt.’

5.3

English Gerunds

11.

133

Jerry went elk-hunting the other day.

I review the properties of these constructions in Section 5.3.1 and follow this by the analysis in Section 5.3.2, where I argue that the syntactic approach to word structure argued for here accounts for properties of these compounds. Specifically, I will show that symmetric c-command between the verbal root and the IN forces Complement-to-Spec roll-up, giving rise to N+V order. I discuss also some of the previous literature on compounding.

5.3.1 Description of NI in English Gerunds English is not traditionally thought of as having noun incorporation. Examples such as babysit and grocery shop are rare, and are usually backformations from nominalized forms (cf. ‘babysitter’ and ‘grocery shopping’). Noun incorporation into gerunds, however, is highly productive in English as the following examples illustrate. 12.

a. b. c.

I went elk-hunting the other day. Peter really enjoys teacup-decorating. Alice wants to try ladder-making to keep her wood-working skills sharp.

The following examples show that the incorporated element (hereafter IN for ease of discussion) cannot contain any plural morphology on the noun, nor can any higher elements such as determiners, quantifiers or adjectives be present.9 13.

Impossible Gerunds in English a. ∗ Will enjoys watches collecting b. ∗ Will enjoys the watch(es) collecting. c. ∗ Will enjoys some watches collecting. d. ∗ Will enjoys a watch collecting. e. ∗ Will enjoys antique/brass watch collecting. f. Will enjoys watch-collecting.

Furthermore, incorporation (N+V order) is obligatory for these constructions. We do observe instances of a verb followed by a bare noun, but these must be interpreted as mass nouns (see below). 14.

a. b. c.

∗ John

enjoys collecting watch. really enjoys decorating teacup. ∗ Alice wants to try making ladder to keep her wood-working skills sharp. ∗ Peter

It appears as though the IN must be a bare singular noun in the sense of Longobardi (1996); however, the following data argue that IN is defective in terms of number 9 Forms

with irregular plurals such as mice-hunting and people-watching are possible in English. We address these in the section on German compounds.

134

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

and count/mass interpretation. Nouns such as glass in English have both a count and mass interpretation. Examples 15a and 15b show that the interpretation is dictated by the morpho-syntactic environment of the noun. In particular, 15a has only a count interpretation and 15b has only a mass interpretation. In 15c, however, glass can have either interpretation. Furthermore, if it has a count interpretation, it can be understood as either plural or singular, although a plural interpretation is usually preferred for this sentence. Likewise, 15d would be understood as referring to someone who washes many glasses as opposed to a single glass (under the count interpretation); however, 15e could easily be understood as referring to someone who is in charge of washing a single elephant. In other words, the incorporated forms are not specified for number or the count/mass distinction. 15. a. b. c. d. e.

Maxwell enjoys washing glasses Maxwell enjoys washing glass. Maxwell enjoys glass-washing. Alice is a glass-washer. Alice is an elephant-washer.

A potential argument against pursuing a syntactic approach to this kind of word formation (and against the single-engine hypothesis in general) resides in the fact that these constructions are often referential islands as discussed by Di Sciullo and Williams (1987). Typical examples include the following. 16. a. b. c.

∗ John

went berry-picking to make jam with them. enjoys teacup-decorating, but she often breaks them. ∗ Siobhan isn’t finished glass-washing yet because there’s a streak on it. ∗ Kate

These contrast with the following clearly syntactic constructions, where pronominal anaphora is licit. 17. a. John went to pick berries to make jam with them. b. Kate enjoys decorating teacups, but she often breaks them. c. Siobhan isn’t finished washing the glass yet because there’s a streak on it. The failure of anaphora in the sentences in 16, however, does not have to be attributed to a distinct morphological module that spits out syntactic atoms. It is often the case that bare nouns cannot support anaphora (Stvan 2009). 18. a. b. c.

∗ Myriam’s

still in bed so we can’t make it, yet. is in church because he really admires its architecture. Joe is still in prison, so we’ll have to go there/∗ to it to visit him.

∗ Hector

Of course not all instances of bare nouns prohibit anaphoric relations, as the following example illustrates.

5.3

English Gerunds

19.

135

Raph went to court because he finds it interesting.

However, as Stvan points out, what the pronoun it refers to is not the court itself (the building or the room) but rather the institutional properties associated with it. Likewise, there are some cases of compounds of this type in English that marginally allow anaphoric reference. To my ear, the following sentence is degraded, but not altogether ungrammatical. 20.

?I haven’t gone cherry-picking because they’re not ripe, yet.

The take-home message here is that there is no clear division of labour between syntax and morphology with regard to referential atomicity.10 In this section, I have shown that only nouns that are bare of inflectional morphology can, and in fact must, undergo incorporation into a gerund in English, where they are unspecified for the count/mass distinction and are thus ambiguous between the two readings.11 Count nouns with any additional morphology and nouns that are obligatorily specified as mass nouns cannot undergo incorporation. The next section proposes a preliminary analysis that accounts for these facts using the theory of Dynamic Antisymmetric Bare Phrase Structure developed in Chapter 2. After the preliminary analysis, I will consider further data and sharpen our analysis.

5.3.2 Analysis The analysis of the linearization of the incorporated constructions depends crucially on the precise structure of the nominals. I begin the analysis, then, with an in depth discussion on the structure of the IN and of other bare nominal constructions. I propose that in the incorporated forms discussed here, the gerund merges with a bare noun (that is, a bare nP).12 I must assume that the smallest unit that can be incorporated includes a nominalizing head since forms such as student-advising, baggage-handler and toaster-shopping. The data from example 13 above show that

10 See

Harley (2008) for additional arguments along these lines dealing with denominal verbs. or semantics may force one interpretation over the other, but crucially, this is not a property of the incorporated noun. For example, in the phrase chicken-sorting a count interpretation is forced because the act of sorting requires discrete entities. Likewise, in the phrase, garlic-mashing, a mass interpretation is strongly preferred because of what is involved in the act of mashing. 12 This is a potential point of confusion. The term ‘bare noun’ is often used to refer to a noun without any overt nominal morphology attached to it (as in they drank water). I am using the term here to refer to an nP without any extended nominal functional projections, either overt or covert. In the phrase they drank water, the noun ‘water’ is ‘bare’ in the sense that is has no overt morphemes; however, it is assumed to project the same set of functional categories as any other non-incorporated object. 11 Pragmatics

136

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

any DP morphology is ruled out in these constructions. Recall also that the incorporated noun is unmarked for number and the count/mass distinction. Since the incorporated noun is always unspecified for both number and the count/mass distinction, I assume that it does not include Num. Thus, I propose the following structures for the incorporated and non-incorporated forms, respectively. 21.

nP nP

i

watch n

ti

This conclusion suggests that the gerund takes a bare noun object in the incorporation structures as in (a), whereas the non-incorporating structures have a full DP object, as in (b). The structures shown in 22 have all elements in their Merge positions. 22.

English Gerund Constructions a. VP V

nP

collecting

b.

watch

VP V

DP

collecting D

NumP Num es

nP n watch √

The structure in 22a violates the LCA as V and the root, , are in a symmetric c-command relation. This violation is resolved by raising the noun to SpecVP, as shown in 23. Since there is no such violation in the second example, no movement is required. 23.

VP nPi watch

VP V

collecting

ti

5.3

English Gerunds

137

To see why 15c is ambiguous, while 15a-b are not, consider the structures in 24. 24.

Ambiguity in noun incorporation in English a.

(=b)

VP

VP

V

nP

nPi

washing

glass

glass

VP V

ti

washing

b.

VP V washing D

DP NumP Num [mass] n

nP √ glass

As a bare noun, glass in a does not have a number projection, and is thus unspecified for number and the count/mass distinction. Although the noun glass in b looks like a bare noun, I argue that it actually possesses a full DP structure as shown. Crucially, it must possess a Num valued as [mass], since it must receive a mass interpretation here. Thus, the noun glass in b is not ‘bare’ in the sense assumed here. That is, it is not a bare N with no extended nominal projections. This observation is in accord with the discussion on phonologically null heads in Chapter 2. There it was noted that phonologically null heads must have semantic content. Thus, the pair of constructions, glass-washing and washing glass must have different semantics. I argued that in glass-washing, the noun is a bare N and lacks a Num projection. As such, it is unspecified for a count/mass distinction. In washing glass, on the other hand, glass can only have a mass interpretation. This section has discussed noun + gerund compounds in English gerunds as an instance of noun incorporation. The word order facts were accounted for using Dynamic Antisymmetry approach to Bare Phrase Structure as proposed in Chapter 2. As before, the order N + V arises by movement of the noun to SpecVP to satisfy the LCA. Since the order V + DP does not violate the LCA, no movement is required. Furthermore, the mass/count ambiguity of N + V compounds with nouns like glass is accounted for by the fact that N + V structures can only arise with bare nouns, which lack a number projection. Thus, no number or count/mass distinction can be specified on N + V structures.

138

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

5.4 German Progressives13 Examples such as those in 25 have been the subject of relatively little previous study beyond brief mentions in the literature (Clahsen et al. 1995 are two notable exceptions; Barrie and Spreng 2009). These compounds, Äpfel-essen, Mäntel-kaufen, and Wildschweine-jagen (literally, ‘apples-eating’, ‘coats-buying’, and ‘boars-hunting’), are problematic for theories of word-formation such as Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982; Mohanan 1986), because inflectional morphology (the plural marking) appears inside the compound, and compounding is considered to be a derivational process. The account of these structures presented below, however, follows naturally from the proposal here and the semantic effects of the presence or absence of plural marking in these structures. 25.

German Progressives a.

Ich bin beim Äpfelessen. I am at.the apple.PLeat.INF ‘I’m eating apples.’ / ‘I’m busy apple-eating.’

b.

Er ist beim Mäntel- kaufen. he is at.the coat. PL- buy. INF ‘He’s buying coats.’ / ‘He’s busy buying coats.’

c.

Der Mann ist beim the man is at.the ‘The man is boar-hunting.’

Wildschweineboar.PL-

jagen. hunt.INF

This type of construction is limited to the pseudo-irregular plural markers. It is unavailable with the productive /-s/ plural marker found in contemporary German. 26.

∗ Ich

bin beim I be.1 SG at.the (‘I’m buying cars.’)

Auto-s-kaufen car-PL-buy.INF

At issue here is the plural marking on the first element of the compound. Compounding is considered a derivational process, and traditional wisdom holds that inflectional morphology cannot appear inside derivational morphology; hence the ungrammaticality of the following English compounds with plural marking. 27.

bee-keeper, ∗ bees-keeper; dog-catcher, ∗ dogs-catcher

Because of this, it has been argued that the irregular plural morphology is derivational rather than inflectional, thus alleviating the problem above (Clahsen et al. 1995; see also Kahnemuyipour 2000; Wiltschko 2004). I address this in the 13 This

section is also discussed in more detail in Barrie and Spreng (2009).

5.4

German Progressives

139

forthcoming analysis; however, I first give some brief evidence on the incorporated status of these constructions. German has SOV word order in embedded contexts, so before I continue, I must show that the examples in 25 are not simply a case of standard SOV order, but rather are some type of incorporation structure. Consider the following contrast. 28.

. . .dass ich die Äpfel (in der Küche) essen möchte. . . .that I the apples (in the kitchen) eat.INF would.like ‘. . .that we would like to eat the apples (in the kitchen).’ [PP modifies VP]

29.

Ich bin beim Äpfel (∗ in der Küche) essen. I am at.the apples (in the kitchen) eat.INF ‘I’m busy eating apples (in the kitchen).’

In a standard SOV construction as in 28, adjuncts and adverbials may intervene between the direct object and the verb. In the putative cases of NI such as in 29, no intervening material can appear between the verb and the incorporated object, suggesting a much closer syntactic link between the verb and the IN. See Barrie and Spreng (2009) for additional evidence for the NI status of these constructions. Compounds where the first element is singular are possible, of course, but there is a change in meaning. Consider the following contrast. 30.

Singular and Plural Compounds in German a.

Ich bin beim Äpfelessen. eat.INF I am at.the apple.PL‘I’m eating apples.’ / ‘I’m busy apple-eating.’

b.

Ich bin beim Apfel- essen.14 I am at.the apple- eat.INF ‘I’m busy eating an apple/some apples.’

c.

Er ist beim Mäntel- kaufen. he is at.the coat.PL- buy.INF ‘He’s buying coats.’ / ‘He’s busy coat-buying.’

d.

Er ist beim Mantel- kaufen. he is at.the coatbuy.INF ‘He’s buying a coat/some coats.’

e.

Der Mann ist beim the man is at.the ‘The man is boar-hunting.’

f.

Der Mann ist beim Wildschweinthe man is at.the boar‘The man is hunting a boar/some boars.’

Wildschweine- jagen. boar.PLhunt.INF jagen. hunt.INF

14 For some speakers this sentence sounds strange since this construction is used for extended activities where the participant is off busy doing something (Bettina Spreng, pc). Since eating an apple is not typically a time-consuming event, this sentence may sound odd.

140

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

When the first element in the compound is singular, there is no specification for number. In 30b for example, the speaker could be eating a single apple or many apples. When the first element in the compound is plural, as in 30a, it must be the case that there is a plurality of the objects specified.15 Before I present the analysis, I would like to discuss how number is represented in German. Wiltschko (2008) discusses some differences between plural marking in English and Halkomelem and proposes that these differences can be captured is the plural marker in Halkomelem is not a functional head, but rather a root modifier. The following table lists the relevant facts and compares these with plural marking in German. Wiltschko proposes (roughly) the following two structures, which capture the differences between English and Halkomelem. In English, the plural marker is a functional head that projects and takes nP as a complement, while in Halkomelem, the plural marker is a modifier that does not project and merges directly with an acategorial root. 31.

English

Halkomelem

DP

nP

D #

√P

n

#P

#

nP n

√

√

These structures account for the facts in Table 5.1 as follows. First, the absence of a plural marker in English is really just the presence of a phonologically null # marker that encodes [SINGULAR ], while the absence of # in Halkomelem arises simply by the lack of the # modifier. The absence of # leaves the interpretation of number open. The agreement facts arise by # as a functional head entering into an Agree Table 5.1 Properties of plural markers

Absence of pl = sing Obligatory agreement Can appear in compounds Category neutral

15 There

English

Halk-omelem

German irregular PL

German regular PL

Yes Yes No No

No No Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes No No

are a few exceptions to this generalization. The forms Bären-schiessen (‘bear-shooting’) and Hirsche-jagen (‘deer-hunting’) can appear in the plural only and are underspecified for number. I suggest that these forms are stored as idioms.

5.4

German Progressives

141

relation with higher elements in the DP. As an optional modifier, # in Halkomelem √ √ triggers no such agreement effects. Assuming compounds are created either by mergers or nP-nP merges (in the case of noun–noun compounds), number in English cannot appear inside compounds since # is a functional category higher than nP. In Halkomelem, however, # merges directly with the root, so it is able to appear inside compound formations. Finally, the fact that # can appear with any category in Halkomelem but is restricted to nouns in English falls out from the fact that # merges with an uncategorized root in Halkomelem but only with an nP in English. Turning to German, I observe that the regular plural marker /-s/ behaves identically to English; however, the irregular plural markers exhibit one small difference. They behave like the regular plurals and English plurals in all respects except that they can appear inside compounds. Following Acquaviva (2008), I propose that the irregular plural markers (PL in the tree below) are part of n in German, while the regularized German plural, /-s/, instantiates the functional head, #. This is not so surprising in light of other nominalizers such as -age (roughage, baggage, slippage) and -ry (jewellery, basketry, cabinetry) which encode a mass interpretation. Given the association between mass and number described above, admitting a lexical plural encoded by n is actually unsurprising. 32.

German (irrelevant functional projections omitted) DP D

#P # /-s/

nP n

√

PL

Let us review the properties from Table 5.1 in light of the structure in 32. The regular plural in German has the same properties as the English plural since they both instantiate the functional head, #. The irregular plural, while an n, still triggers an Agree relation via #, thus giving rise to the same kinds of agreement patterns found in English. Unlike the plural marker in Halkomelem, the irregular plural marker in German is restricted to nouns since it’s an n in German rather than a root modifier. Like Halkomelem, however, irregular plurals can appear inside compounds. Assuming compounds (that contain nominal components) are formed by merging bare nPs (Harley 2009), then it is clear why only irregular plurals are admitted in these compounds and why /-s/ is excluded. These facts above taken together with the structures just discussed suggest the following merged structures for these types of constructions, where [+front] refers to the phonological representation of the plural formation in the German nouns in question.

142

33.

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

Underlying Structures for German Compounds a. VP nP

V

‘Äpfel-essen’ essen

√

n

[+front]16

b.

Apfel

VP

‘Apfel-essen’

V

√

essen

Apfel

Since the plural marking on the first element of these compounds is semantically interpreted, there must be a low n above N in the compound. In contrast, when the first element of the compound lacks plural marking, there is no specification for number at all. These structures, therefore, lack the number projection altogether. Consequently, both of the structures in 33 violate the LCA. Complement-to-Spec movement therefore takes place, giving the structures in 34. 34.

Spelled-Out Structures for German Compounds a.

VP nPj √i

VP nP

Apfel

n

V ti

tj

‘Äpfel-essen’

essen

[+front]

b.

VP √i

VP

Apfel

‘Apfel-essen’ ti

V essen

Before leaving this section, I address the issue of compounds with irregular plurals in English mentioned in footnote 9. These kinds of plurals participate in the same kinds of NI constructions discussed here. Consider the following examples. 16 I

represent the plural morpheme as a floating [+front] feature because of the umlaut on the first vowel. Apfel  Äpfel [apf l]  [εpf l] Mantel  Mäntel [mant l]  [mεnt l] e

e

e

e

i. ii.

5.5

35.

Persian ‘Long Infinitive’ Constructions

a. b.

143

John thinks that mice-hunting licenses are unnecessary. Kate enjoys people-watching at this café.

As above, I follow Acquaviva’s (2008) suggestion that such lexical plurals (in his terms) derive their plurality from n rather than from #. Thus forms such as mice and people can be bare nPs and do not require a functional number head. They are thus free to undergo NI as described above.17 36.

VP nPj √i mice

VP nP

n

V

tj

ti hunting

[PL]

To conclude this section I have shown that NI constructions in German compounds are compatible only with what I have referred to as irregular plural formation (such as formed by ablaut). Adopting a suggesting by Acquaviva (2008), I assumed that such plurals are represented by a plural n rather than by #. These compounds are formed by merger of the verb with a bare nP, thus giving rise to a point of symmetry and triggering Complement-to-Spec movement. Finally, I showed that compounds with irregular English plurals can be explained with the same structure. Next, I turn a kind of NI construction in Persian.

5.5 Persian ‘Long Infinitive’ Constructions In this section, I examine the so-called ‘long infinitive’18 verb form in Persian and show that the Persian facts fall out naturally from the theory of phrase structure developed here.19 Following (Ghomeshi 1997b, 2003) and the theory of the categorization of bare roots by small lexical heads (Marantz 1997, 2001), I assume the structure in 37 for nominals in Persian. 17 An unanswered question here is exactly how the form mice arises in the derivation. Unlike the German plurals, there is not really enough regularity of any kind in English irregular plurals to permit a simple feature such as [+front]. I have represented mice as a root (distinct from mouse) that occurs only in the context of an n with an abstract plural feature. One possibility is that mice is inserted post-syntactically in the label of nP along the lines of Béjar (2004), but I leave the details to future research. 18 For a discussion of this verb form in the wider context of the syntax of Persian, see Ghomeshi (2001) and Kahnemuyipour (2001). 19 Modarresi and Simonenko (2007) discuss another kind of NI that resembles semantic incorporation in the sense of van Geenhoven (1998). I do not discuss this here.

144

37.

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

[KP [QP [DP [CardP [nP [√ P ]]]]]]

Ghomeshi argues that numerals appear in a Card(inality) Phrase in both English and in Persian, and that Persian does not have a NumP. For expository purposes I adopt her analysis here, although nothing crucial hinges on this decision. The KP hosts the definite object marker /râ/. Since this marker does not appear in the constructions under consideration here, it will not appear in the structures illustrated below. As mentioned, I do assume that nouns are comprised of undifferentiated roots that are categorized by n. Note also that n can be overt and, hence, the merger of n and a root always triggers Complement-to-Spec roll-up (data from Kahnemuyipour and Megerdoomian 2002).20 38.

a.

bozorg-í big-NZLR ‘grandeur’

b.

divune-gí mad-NZLR ‘madness’

c.

daan-ésh know-NZLR ‘knowledge’

Persian uses the long infinitive in a variety of constructions. The data discussed here are translated as gerunds in English, but are argued to be nominal constructions in Kahnemuyipour (2001).21 39.

Long Infinitives with Post-Verbal Complements a. sima æz xundæn-e ketab Sima from reading-EZ book ‘Sima likes reading books.’

20 There

xoš-eš mi-yad good-3 SG . CL CONT-come.3 SG

is a potential wrinkle here with the view that the forms in 38 consist of a bare root and a nominalizer. Arsalan Khanemuyipour (p.c.) informs me that in 38c, for example, the root is actually the present tense form of the stem (as opposed to the past tense stem). Under the assumption that present tense is the unmarked tense, it is unsurprising that the present tense stem is used in the nominalized constructions. I continue to assume that these forms consist of bare roots plus a nominalizer. 21 In fact, Cowper (1992) has argued that the corresponding English constructions are nominal, too. I also leave aside the issue of word order in Persian. Persian is SOV (though it has prepositions instead of postpositions and post-verbal clausal complements). Given the approach here (specifically Antisymmetry), the underlying order must be SVO. Since this is the observed order in the non-NI forms under consideration here, I simply leave this issue aside. See Karimi (2005) for some discussion on Persian word order and Antisymmetry.

5.5

Persian ‘Long Infinitive’ Constructions

145

b. sima æz xundæn-e in ketab xoš-eš Sima from reading-EZ this book good-3 SG . CL ‘Sima likes reading this book.’

mi-yad CONT -come.3 SG

c. sima æz xundæn-e ketab-e æli xoš-eš mi-yad Sima from reading-EZ book-EZ Ali good-3 SG . CL CONT-come.3 SG ‘Sima likes reading Ali’s book.’ In example 39, the complement to the long infinitive, xundæn, can be a full DP, as shown in 39b and 39c.22 Example 39a, which appears to contain a bare noun (as argued by Ghomeshi), will be discussed at the end of this section. Contrast the data in 39 with the sentences in 40. When the object is preverbal, only a bare noun is possible. 40.

Long Infinitives with Pre-Verbal Complements a. sima æz ketab xundæn Sima from book reading ‘Sima likes reading books.’

xoš-eš good-3 SG . CL

mi-yad CONT-come.3 SG

in ketab xundæn xoš-eš mi-yad b. ∗ sima æz Sima from this book reading good-3 SG . CL CONT -come.3 SG (‘Sima likes reading this book.’) ketab-e æli xundæn xoš-eš mi-yad c. ∗ sima æz Sima from book-EZ Ali reading good-3 SG . CL CONT-come.3 SG (‘Sima likes reading Ali’s book.’) While post-verbal object nominals in long infinitives may be either bare nominals or full DPs, the pre-verbal objects must be bare. The structures for 39b and a are given in 41a and b, respectively. 41.

Structures for Persian Long Infinitives a.

VP V

( = 39b) DP

xundæn D in

CardP Card

nP √i ketab n

22 Note

nP ti

that the ezafe vowel, EZ, is arguably not part of the syntactic structure. See Ghomeshi (1997a) for a detailed discussion of the ezafe vowel in the syntax of Persian nominal constructions.

146

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

b.

VP V

( = 39a) nP

xundæn

√i

nP ti

ketab n

The structure in 41a obeys the LCA, and no movement is triggered.23 The structure in 41b, however, does violate the LCA and the noun must move to the specifier of the VP as shown in 42. 42.

VP nPi ketab

VP V

ti

xundæn

Example 39a is still unexplained under the assumption that it is a bare noun as Ghomeshi (2003) argues. Native speakers report almost no difference in meaning between 39a and 40a. The only difference they report has to do with register. Whereas the pre-verbal bare noun is more natural in spoken conversation, the postverbal noun is more formal and is more characteristic of the written form of the language. Dealing with optionality has always been difficult within a minimalist framework. One could posit a phonologically null [formal/written register] feature heading a functional projection above NP, which would stop Complement-to-Spec movement, allowing the object nominal to remain in its Merge position, but this solution is rather ad hoc and unsatisfying. Ultimately, this question bears significantly on the proposal for identifying empty categories in Chapter 2 – namely, that empty categories must have semantic content. If a null head is posited that has the effect of stopping Complement-to-Spec movement, then there must be some semantic difference between the two forms with and without this head. This is precisely the situation here, where the only difference appears to be register. I leave this problem for future research, noting that it is part of a much larger problem within recent generative linguistics – specifically, the problem of optionality and register variation (see also Cowper and Hall 2003). Leaving aside the question of optionality, the Persian noun incorporation data presented here are consistent with the Dynamic Antisymmetric approach to Bare Phrase Structure proposed here. Namely, when a verb merges with a bare noun, the noun must raise to SpecVP so as to satisfy the LCA. 23 I follow Ghomeshi (1997b) and assume that the ezafe vowel is inserted phonologically. See also

footnote 22.

5.6

Tamil Noun Incorporation and Coordination

147

5.6 Tamil Noun Incorporation and Coordination Tamil is an SOV language that has been claimed to have noun incorporation (Steever 1979).24 In this section, I look briefly at noun incorporation in Tamil and examine a structure that contains conjoined incorporated nominals. This structure will be shown to follow naturally from the proposal set forth here. Since Tamil is SOV, noun incorporation is not immediately obvious as it causes no change in word order. However, incorporated nominals can be distinguished from unincorporated ones on the basis of case marking. The examples in 43 show a sentence with a full DP object and a sentence with an incorporated nominal (Schiffman 1999: 97, ex (76); and Steever 1979, respectively). Note that although Steever glosses the incorporated nominal as having nominative Case, he points out that nominative is phonologically unmarked. I therefore follow Steever and assume that the incorporated noun has no case at all.25 43.

Tamil NI Constructions a.

naan pan.att-e I. NOM money-ACC ‘I took the money for myself.’

ed.uttu-kit.t.een take.BEN . PST. PNG

b.

avan talai he.NOM head.(NOM ) ‘He straightened his head.’

nimirnt¯an straighten.PST.3 MSG

Incorporated nouns in Tamil exhibit many of the core properties of incorporated nouns in other languages. For example, the incorporated noun cannot appear with Case marking, postpositions, adjectives or demonstratives. Tamil does differ in one important way from other languages, in that in Tamil it is possible for conjoined bare nouns to be incorporated, as in 44 (Steever 1979). 44.

pen.n.um v¯ıt.um p¯arkkap p¯okir¯an avan he.NOM girl.NOM . AND house.NOM . AND see.INF go.PRS .3MS ‘He is going to look for a bride and a house.’

A large number of Tamil nouns can be divided into classes as follows (Schiffman 1999: 25ff.). 24 Mithun

(2000) discusses the Tamil data and compares it to Noun Stripping in the sense of Miner (1989). She concludes that the Tamil facts constitute a kind of NI. Steever (1998: 115f.) and Krishnamurti (2003: 370ff.) discuss these examples as N+V compounding. 25 The presence of two ‘nominative’ DPs is the source of an earlier claim that Tamil violates the putative universal that sentences cannot have more than one subject. Steever argues that these sentences do not have two subjects, but rather that the nominal closer to the verb is actually incorporated and does not bear true nominative Case. In 43b I place the NOM designator in brackets to highlight this claim, even though Steever glosses the IN as having nominative Case throughout.

148

45.

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

a.

Nouns ending in -am marram ‘tree’ duuram ‘distance’

b.

‘system’

kayiru sooru

‘rope’ ‘cooked rice’

viid.u

‘house’

Nouns ending in -ru aaru ‘river’ kenar.u ‘well’

c.

sist.am

Nouns ending in -d.u paad.u kaad.u

‘lot, part’ ‘forest, jungle’

As with many languages, Tamil also sports deverbal nouns with overt nominalizers. I assume, then, that the endings in 45 are nominalizers, the head of nP, and that nouns without one of these endings simply have a phonetically null allomorph. These nominalizers are also present in the IN (Steever 1979: 280f.). 46.

a.

mukam malarntatu en-nut.aiya face bloom.PST.3. NT. SG I.GEN ‘My face bloomed.’

b.

mukam malarnt¯en n¯an I.NOM face bloom.PST.1. SG ‘I experienced pleasure.’

As mentioned above, no Case morphology or demonstratives are possible on these forms. I conclude from these observations that the IN in Tamil is a bare nP. As the reader by now can anticipate, the IN is formed by n taking a bare root as a complement, forming a point of symmetric c-command, which is then resolved by raising the root to SpecnP. 47.

nP √i muk

nP ti

n am

The verbal root then takes the nP as a complement, forming another point of symmetry between the verbal root and the nominal root, giving rise to another round of Complement-to-Spec roll-up. √P

48.

√P

nPj √i muk

nP n am

√ ti malarn

tj

5.6

Tamil Noun Incorporation and Coordination

149

I now turn to the conjoined structure shown in 44. First, I establish some basic assumptions about coordinate structures, and then turn to a discussion of the Tamil data. I adopt Progovac’s (1997) treatment of coordination, with some modifications to make it compatible with Dynamic Antisymmetry. Specifically, I adopt the structure shown in 49, in which each conjunct is the complement of a conjunction head, with which it forms a conjunction phrase (ConjP). The two ConjPs are arguments of an empty head that is of the same type as the conjuncts.26 49.

XP ConjP Conj

XP XP

X

ConjP Conj

XP

Example 44 is derived as follows. Each conjunct is independently formed by merging a conjunction with a bare noun, creating an instance of symmetric c-command. The bare noun in each case raises to SpecConjP so as to satisfy the LCA. The two ConjPs then merge with an empty n as in 49. The resulting nP then merges with the verbal root, forming the structure in 50. √P

50. √

nP

p rkkap

ConjP

nP

nPi

n

ConjP ti

penn Conj

ConjP nPj

um

v

ConjP tj

Conj um

In this structure, however, the verbal root and the nominal root of the first conjunct, shown in boldface in 50, are in a symmetric c-command relation. This is resolved by raising the conjoined NP complex to SpecVP as shown in 51. √P

51.

√P

nP ConjP nPi

n

ConjP

penn Conj um

√

nP

ti

ConjP nPj v

tk

p rkkap ConjP

Conj

tj

um

26 This

difference between this approach and Progovac’s original approach is that Progovac rightadjoined each ConjP to an empty category of the same type as the conjuncts.

150

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

Noun incorporation in Tamil can be understood in terms of the overall analysis proposal here. Specifically, Complement-to-Spec roll-up is triggered by symmetric c-command. The formation of N+V compounds is derived the same way as many of the other compound structures I have shown. The IN is a bare nP in which the root appears in SpecnP, having gotten there as a result of Complement-to-Spec roll-up. The verbal root merges with the nP and the resulting point of symmetric c-command between the verbal and nominal roots triggers another round of rollup. I also demonstrated that NI with the conjoined structures can also be derived by Complement-to-Spec roll-up triggered by symmetric c-command between the conjunction and the bare noun, and subsequently between the first conjunct and the verb. An obvious question that arises from this discussion is why incorporation of conjoined nominals is allowed in Tamil but in almost no other language that allows noun incorporation. I can only offer the following speculation at this point. Languages differ with respect to the kinds of elements that can be conjoined. Tamil is a language that can conjoin bare nPs. It is quite possible that in other languages elements this small cannot be conjoined. Thus, the absence of conjoined structures inside NI constructions has nothing to do with NI per se, but rather with the properties of conjunction in the language.27

5.7 Adverb Incorporation in Blackfoot I now shift my attention to another kind of incorporation – that of adverb incorporation in Blackfoot, an Algonquian language spoken in Southern Alberta (Canada) and in Montana (USA). As noted above, adverb incorporation has been discussed most

27 English

does have some examples of conjoined incorporated nouns such as coin-and-stampcollecting. In this case, is would appear we have the following structure, where N represents nP to save space.

i.

VP NP ConjP N

ConjP

coin Conj and

VP NP

N tN°

tNP

V

ConjP

collecting

N

ConjP

stamp

Conj

tN°

(and)

In this structure, collecting and coin c-command each other, triggering the NP to raise to SpecVP. Still unexplained here (and in coordinating constructions in general) is the choice of which Conj to pronounce. In the structure given here, the higher conjunction is pronounced at PF (as indicated by the strikethrough of the lower conjunction).

5.7

Adverb Incorporation in Blackfoot

151

extensively in Greek (Alexiadou 1997; Rivero 1992) and also in Chukchi (Spencer 1995). In addition to adverb incorporation, more conventional NI has also been discussed in the Algonquian family (Hirose 2003; Wolfart 1973; Mathieu 2008; Denny 1989). I show here that adverb incorporation in Blackfoot can have the same kind of syntactic analysis as proposed here, despite certain peculiarities in the surface structure. Consider the following examples of adverb incorporation (Beatrice Bullshields, speaker, ex a, b; (Frantz 1991), ex c.). 52.

a.

anná John ikinoowatsi ómi apastaminam ann-wa John ikino-owat-yi om-yi apastaminamm DET- PROX John slow-eat.TR-3. OBV DET- OBV apple ‘John ate that apple slowly.’

b.

anná John ikstonatsikinissaaki ann-wa John iik-stonat-ikin-issaaki DET- PROX John DEG - DEG -slow-wash.dish ‘John washed the dishes really slowly.’ (ibid)

c.

tsa niitaikkamiyooyi apastaminam tsa niit-a-Ikkam-iy-ooyi Q DEG - DUR-fast-?-eat. INTR ‘How fast does he eat an apple?’

apastaminam apple

The first example shows a simple case of adverb incorporation, where the adverbial element (a pre-verb in Algongquianist terminology) appears immediately to the left of the verbal root. Assuming the adverbial element is selected as a complement to the verb (Larson 2004), 52a is easily derived by complement-to-spec roll-up as discussed throughout this monograph. Example 52b, however, is a bit more problematic for a straightforward roll-up analysis as it contains degree elements (DEG) that appear to be part of the adverbial element. Finally, 52c is quite puzzling from the current perspective since the degree element and the adverbial are separated by a durative aspect marker (DUR). Constructions such as these at first blush seem to necessitate a morphological template. Nevertheless, I will show that all these forms are derived syntactically by the same underlying structure, shown in 53.28 53.

VP V

VP A

Ai

VP A

ti

I will argue here that the Degree Phrase (DegP) – the extended projection of adverbs/adjectives is split or discontinuous in the same way as has been argued for 28 Note

that although I assume undifferentiated roots here as throughout (Marantz 1997), I use the labels V and A in the schematic trees to avoid confusion.

152

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

the DP (Lin 2000; Sportiche 1998). Lin (2000) argues for the following structure for object determiner sharing based on data of the following type. 54. 55.

vP > DP > VP > NP Mary will eat the pizza on Monday and – tofu on Tuesday.

The shared determiner in 55 is evidence for coordination below the object DP level. Similar facts are available adverbs and their associated degree expressions. Note that these sentences require a rather specific emphasis to sound natural. 56.

a.

John washes cutlery extremely quickly and washes stemware extremely thoroughly.

b.

Mary draws trees so efficiently and draws tableaux so quickly that she was often called up to the chalk board.

c.

No matter how quickly he runs or swiftly (he) climbs, he will not beat that Sherpa to the top of the mountain.

Based on these data, I conclude that DegPs are split in the same way and have the following structure. 57.

CP > TP > AspP > vP > DegP > VP >AP

Let us begin with a cursory examination of the incorporated adverbial elements. As with the nominal and verbal extended domains, the adverbial/adjectival extended domain is argued to contain a categorizing a head (such as English -ish or -al). Taking a look at the following list of adverbial pre-verbs in Blackfoot fails to reveal any kind of predictable pattern or morphological complexity (and Frantz and Russell 1995; data taken from Frantz 1991). I take these data as evidence that the incorporated adverbial element in Blackfoot is a bare root. 58.

Incorporated Adverbial

English Equivalent

Ikkina iiyik (I)poina sok Ikkam iitsiksist ihta ikipp ikkahs ipahk

gently, easily strong, hard nuisance, frenetic, erratic well, good fast slow lucky briefly funny, humorous, odd bad

I am now in a position to derive 52c above. The verbal root selects the adverbial root as a complement, and the ensuing symmetric c-command triggers Complement-toSpec roll-up.

5.7

Adverb Incorporation in Blackfoot

59.

153

√P √i

√P

Ikkam √

ti

ooyi

Now, the internal argument must still be introduced into the derivation, which is accomplished by enlarging the VP shell.29 As Blackfoot is a discourse configurational language, I assume that the nominal expressions appear in the left periphery as discussed for Northern Iroquoian in Chapter 2. √P

60.

√P

NumP apastaminam

√

√P √i

√P

Ikkam √

ti

ooyi

At this point, no more movement triggered by symmetric c-command takes place. It is, however, necessary to show that even when the incorporated adverb is accompanied by degree terms, symmetric c-command still holds between the verbal root and the adverbial. Thus, I continue with the remainder of the derivation for the verbal √ complex. Next, then, the Deg head associated with the adverb merges with the P, followed by the v head. 61.

vP v

DegP √P

Deg niit

√P

NumP apastaminam

√

√P √i

√P

Ikkam √

ti

ooyi

29 I represent the object as a bare NumP as non-specific nominals fail to trigger transitive agreement

on the verb. I assume that a full DP is required for transitive agreement.

154

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages √

Once the structure in 61 is formed, the P raises to SpecvP to capture the traditional V-to-v raising effects (to categorize the root, for instance). From this point, I will ignore the nominal arguments to simplify the derivation. This gives rise to the following structure. 62.

vP √Pi

vP

Ikkam-ooyi

v

DegP ti

Deg niit

Finally, the Asp head merges with the vP and the DegP remnant raises to SpecAspP, giving rise to the final structure of the verbal complex. 63.

AspP AspP

DegPj Deg niit

ti

Asp a

vP √Pi Ikkam-ooyi

vP v

tj

This section has shown that adverb incorporation in Blackfoot can be understood partially in terms of the Complement-to-Spec roll-up mechanism proposed in Chapter 2 to break points of symmetry. This section has also shown that the degree elements present in the incorporated constructions are consistent with the approach taken here is I assume that the DegP is split the same way Lin (2000) and Sportiche (1998) have argued for a split DP.

5.8 Conclusion This chapter has looked briefly at noun+verb compounding in English, German, Persian and Tamil and at adverb incorporation in Blackfoot. Preverbal bare nouns in English gerunds were shown to be unspecified for number and the count/mass distinction, which is taken to be evidence for the lack of a NumP in these constructions. The postverbal nominals in English gerunds were shown to include higher functional projections in the DP domain. In German progressive beim constructions, either the preverbal nouns are bare and are unspecified for number and the count/mass distinction, or they are marked as plural, but are still non-referential.

References

155

This construction does not allow post-verbal nominals. In Persian, post-verbal nominals are full DPs and pre-verbal nominals are bare Ns. Post-verbal bare nominals are permitted in a formal or written register only. Next, in Tamil, noun incorporation is triggered by the need to satisfy the LCA; however, I also showed that conjoined nominals can be incorporated by the same mechanism argued for here. Finally, adverb incorporation in Blackfoot was argued to arise by symmetric c-command between the verbal root and the adverbial, which is itself a root. Instances of degree elements in adverb incorporation constructions were argued to arise by split degree phrases. In all cases, incorporation is triggered by the need to satisfy the LCA in accordance with the Dynamic Antisymmetric approach to Bare Phrase Structure proposed in Chapter 2. In the next chapter, I look at a NI constructions in which the order V+N surfaces.

References Abney, Stephen. 1987. “The English Noun Phrase and its Sentential Aspect.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA. Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Lexical Plurals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barrie, Michael, and Bettina Spreng. 2009. “Noun Incorporation and the Progressive in German.” Lingua 119 (2):374–88. Barrie, Michael, and Martina Wiltschko. 2010. “How To Be a Mass and Other Cases of Nominal Aspect.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, May 29–31. Béjar, Susana. 2004. “Syntactic Projections as Vocabulary Insertions Sites.” Paper presented at the NELS 35, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense, Volume 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caballero, Gabriela, Michael J. Houser, Nicole Marcus, Teresa McFarland, Anne Phycha, Maziar Toosarvandani, Suzanne Wilhite, and Johanna Nichols. 2008. “Nonsyntactic Ordering Effects in Syntactic Noun Incorporation.” Linguistic Typology 12 (3):383–421. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clahsen, Harald, Gary Marcus, Susanne Bartke, and Richard Wiese. 1995. “Compounding and Inflection in German Child Language.” In Yearbook of Morphology, edited by Geert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 115–142. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Cowper, Elizabeth. 1992. “Infinitival Complements of Have.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37 (2):115–36. Cowper, Elizabeth. 2005. “A Note on Number.” Linguistic Inquiry 36 (3):441–55. Cowper, Elizabeth, and Daniel Currie Hall. 2003. “The Role of Register in the SyntaxMorphology Interface.” In Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, edited by Sophie Burelle, and Stanca Somesfalean. http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/2003/CowperHall.pdf Cowper, Elizabeth, and Daniel Currie Hall. 2009. “Where—and What—Is Number?” In The 2009 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, edited by Frédéric Mailhot. http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2009/CLA2009_Cowper_Hall.pdf de Jong Boudreault, Linda J. 2009. “A Grammar of Sierra Popoluca (Soteapanec, a Mixe-Zoquean Language).” PhD diss., University of Texas, Austin. Denny, J. Peter. 1989. “The Nature of Polysynthesis in Algonquian and Eskimo.” In Theoretical Perspectives on Native American Languages, edited by Donna Gerdts, and Karin Michelson, 203–58. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

156

5 Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages

Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Frantz, Donald G. 1991. Blackfoot Grammar. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Frantz, Donald G., and Norma Jean Russell. 1995. Blackfoot Dictionary of Stems, Roots, and Affixes. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997a. “Non-Projecting Nouns and the Ezafe Construction in Persian.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15 (4):729–88. Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997b. “Topics in Persian VPs.” Lingua 102 (2–3):133–67. Ghomeshi, Jila. 2001. “Control and Thematic Agreement.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46 (1/2):9–40. Ghomeshi, Jila. 2003. “Plural Marking, Indefiniteness, and the Noun Phrase.” Studia Linguistica 57 (2):47–74. Harbour, Daniel. 2007. Morphosemantic Number: From Kiowa Noun Classes to UG Number Features. Amsterdam: Springer. Harley, Heidi. 2007. External Arguments: On the independence of Voice◦ and v◦ . Tromsø, Norway, April 12–14, 2007 Harley, Heidi. 2008. Bare Roots, Conflation and the Canonical Use Constraint. University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, February 5–6, 2008 Harley, Heidi. 2009. “Compounding in Distributed Morphology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, edited by Rochelle Lieber, and Pavol Štekauer, 129–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. “Person and Number in Pronouns: A Feature-Geometric Analysis.” Language 78 (3):482–526. Hirose, Tomio. 2003. Origins of Predicates: Evidence from Plains Cree. London: Routledge. Hualde, Jose Ignacio. 1992. “Metaphony and Count/Mass Morphology in Asturian and Cantabrian Dialects.” In Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics, edited by Christiane Laeufer, and Terrell A. Morgan, 99–114. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2000. “On the Derivationality of Some Inflectional Affixes in Persian.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, Chicago, IL. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2001. “On Wh-Questions in Persian.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46 (1/2):41–61. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan, and Karine Megerdoomian. 2002. “The Derivation/Inflection Distinction and Post-Syntactic Merge.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Toronto, ON. Karimi, Simin. 2005. A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. “Lexical Morphology and Phonology.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, edited by Ik-Hwan Lee, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Larson, Richard K. 2004. “Sentence Final Adverbs and “Scope”.” In Proceedings of NELS 34, edited by Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf, 23–43. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications. Lin, Vivian. 2000. “Determiner Sharing.” In Proceedings of WCCFL 19, edited by Roger Billerey, and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen, 274–87. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1996. “The Syntax of N-Raising: A Minimalist Theory.” OTS Working Papers, Utrecht, 1–151. Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2):201–25. Marantz, Alec. 2001. “Words.” Paper presented at the 20th West Coast conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Southern California, February 23–25, 2001. Marvin, Tatjana. 2003. “Topics in the Stress and Syntax of Words.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA. Mathieu, Éric. 2008. “Word Formation as Phrasal Movement: Evidence from Ojibwe.” Paper presented at the NELS 39, Cornell University, November 5–7.

References

157

Megerdoomian, Karine. 2008. “Parallel Nominal and Verbal Projections.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, edited by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizaretta, 73–103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Miner, Kenneth L. 1989. “A Note on Noun Stripping.” International Journal of American Linguistics 55 (4):476–77. Mithun, Marianne. 2000. “Incorporation.” In Morphology, edited by Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 916–28. Berlin: deGruyter. Modarresi, Fereshteh, and Alexandra Simonenko. 2007. “Quasi Noun Incorporation in Persian.” In The Oxford Postgraduate Linguistics Conference: http://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/events/lingo/ proceedings.htm Mohanan, K. P. 1986. The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel. Newell, Heather. 2008. “Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Phases.” PhD diss., McGill University, Montreal, QC. Penny, Ralph, J. 1970. “Mass-Nouns and Metaphony in the Dialects of North-Western Spain.” Archivum Linguisticum 1:21–30. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1997. “Slavic and the Structure for Coordination.” In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, 1996, edited by Martina Lindseth, and Steven Franks. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1992. “Cross-Linguistic Evidence for Number Phrase.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37 (2):197–218. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1993. “Where’s Gender?” Linguistic Inquiry 24 (4):795–803. Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1992. “Adverb Incorporation and the Syntax of Adverbs in Modern Greek.” Linguistics and Philosophy 15 (3):289–331. Schiffman, Harold F. 1999. A Reference Grammar of Spoken Tamil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spencer, Andrew. 1995. “Incorporation in Chukchi.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 71 (3):439–89. Sportiche, Dominique. 1998. Reconstruction and Constituent Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Steever, Sanford B. 1979. “Noun Incorporation in Tamil, or What’s a Noun Like You Doing in a Verb Like This?” In Papers from the Regional Meetings. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Steever, Sanford B. 1998. The Dravidian Languages. London: Routledge. Stvan, Laurel Smith. 2009. “Semantic Incorporation as an Account for Some Bare Singular Count Noun Uses in English.” Lingua 119 (2):314–33. Travis, Lisa de Mena. 1992. “Inner Tense with NPs: The Position of Number.” In Proceedings of the Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference, edited by Carrie Dyck, Jila Ghomeshi, and Tom Wilson, 329–46. Valois, Daniel. 1991. “The Internal Syntax of DP.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, CA. van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Dissertations in Linguistics. (DiLi). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Wiltschko, Martina. 2004. “Expletive Categorical Information: A Case Study of Number Marking in Halkomelem Salish.” In Northeast Linguistics Society (NELS). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications. Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. “The Syntax of Non-inflectional Plural Marking.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26 (3):639–94. Wolfart, H. Christopher. 1973. “Plains Cree: A Grammatical Study.” American Philosophical Society Transactions, New Series 63 (5).

Chapter 6

V+N Order

So far, all instances of NI and compounding I have dealt with have the noun preceding the verb (N+V order). The following examples illustrate the some of the cases so far, where the noun in boldface and the verb in italics to highlight their relative placement. 1.

waPkneskwahni:nú waPkneskw- aFACT1. SG . AG -animal- JOIN ‘I bought an animal.’

[Oneida] hninubuy-

´: PUNC

2.

John enjoys elk-hunting.

[English]

3.

Johannes ist beim Mäntel-kaufen. Johannes is at.the coat.PL -buying ‘Johannes is busy buying coats.’

[German]

4.

sima æz ketab xundæn sima from book reading ‘Sima likes reading books.’

xoš-eš good-3 SG

mi-yad CONT -come.3

[Persian]

In this chapter, I investigate instances of NI in which the order V+N is found. Languages with V+N order constitute apparent counter-examples to the proposal put forth here. What I will show is that the IN in some of the languages under consideration is larger than in instances of prototypical NI. This will be obvious in the Niuean examples discussed below, but not for Mapudungun and Upriver Halkomelem, where the IN genuinely appears bare. In all cases, however, I show that asymmetric c-command holds between the verbal root and the IN, thus allowing the LCA to establish a V+N order for the NI constructions here. The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. Section 6.1 discusses and analyzes pseudo noun incorporation in Nieuan. Section 6.2 discusses Romance compounds such as toca-discos (“record-player”, Spanish) and essuie-mains (“hand cloth”, French). Section 6.3 discusses NI in Mapudungun. Section 6.4 discusses lexical suffixes in Upriver Halkomelem. Section 6.5 is a brief conclusion. M. Barrie, Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 84, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_6,  C Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

159

160

6

V+N Order

6.1 Polynesian Pseudo Noun Incorporation Massam (2001) discusses a type of NI in Niuean, a Polynesian language of the Austronesian family, which she calls pseudo noun incorporation for reasons that will become clear directly. The same phenomenon has been described for other Polynesian languages, although I will consider mostly the Niuean facts (see Massam 2009 for a list of references for NI in other Austronesian languages). The ‘IN’ in these languages is much larger than in prototypical cases of NI, containing adjectives, relative clauses or even conjunctions. The data discussed in this section come mostly from Niuean and are primarily taken from Massam’s (2001) discussion of the phenomenon for which she originally coined the term pseudo noun incorporation. Other Polynesian languages, such as M¯aori (Chung and Ladusaw 2004) and Tongan (Ball 2005) exhibit similar patterns. Consider the data in 5. Again, the noun is in boldface and the verb is in italics in the structures where incorporation has taken place. 5. Pseudo Noun Incorporation in Polynesian Niuean (Massam 2001) a. Ko e

fanogonogo lologo listen song ‘They were listening to songs.’ PRS

a ABS

b. Ko e fanogonogo a lautolu ke PRS listen ABS they ‘They were listening to songs.’

he to

c. Ne inu kofe kono PST drink coffee bitter ‘Mary drank bitter coffee.’

Mele Mele

a ABS

lautolu they tau PL

[ex. (18b)]

lologo [ex. (18a)] song [ex. (6a)]

d. . . .ke kumi motu ke nonofo ai. seek island SUBJ settle there . . .SBJV ‘. . .to seek an island where they could settle.’

[ex. (7d)]

M¯aori (Chung and Ladusaw 2004) e. N¯a reira therefore kimi find

i TNS

tahuri turn

huarahi e way TNS

ai OBLCL

te wahine the woman

ea be.satisfied

ai OBJCL

r¯a that

ki te INF

o¯ na wawata. her.PL desire

‘Therefore the woman set about finding a way by which she could realize her goals.’ [p. 139, ex. (14a)1 ] f. I

moe t¯ane, w¯ahine atu ki reira sleep man, woman away at there ‘They married husbands and wives there.’ [p. 138, ex. (12a)2 ] TNS

1 Citing 2 Citing

Karetu (1974: 97). Jones and Biggs (1995).

6.1

Polynesian Pseudo Noun Incorporation

161

Example 5a shows a sentence with incorporation and 5b shows a sentence in the canonical word order. The difference between pseudo noun incorporation and the noun incorporation discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 (aside from the linear order) is the amount of material that can be incorporated. Whereas in Oneida, English, German, Persian and Tamil, incorporation could move only a bare noun, or a bare noun augmented by plural morphology, much more material can appear in a pseudo noun incorporation construction, including adjectives as in 5c, conjoined nouns as in5f, subjunctive relatives as in 5d, and indicative relative clauses (M¯aori only) as in 5e.3 Having introduced the basic phenomenon, I turn first to an in depth discussion of the structure of nominals in Niuean before presenting the analysis.

6.1.1 The Structure of Niuean Nominals I adopt the following structure of Niuean nominals (Kahnemuyipour and Massam 2003; Massam 2000, pc; Kahnemuyipour and Massam 2006).4 6.

PP P

KP K

Art1P Art1

Art2P Art2

DP D

PossP DP

PossP

possessor Poss

DemP Dem NumP numerals NumP Num

AdjP

Adj

#P #/cl

#P #

NP

3 There are two kinds of pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. While it is true that in general incorporation, indicative relatives are impossible, they are possible in fai-incorporation structures (Massam 2009). Fai is a verb which roughly means “to have”, thus, fai-incorporation structures indicate possession, thus asserting the existence of the object in question. 4 The reader will note that there is no categorizing nP projection. These are not discussed in Kahnemuyipour and Massam and are left out of the discussion here. For the current purposes, I assume that an N projection corresponds to an nP in which the root has raised to SpecnP as seen in many of the other languages presented here.

162

6

V+N Order

The higher article phrase, Art1 P, encodes the proper/common distinction and the lower article phrase, Art2 P, encodes specificity and number. The AdjP is iterable, and hosts adjectives in its head. NumP is optional, taking numerals in its specifier and the particle /e/ in its head. The #P encodes plural number and classifier morphology. Kahnemuyipour and Massam (2006) propose that this number and classifier morpheme appears in Spec#P rather than in the head. Furthermore, they suggest that the plural feature encoded on # is checked against the number feature of Art2 P. The surface structure of nominals follows the following patterns. There is variation in the order of numerals and possessors, which is shown below. 7. Niuean DP Patterns a. b. c. d. e.

Case+P/C > # > N > Adj’s > Dem Case+P/C > Poss a > # > N > Adj’s > Dem Case+P/C > # > N > Adj’s > Dem > Poss Case+P/C > Num e > # > N > Adj’s > Dem Case+P/C > # > N > Adj’s > Dem > Num

Kahnemuyipour and Massam argue for a Complement-to-spec roll-up analysis to derive the surface word order. I show here that their analysis is compatible with the proposal here that movement is driven by the need to satisfy the LCA. Consider the example in 8 (Kahnemuyipour and Massam 2003), which has the structure in 9. Adjc P is used for the colour AdjP and Adjq P for the quality AdjP. 8.

e

tau

ABS .C

PL

manu bird ‘those beautiful, red birds’

9.

jula red

fulufuluola beautiful

e:

[ex. (1)a]

DEM

KP K

Art1P

e

Art2P

Art1 Art2

DP DemPl

AdjqPk AdjcPj #Pi tau

#P #

Adjc N manu

DemP AdjqP

AdjcP

jula

DP

Adjq

ti fulufuluola

Dem tj

e:

D tk

tl

6.1

Polynesian Pseudo Noun Incorporation

163

The derivation of this nominal is as follows. The phonologically null # merges with the noun. Then the plural marker, a head, merges into Spec#P. The #P thus formed merges with the adjective jula (‘red’). At this point, the adjective and the plural marker are in a symmetric c-command relation, in violation of the LCA. Symmetric c-command is eliminated by raising #P to SpecAdjc P. The same problem arises when the adjective fulufulu (‘beautiful’) is merged with the Adjc P, and the Adjc P therefore raises to SpecAdjq P. The demonstrative then merges with the Adjq P thus formed, again creating a situation of symmetric c-command between the demonstrative and the plural marker. The AdjP thus raises to SpecDemP, which derives the correct order. What is interesting to note here is that I have not deviated from Kahnemuyipour and Massam’s derivation at all. Their analysis follows directly from a Dynamic Antisymmetry view of Bare Phrase Structure as proposed in Chapter 2. In the next section, I examine pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean and show that the V+N order arises from the lack of symmetric c-command between the V and the IN.

6.1.2 Pseudo Noun Incorporation In her discussion of pseudo noun incorporation, Massam (2001; 2009) observes that incorporated nominals in Niuean can include adjectives and subjunctive relatives, but not demonstratives, case markers, plural markers, indicative relatives (except in fai-incorporation constructions – see fn. 3), or possessors. Furthermore, Massam notes that Niuean PNI exhibits the same semantics as NI in other languages. That is, the IN has obligatory narrow scope, number neutrality, lack of referentiality, cannot support pronominal discourse anaphora, and the sentence expresses an institutionalized activity or state. Thus, it appears that the direct object in such a construction may consist maximally of a DP. Massam suggests that the lack of plural morphology (in #P) is due to the absence of an Art2 , the head against which the plural morpheme checks its plurality feature. Likewise, I assume that demonstratives and possessors are ruled out in these constructions, as these elements appear only in definite or specific nominals. Since definiteness and specificity are encoded on Art1 , demonstratives and possessors are not licit in incorporated constructions, since the necessary feature is absent. Unlike incorporated nominals in the other languages discussed, the IN in Niuean fai-NI constructions can be referential; however the IN in standard NI constructions cannot. An example of a referential IN in a fai-construction is illustrated in 10 (Massam 2001; p. 159, example (6d)). In the following example, the incorporated noun is subsequently referred to. See Massam (2009) for more comparisons between these two kinds of NI in Niuean.

164

10.

6

Ne PST

manatu think

mena thing

fai have

mata-fohi haku blade-scraper scratch

hiapo tapa-plant

ia she

ne

huhulu he shove in

felevehi. . . cloth. . .

PST

e ABS

Mataginifale Mataginifale

malo waist-

ko

e

PRED

ABS

V+N Order

a ABS

‘Mataginifale remembered that she had the blade of the tapa plant scraper which she had twisted in her waist cloth. . .’ Thus, the smallest projections possible for NI in Niuean are NP and AdjP (Massam 2009: 170, fn 6). Higher functional elements are never found in these constructions. Since there is no KP in a pseudo incorporated noun phrase, I follow Massam and assume that it does not raise to a Case checking position but rather stays in situ.5 Also, DP and DemP must be absent as determiners and demonstratives are not present in NI constructions. It seems odd, however, that the verb that is looking for a nominal phrase would select an AdjP as a complement. I would like to suggest that a higher nP (i.e., not the categorizing nP, but the higher phasal nP described in the previous chapter) is sandwiched between the highest AdjP present and DemP, whose head optionally encodes referentiality.6 In the fai-construction, the [+referential] n is optionally selected. In standard NI constructions, only the [-referential] n is selected. Consider the derivation of 5c repeated here. 11.

Ne

a

PST

inu kofe kono drink coffee bitter ‘Mary drank bitter coffee.’

ABS

Mele Mele

The nominal kofe kono (‘bitter coffee’) by the current hypothesis contains only a DP and, thus, does not raise to a Case position. According to Massam, it remains √ in situ. The structure of the verbal P, then, is as follows.

5 The tacit assumption here is that K has an uninterpretable Case feature, thus only KPs need to raise to a position in the clause to check Case. Recall that Massam derives VSO word order by remnant movement of the VP to an EPP position in the IP domain, thus requiring overt movement of the object KP to a higher position. 6 A related question here is whether the IN has the same kind of word-level stress as nonincorporated nominals, since I propose that a phasal n is present (see the discussion at the beginning of Chapter 5 and on Romance compounds in the next section).

6.1

Polynesian Pseudo Noun Incorporation

165

√P

12. √ inu

nP n Ø

AdjqP AdjqP

Ni

kofe Adjq

ti

kono

Recall that there is no #P in pseudo noun incorporation structures in Niuean since it is assumed that # must check its feature against a higher Art2 . Since Art2 is absent, there is no #P in 12. Finally, the higher n merges with the AdjP (or NP if there are no adjectives). Since this head is null, it blocks Complement-to-Spec roll-up. Once the verbal root merges with nP, the resulting structure does not require any further movement as the verbal root asymmetrically c-commands all the elements inside the nP. Recall that Massam has argued that Niuean is a VP-fronting language. Thus, when the VP raises to the clause-initial position, it carries the nP along with it, resulting in the pseudo noun incorporation construction with V+N order.

6.1.3 Postlude on Tukang Besi Object Incorporation Tukang Besi, a Malayo-Polynesian language distantly related to Niuean exhibits a phenomenon of object incorporation (Donohue 1999) similar characteristics with pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Consider the following data (Donohue 1999: 167, ex (66–67)). 13.

a.

no-sai te kuikui 3.SG . REAL-make CORE cake ‘S/he makes cakes.’ / ‘S/he is making a cake.’

b.

no-sai-kuikui 3. SG . REAL-make-cake ‘S/he makes cakes.’ / ∗ ‘S/he is making a cake.’

As the idiomatic translations indicate the IN in Tukang Besi is non-referential as in Niuean and the other languages with NI I have investigated. On the face of it, these data appear troublesome for the account of NI I have proposed since the ‘incorporated’ object is immediately to the right of the verb. Consider the following data, however (Donohue 1999, p. 169 ex. (73–74)).

166

14.

6

a.

no-tutu-mo te 3.SG . REAL-pound-PRFV CORE ‘He is making a sharp machete.’

b.

no-tutu-kabali-mohama-mo 3.SG . REAL-pound-machete-sharp-PRFV ‘He made sharp machetes.’

V+N Order

kabali mohama machete sharp

As with Niuean pseudo noun incorporation, adjectives can appear with the NI. Because of this Donohue eschews the term noun incorporation in favour of object incorporation. Assumedly, a similar analysis for the Tukang Besi facts can be made as for Niuean above. Specifically, I assume that the object incorporation construction has the structure in 15a rather than the right-adjoined NI structure in 15b, c. 15.

√P

a.

√P

b.

√V

nP

√V

verb

IN

√V √ N

√P

c. √V

Ø

Ø

√V √ N √ N √A

There is, moreover, corroborating data that suggests a greater degree of independence between the verb and the NI, as suggested by the structure in 15a. The placement of the perfective aspectual marker is somewhat free in Tukang Besi. Consider the following data (Donohue 1999). 16.

a.

no-sai-kuikui-mo 3.SG . REAL-make-cake-PRFV ‘S/he has made cakes.’

b.

no-sai-mo-kuikui 3.SG . REAL-make-PRFV-cake ‘S/he has made cakes.’

c.

mbea-mo no-sai-kuikui not-PRFV 3.SG . REAL-make-cake ‘S/he doesn’t make cakes anymore.’

d.

∗ no-tutu-kabali-mo-mohama

3.SG . REAL-pound-machete-PRFV-sharp (‘He made sharp machetes.’) The first three examples reveal that the perfective marker can appear after the negative auxiliary, the verbal root, or after the incorporated object.7 Note that it cannot 7 A crucial piece of data that is missing from Donohue (1999) is whether the perfective marker can appear after a full DP object. This, of course, makes strong predictions regarding the surface

6.2

Romance Compounds

167

appear inside the incorporated object, 16d, suggesting the incorporated object acts as a syntactic unit. Obviously an analysis of aspectual and verbal morphology of Tukang Besi is well beyond the scope of this monograph, so I do offer anything more than these few remarks. In this section, I have shown how the structure of Niuean nominal phrases gives rise to pseudo noun incorporation constructions within the Dynamic Antisymmetric framework proposed in Chapter 2. Pseudo noun incorporation arises by virtue of the lack of symmetric c-command between the verb and the nominal element that is its complement, thereby satisfying the LCA. As a result, the nominal complement does not raise to SpecVP and surfaces to the right of the verb. In the case of Niuean, the entire VP (with its pseudo incorporated noun) raises to SpecTP. This section ended with a brief discussion on a similar phenomenon in Tukang Besi that argues strongly against a right-adjunction analysis of NI in that language.

6.2 Romance Compounds In this section, I discuss the derivation of a particular kind of compounds in Romance languages. There exists a large variety of compound constructions in Romance (Kornfeld 2009; see for instance Fradin 2009), and I focus solely on the V+N kind here (e.g. tocadiscos (play-records, ‘record-player’ in Spanish). This surface structure and function of these compounds mirrors that of the English translation (‘record-player’); however, I will show that the Romance compounds have a much larger internal structure. One immediately notices, too, that the surface order of the constituents is the reverse of what is found in English – a fact that will fall out from the analysis below. Crucially, I will show that the ‘nominal’ component of the compound (i.e., the component on the right) is a word-internal phase (Marantz 2001; Marvin 2003; Newell 2008) and contains a phonologically null functor n which prevents symmetric c-command from taking hold between the two components of the compound. As is common in the analysis of compounds, much of the discussion centers around whether compounds are derived syntactically, morphologically, or stored as atoms in the lexicon (Kornfeld 2009; Di Sciullo and Williams 1987; Lieber 1992; Selkirk 1982; Ulfsbjorninn 2009; Brousseau and Voskovskaia 2007; Harley 2009). Kornfeld (2009), in particular, argues for a syntactic approach to V+N compound formation in Spanish.8

position of the incorporated object and the full DP object, but these questions cannot be answered here. 8 N+V compounding is by-and-large absent in Romance. One notable exception is Catalan, which has semi-productive N+V NI (Gracia and Fullana 1999). Unlike the IN in V+N compounding constructions discussed here for the rest of Romance, the IN in N+V NI constructions in Catalan is a bare noun without number marking.

168

6

V+N Order

I now turn to the discussion and analysis of compounds in Romance. Section 6.2.1 discusses the properties of the V+N Romance compounds, and Section 6.2.2 gives their analysis.

6.2.1 Description of V+N Compounds The Romance compounds under discussion here exhibit V+N order. Consider the following compounds from various Romance languages (Kornfeld 2009; Fradin 2009). 17.

a.

French lave-linge – ‘washing machine’ (lit. wash-laundry) essuie-mains – ‘hand cloth’ (lit. wipe-hands) essuie-glace – ‘windshield-wiper’ (lit. wipe-window) ouvre-boîtes – ‘can opener’ (lit. open-boxes) rince-doigts – ‘finger bowl’ (lit. rinse-fingers) tire-fesses – ‘ski lift’ (lit. pull-buttocks)

b.

Spanish tocadiscos – ‘record player’ (lit. play-records) aguafiestas – ‘party pooper’ (lit. water-parties) sacacorchos – ‘corkscrew’ (lit. remove-corks) abrelatas – ‘can opener’ (lit. open-cans) rascacielos – ‘sky scraper’ (lit. scratch-skies)

c.

Italian giradischi – ‘record player’ (lit. spin-records) lavastoviglie – ‘dishwasher’ (lit. wash-dishes) appendiabiti – ‘hat-stand’ (lit. hang-clothes)

d.

Portuguese tira-agrafos – ‘staple remover’ (lit. pull staples) abre-latas – ‘can opener’ (lit. open cans) guarda-chuva – ‘umbrella’ (lit. guard-rain) corta-unhas – ‘nail cutter’ (lit. cut-nails)

What all these compounds have in common is that the nominal portion is either plural or mass. There are some exceptions to this generalization (mainly in French and Italian) such as tire-bouchon (French for ‘corkscrew’) and grattacielo (Italian for ‘sky-scraper’), which both have singular nominal components. I will come back to these compounds later. This situation is similar to the German compounds above, except that the Romance forms employ regular plurals, which are prohibited in German. These compounds exhibit the following properties: (i) As with many of the other examples of compounding and incorporation we have seen, the presence of

6.2

Romance Compounds

169

adjectives and higher functional elements (determiners, quantifiers, demonstratives, etc.) are ruled out. 18.

∗ essuie-les/deux/quelques/tous/petits-mains

[French]

wipe-the/two/some/all/small-hands (‘hand cloth’) (ii) These compounds are nearly universally masculine across all Romance languages. (iii) They are interpreted as the agent or instrument that carries out the named event in question (as in the English equivalents). That is, in Portuguese, a corta-unhas (lit. ‘cuts-nails’) is an instruments that cuts finger nails and toe nails. Finally, I discuss the stress properties of Romance compounds. It is well known in English that compounds tend to exhibit a single main stress (blackbird vs. black bird and stamp-collecting vs. collecting stamps). The Romance compounds in question behave differently (Krämer 2009; Nespor 1999). Krämer (2009: 257) shows that the individual components of compounds in Italian maintain word level stress patterns akin to those found in full verb phrases. Consider the following examples, where double underlining indicates primary stress and single underlining indicates secondary stress. sogni 19. a. il mangia-sogni a’. mangia i s/he.eats the dreams the eat-dream.PL ‘the dream-eater’ ‘S/he eats dreams.’ b. il porta-bagagli the carry-bag.PL ‘luggage rack’

b’

porta i bagagli s/he.carries the bags ‘S/he carries luggage.’

We observe that the stress patterns are the same between the compound forms and the full VPs. Nespor (1999: 136ff.) argues that compounds can have one of three kinds of structures: STEM+STEM, STEM+WORD, WORD+WORD. Crucially, the Romance compounds under discussion here are of the WORD+WORD type, based on the same kind of stress facts as pointed out by Krämer. Both authors discuss additional facts including raddoppiamento sintattico and the lack of intervocalic voicing as evidence for the word-hood status of the components of these compounds. In the current theoretical framework, I interpret the word-hood status of Nespor and of Krämer to correspond to the presence of an upper n projection. To sum up, the Romance compounds under discussion have the following properties which will be accounted for in the following section. • • • • •

V+N order number marking on the nominal component lack of higher functional material on the nominal component masculine gender on whole compound components of compound are stressed as individual words

170

6

V+N Order

6.2.2 Analysis of Romance Compounds Given that Romance V+N compounds generally exhibit regularized plural morphology, they must contain at least a NumP, but cannot contain higher functional material such as DP or QP, as the morphology contained therein is absent from these compounds. I assume that NumP is always present, even in singular forms such as the French tire-buchon (‘cork-screw’), since these forms do not contrast with the plural forms, such as essui-mains (‘hand-cloth’) in terms of number neutrality. Recall that in the corresponding German forms in the previous chapter forms such as Apfel-essen (‘apple eating’, with the singular form) were truly number neutral, while forms such as Äpfel-essen (‘apple eating’, with the plural form) were obligatorily interpreted with a plural interpretation. To any extent, the majority of these compounds do have plural morphology on the nominal component. Moving now to the stress and other related facts, I note that a large body of research has converged on linking stress assignment to phasal domains (Marvin 2003; Newell 2008; Kahnemuyipour 2009). Furthermore, Marvin and Newell have argued for word-internal phases on the basis of stress in addition to a number of other properties; however, it is the stress facts that are of interest to us here. Finally, I adopt Megerdoomian’s (2008) structure for nominals, which contains two instances of nP. Essentially, the lower nP is responsible for nominalising morphology such as the -ent in words such as student. The higher nP is responsible for introducing the possessor or external argument.9 I assume that the nP in non-agentive and nonpossessed nominals is the nominal counterpart to unaccusatives, and hence cannot introduce an external argument.10 Internal arguments cannot be present either, since the nominal component does not have the higher functional projections to Caselicense such nominals (as in a standard passive or unaccusative). I propose, then, the following derivation for compounds of this type, using 20 as an example. 20.

corta- unhcutnail‘nail cutter’

21.

a-

s

NZLR-

PL

nP

[Portuguese]

nP

n

√

√i

-a

unh

unh

nP n

ti

-a 9 This is akin to Newell’s proposal where she explicitly distinguishes between vP (which introduces

the external argument) and vP (which is the true verbalizer, such as -ify). See also Harley (2007) for related discussion. 10 One might think that an unaccusative n is not a phase head, given Chomsky’s (2001; 2008) arguments that passive and unaccusative v is not a strong phase. See Legate (2003), however, for arguments that passive and unaccusative v does constitute a strong phase.

6.2

Romance Compounds

171

In 21 the root unh (‘nail’) merges with the nominalizer (n) -a forming a point of symmetry, which is resolved by the root moving to SpecnP. Then, in 22, Num merges with nP, again forming a point of symmetry – this time between the root and Num – and thus triggering another round of roll-up movement. 22.

NumP nPj √i

NumP nP

unh n

Num ti

tj

-s

-a

Finally, the phase head, n, merges with the NumP giving rise to a domain for stress assignment. Since this head does not correspond to any overt morpheme, no additional round of roll-up movement is triggered. The structure in 23 is the final structure for the nominal component of the V+N compound. 23.

nP n

NumP

nPj √i

NumP nP

unh n

Num ti

tj

-s

-a √

Next the ‘verbal’ root (really an uncategorized root, ) merges with the nP formed in 23. This root asymmetrically c-commands every head inside the nP, thus satisfying the LCA. Now, this root is categorized by a phonologically null n with similar semantics to the English -er nominalizer is corresponding compounds. As in all DPs, it is this morpheme that determines the gender of the nominal. This accounts for the uniform gender of V+N compounds in Romance languages.11 The final structure for the compound is shown in 24.12

11 This

of course only accounts for the uniform gender of these compounds within a single language. It does not account for the fact that these compounds are masculine in all the Romance languages examined here, nor is it intended to. Only a historical study into compounds in Proto-Romance can answer this question. 12 One unanswered question is whether the √ P raises to SpecnP given that there are otherwise overt nominalizers in the language. Given the arguments throughout this monograph, the answer would seem to be yes, although I have not explored the ramifications of this putative movement.

172

6

24.

V+N Order

nP √P

n Ø

√ corta

nP n

NumP nPj

√i

NumP nP

unh n

Num ti

tj

-s

-a

To sum up, this section has discussed Romance V+N compounds (such as the Spanish tocadiscos, ‘record-player’). These compounds differ from their Germanic counterparts not only in order, but also in the properties of the nominal component. Specifically, it was seen that the nominal component regularly appears with number marking and is an active stress domain. I proposed that the nominal component consists of a bare higher nP (i.e., not a categorizing nP, but a phasal nP in the sense of Marantz, Marvin and Newell). This phonologically null n head blocks the roll-up movement observed in the Germanic compounds and other cases of noun incorporation in the previous chapters. Crucially, it also allows the root of the head of the compound (the so-called ‘verbal’ component) to asymmetrically c-command all the material inside, thus preventing it from moving up to the specifier. This results in the observed V+N order.

6.3 Mapudungun Another well-known case of NI with V+N order is Mapudungun (Baker et al. 2005; Harmelink 1992). Consider the following examples (Baker et al. 2005). 25.

a.

Ñi chao kintu-waka-le-y my father seek-cow-PROG - IND .3. SG . SUBJ ‘My father is looking for the cows.’

b.

Juan ngilla-waka-lel-fi-y Juan buy-cow-BEN -3. OBJ - IND .3. SUBJ ‘Juan bought a cow for him (Pedro).’

(Pedro) (Pedro)

Like many language with NI, Mapudungun exhibits non-NI counterparts to the constructions above.

6.3

Mapudungun

26.

173

Ñi chao kintu-le-y ta.chi my father seek-PROG - IND .3. SG . SUBJ the ‘My father is looking for the cows.’

pu COLL

waka cow

Unlike Northern Iroquoian (and many other languages with NI), Mapudungun cannot strand modifiers; however, it can strand possessors with both alienably and inalienably possessed nouns (Baker et al. 2005: 166ff.).13 27.

Juan lüf-ruka-y Juan burn-house- IND .3. SG ‘Juan’s house burned down.’

Baker et al. (2005) analyze NI in Mapudungun as right-head adjunction. The following example shows a portion of their analysis of 25b. 28.

VP V

NP

V

Ni

buy

cow

ti

Aside from the unavailability of right head adjunction in the present framework, the structure in 28 suffers from an empirical problem. Baker et al. mention in footnote 38 that NI is available with causative constructions. Although they do not give any examples they report that such constructions have the order V+CAUS+N. Given that the IN is an argument of the verbal root and not of the causative morpheme, there is no way to derive the order V+ CAUS+N by head movement. Let us consider now how to derive the NI constructions in Mapudungun. Consider first that NI in this language allows possessor stranding. There is, of course, a tremendous literature on the structure of possessive constructions, which I do not review here. What virtually all proposals on possessives have in common is that the possessor and the possessum are mediated by some functional projection. Typically (but by no means universally), the possessor is introduced by a functional projection in the extended nominal projection. In other words, the possessor is not selected directly by the verb. I propose, then, the following structure for NI constructions in Mapudungun, where the possessor is introduced by whatever functional element suits the reader’s fancy.

13 Baker

et al. (2005: 169) show clearly that Mapudungun has true possessor stranding rather than applied objects as Michelson (1991) argued for Oneida.

174

6

29.

V+N Order

√P √ lüf

FP DP Juan

FP F

nP n

√

Ø

ruka

In this structure it is clear that the verbal root asymmetrically c-commands all the material in the nominal component (FP), thus failing to trigger the roll-up movement shown for Northern Iroquoian. Smeets (2008) notes that several roots can appear in either nominal or verbal forms without a nominalizer or verbalizer. She assumes that such forms contain a null variant of the appropriate morpheme. Adopting this suggestion, I have made the head of the IN above a null n. Recall that Northern Iroquoian nouns contain overt morphology beyond the root. Consider the following Oneida examples (Michelson and Doxtator 2002).

b.

ohnaná:taP ohnanaPtNPREF - potato‘potato’ waPkathnanaPtu:t : waPk- atFACTISRFL ‘I baked potatoes.’

aP NFS

v

a.

hnanaPtpotato-

utbake-

:

v

30.

PUNC

Crucially, the full DP in 30a contains additional morphology not present in the incorporated forms (shown in boldface). Comparing 25 and 26 above we note that the full noun does not contain any such morphology that is absent in the NI construction. 26 does of course contain a determiner and a collectivizer (a kind of plural marker), but crucially, it does not contain anything that could be a nominalizer. This observation holds for all examples of NI in Mapudungun in Baker et al. and any of the other sources I have consulted. Thus, I assume that nominals in Mapudungun contain a phonologically empty nominalizer. Finally, then, if we assume that NI in Mapudungung involves the selection of an nP rather than a root, then the order V+N falls into place. The following derivation shows the merger of the verbal root with the IN from example 25a.

6.3

Mapudungun

31.

175 √P

√ kintu

nP n

√

Ø

waka

The complex in 31 then merges with v and continues with the remainder of the extended verbal projection. Since the LCA is now satisfied, it cannot be the case that further movements for the formation of the verbal complex are to break symmetric c-command. I will not spend too much time speculating exactly as to what the trigger for this movement is as it is not the goal of this monograph. Nevertheless, something √ along the lines of 32 can be surmised. The P formed in 31 moves to SpecvP. The vP complex then merges with AspP and raises to SpecAspP. Likewise AspP then merges with T and subsequently raises to SpecTP.14 32.

TP AspPk vPj

AspP

√Pi √ kintu

vP nP

TP

v

n

√

Ø

waka

Asp ti

T tj

tk

y

le

To conclude this section I have shown that V+N order arises in Mapudungun because there is never a relation of symmetric c-command between the selecting root (the ‘verbal’ head) and the nominal component. This is because the nominal component is headed by an obligatorily null lexical item (either n or a functor that introduces the possessor into the structure). The lack of symmetric c-command fails to trigger roll-up leaving the V+N order intact.

14 This

kind of leapfrogging movement was argued for in Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000) for the formation of the verbal complex in Hungarian based on similar evidence. Specifically, the antimirror effects (in the sense of Baker 1985), in which V+N order is found, in inconsistent with a pure head raising analysis. Why some projections undergo Complement-to-Spec roll-up and others do not is a mystery which will have to await future research.

176

6

V+N Order

6.4 Upriver Halkomelem The final variety of V+N NI I consider is lexical suffixation in Upriver Halkomelem (Gerdts 2003; Wiltschko 2009; Galloway 1993), a highly endangered Salish language spoken in the Northwest of North America.15 The following examples illustrate the phenomenon (Elizabeth Herrling, speaker). 33.

a.

b.

th’éxw-wíl-t-es wash-dish-TR -3.SG ‘He washed the dish.’

te

th’éxw-als-t-es wash-fruit-TR -3. SG ‘He washed the apple.’

te

DET

DET

ló:thel dish qwe’óp apple

c.

th’exw-xál-t-es te Strang wash-foot-TR -3. SG DET Strang ‘Strang washed Konrad’s foot/feet.’

te Konrad DET Konrad

d.

tsel th’óxw-awtxw te lalem 1.SG wash-house DET house ‘I washed the whole house.’

mekw all

The lexical suffixes, while uniformly smaller than their full nominal counterparts, do not appear to be morphologically related to them but rather exhibit significant suppletion. Consider the following examples (Wiltschko 2009, citing Galloway 1980). 34.

a.

lexical suffixes -as ‘face’ -tses ‘hand’ -awtx ‘building’ -als ‘fruit, round’

b.

full nouns s’ó:thes ‘face’ cháléx ‘hand’ lálém ‘house’ sth’í:m ‘berry, fruit’

Wiltschko uses this as one piece of evidence that lexical suffixes in Upriver Halkomelem are bare roots. The full nouns as cited in 34 are minimally nPs but, as mentioned, are assumedly suppletive forms without a distinct root component and nominalizer. Furthermore, Wiltschko (2009) shows that lexical suffixation in Upriver Halkomelem is devoid of any kind of functional marking (pluralisation, possessive marking, and determiners). In fact, Wiltschko shows that lexical suffixes do not behave like nouns in any way and argues that they are bare root. Consider again the following examples taken from Wiltschko. 15 Lexical

suffixes are wide-spread across the Salish family. See the references cited for more sources on other Salish languages.

6.4

35.

Upriver Halkomelem

a.

b.

c.

177

∗ th’éxw-xál-s-t-es

te Strang DET Strang wash-foot-POSS-TR-3.SG (‘Strang washed his/someone’s foot.’) ∗ -tsetses/tseles

-tses hand ‘hand’

hand.PL (‘hands’)

∗ th’exw-te-wíl-t-es

te

wash-DET -dish-TR -3. SG (‘He washed the dishes.’)

DET

ló:thel dish

These examples clearly show that functional material in the nominal domain is not permitted in these construction. To conclude, lexical suffixation in Upriver Halkomelem appears to have the barest kind of IN we’ve seen so far. I adopt Wiltschko’s conclusion that the lexical suffix is a bare root. It would seem, based on the conclusion in the preceding paragraph, that Upriver Halkomelem is problematic for the core proposal here. Once the verbal root merges with the nominal root, the point of symmetry formed should trigger Complementto-Spec roll-up to satisfy the LCA. I will argue here, however, that the structures for lexical suffixes in Upriver Halkomelem take the same DP shell structure as proposed for Northern Iroquoian doubling constructions in Chapter 3. Recall from that discussion that the IN was introduced in the specifier of a functional projection that takes the doubled DP as a complement. I argue that in Upriver Halkomelem, the lexical suffixes head this functional projection. Consider the derivation for the following example. 36.

th’éxw-wíl-t-es wash-dish-TRANS -3. SG ‘He washed the dish.’

te ló:thel DET dish

Here, the IN heads a functional projection, XP, which takes the doubled DP as a complement. This XP complex is selected by the verbal root as a complement. Given that the basic word order of Upriver Halkomelem is VSO, it is clear that the verb and the object cannot remain a constituent. I assume, simply, that the full DP raises √ to a position where it checks Case, and that the remnant P then goes on to form the verbal complex. This way, the root asymmetrically c-commands the IN (X), so no movement needs to take place to satisfy the LCA. √P

37. √ th’exw

XP X

DP

wil

te ló:thel

178

6

V+N Order

Note, however, that this structure crucially depends on the presence of a DP, as shown in the example with doubling. I assume that the DP is always present in these constructions and is simply represented by a null pro in constructions where doubling does not take place. Evidence for this null DP comes from the behaviour of the verbal complex. Even when no overt DP is present, the clause exhibits transitive properties. I will examine two properties: transitivity marking and interactions with causatives. Most transitive predicates appear with the marker /-es/. This is true regardless of the presence or absence of a lexical suffix.16 Consider the following paradigm (Elizabeth Herrling, speaker). 38.

a.

th’éxw-wíl-t-es wash-dish-TRANS -3. SG ‘He washed the dish.’

b.

th’éxw-wíl-t-es wash-dish-TRANS -3. SG ‘He washed a dish.’

c.

th’éxw-t-es wash-TRANS -3. SG ‘He washed the dish.’

d.

th’éxw-t-es wash-TRANS -3. SG ‘He washed it.’

te ló:thel DET dish

te ló:thel DET dish

In all cases the clause exhibits transitive marking, which I assume correlates with the presence of a vP (Chomsky 1995; Kratzer 1996) and hence with licensing an internal argument (i.e., accusative Case). Thus, I propose the following structures as the complements of the verbal root.17 39.

16 This

a.

[XP wil [DP te ló:thel]]

b.

[XP wil [DP pro]]

c.

[DP te ló:thel]]

d.

[DP pro]]

contradicts the findings of Gerdts (2003), where she presents data that lexical suffixation does affect argument structure. This may be due to dialectal differences between Upriver Halkomelem and Island Halkomelem (from which Gerdts draws her observations). 17 I have represented the empty DP argument as pro; however it remains to be seen what the nature of this empty category is.

6.4

Upriver Halkomelem

179

By contrast, Baker (1996) shows that for Mohawk, object agreement disappears in NI constructions. I take the presence of transitive marking in Upriver Halkomelem to indicate that a full DP object, phonetically realized or not, is present. I turn now to the next piece of evidence supporting the structure in 37. Causative marking is either unavailable on transitives in Upriver Halkomelem or gives rise to a benefactive meaning. Consider the following examples. 40.

alhtel eat.INTR ‘John ate.’

41.

álhteléstexwes te John te Mary álhtel-é-stexw-es eat.INTR - EPEN - CAUS -3. SG . SUBJ ‘John made Mary eat.’

42.

43.

te John DET John

lépex-es eat.TR -3. SG . SUBJ ‘John ate the apple.’

te John DET John

te Mary DET Mary

tl’ John DET. ERG John

te qwe’óp DET apple

tl’ John eat. TR - CAUS -3. SG . SUBJ DET. ERG John (‘John made Mary eat the apple.’)

te Mary DET Mary

∗ lépexé-stexw-es

te qwe’óp DET apple

The crucial observation here is that causative marking is unavailable on lepex (transitive ‘eat’), while there is no co-occurrence restriction between the causative and alhtel (intransitive ‘eat’). In the following examples, causative marking is found on a transitive predicate, but it gives rise to a benefactive meaning rather than a causative meaning. This is true whether the direct object is overt or not. Thus, I conclude that the construction in 45 contains a covert internal argument and has an underlying structure as in 39b. 44.

th’exwílstexwtes te lepót te John th’ex-wíl-stexw-t-es te lepót te John DET John wash-dish-CAUS - TR -3 SG DET pot ‘He washed the pot for John.’ (NOT ‘He made John wash the pot.)

45.

th’exwílstexwtes te John th’ex-wíl-stexw-t-es te John wash-dish-CAUS - TR -3 SG DET John ‘He washed the dishes for John.’ (NOT ‘He made John wash the dishes.)

Having established that the lexical suffix in Upriver Halkomelem is always found inside an XP shell, I move on to how the lexical suffix fits into the XP. The crucial difference between Onondaga and Upriver Halkomelem for us lies in the structure of XP. In Onondaga, the incorporated nominal root appears in SpecXP, while in

180

6

V+N Order

Upriver Halkomelem it is the head of XP. The following paragraphs discuss how this difference comes to be. First, the incorporated root in Onondaga is often more than a single morpheme, hence more than a single syntactic head.18 Consider the following example. The incorporated element contains the root atokw (‘take out of water’), which is typically appears in verbal constructions. For this root to undergo NI, a nominalizer is required. The nominalizer and lexical root together form a phrase which occupies SpecXP. 46.

(Onondaga; Michelson and Doxtator 2002) waT utokwaT tslóhaleT waT -u-atokw-a-T tsl-ohale-T FACT-3. SG . F. AG -take.out.of.water- JOIN- NZLR-wash- PUNC ‘She washed the spoon.’ √

The following, then, is a partial derivation for 46. When n and are merged, they √ form a point of symmetry that is resolved by moving to SpecnP. The resultant nP is then merged into SpecXP. When the matrix verb merges with XP the matrix verb, ohale (‘wash’) and the incorporated root atokw (‘take out of water’) will form another point of symmetry which is resolved in the same way discussed in Chapter 3.

47.

nP

nP

n

√

√i

tsl

atokw

atokw

nP n

ti

tsl

One final piece of evidence that the incorporated element in Northern Iroquoian occupies SpecXP (rather than the head position) is found in Oneida. Oneida allows conjoined DPs with NI. Consider the following example (Daisy Elijah, speaker). waPkneskwahni:nú: kóskos oPkháleswahiyo:w neP kahik v

48.

waP-k-neskw-a-hni:n-ú: kóskos FACT-1 SG . AG -animal- EPEN-buy- PUNC pig swahiyo:w neP apple v

oPkhále and

ka-hiy-k AGR-fruit- NFS

‘I bought a pig and an apple.’ 18 Recall

that I am assuming a single-engine hypothesis for syntax and morphology (Julien 2002; Marantz 1997). Regardless, it is clear from the examples that a more than a single projection is needed for the incorporated noun in Onondaga since nominalizing morphology is typically assumed to head its own projection (Marantz 2001; Ogawa 2001).

6.5

Conclusion

181

The first conjunct doubles the incorporated nominal, but the second conjunct must appear with a separate, free-standing classifier DP. Notice that kahik (‘fruit’) is internally complex (ka-hiy-k AGR-fruit-NFS). Again, this indicates that the Contents of XP can be syntactically complex in Northern Iroquoian and thus occupy SpecXP. Turning now to Upriver Halkomelem, we see a different state of affairs. None of the properties suggesting the incorporated element is found in SpecXP in Onondaga is found in Upriver Halkomelem. Consider the following example. 49.

∗ th’éxwwíltes

te ló:thel qas (sth’í:m) te qwe’óp (sth’í:m) te ló:thel dish

th’éxw-wíl-t-es wash-dish-TR 3. SG qas and

(sth’í:m) (fruit)

DET

te qwe’óp DET apple

(sth’í:m) (fruit)

‘He washed the dish and the apple.’ Also, the lexical suffix never appears with any additional morphology (such as a nominalizer) as shown above. Further, there are many claims in the literature that any given syntactic item can be instantiated as a head in one language or as a specifier or adjunct in another.19 Thus, it is not without precedent to argue that incorporated elements are heads of a projection in Upriver Halkomelem and phrases in specifier position of the same projection in Northern Iroquoian. To conclude, while the IN (i.e., the lexical suffix) in Upriver Halkomelem is a bare lexical root – in fact, the smallest IN we’ve seen so far in this monograph – one observes nevertheless V+N order in NI constructions. I have argued this arises by virtue of the structure of the IN. Specifically, NI constructions in Upriver Halkomelem are obligatorily doubling constructions, whereby the verbal root takes a complex nominal containing the lexical suffix as a complement. This accounts for the transitive properties of NI constructions in Upriver Halkomelem such as the presence of transitivity marking and the behaviour of causatives.

6.5 Conclusion This chapter has reviewed various instances of V+N NI and has shown how they are compatible with and give support to the core proposal in this monograph, namely 19 See, for instance, Cinque (1999) or Alexiadou (1997) who claim that adverbs can appear as specifiers of functional projections or as heads either of the same projection (as Cinque discusses) or as non-projecting heads that are sister to V (as Alexiadou discusses). Also, Wiltschko (2004) proposes that a given syntactic item can either project (as a head) or not (as an adjunct), from one language to the next.

182

6

V+N Order

that N+V NI arises by the need to eliminate instances of symmetric c-command. The languages in which V+N NI is observed were, on the face of it, problematic for this proposal. I reviewed several cases of NI and related phenomena from a variety of unrelated languages and have shown that in each case the verb and the IN are never in a situation of symmetric c-command. This lack of symmetric c-command allows the IN to remain to the left of the verb as the verb asymmetrically c-commands all the material inside the IN. First, I discussed pseudo noun incorporation in Polynesian, concentrating primarily on Niuean (Massam 2001). Pseudo noun incorporation is an ideal example of a large IN that blocks the roll-up movement responsible for N+V NI in other languages. The IN in Niuean can appear with adjectives, subjunctive relative clauses, and conjunctions, indicating that it is much larger than a bare nominal root. Specifically in the case of Niuean, the IN consists of a bare upper nP, containing a phonologically empty n head, which dominates the AdjP and NP projections. As such, the verbal root asymmetrically c-commands all the material inside the DP and allows V+N order to hold. Second, I discussed V+N compounds in Romance such as the Spanish abrelatas (‘can-opener’ lit. ‘open cans’). The key difference between the Romance compounds and their English counterparts is the word-level stress patterns. Crucially, each component of the Romance compound has word-level stress, while in the English counterparts only one word-level stress is found. Following work by Kahnemuyipour (2009), I suggest that the nominal component of the compound in Romance contains a phasal n head, which is absent in the Germanic equivalents. This phonologically empty phasal n head ensures that no configuration of symmetric c-command holds between the verbal head and the IN. In other words, the verbal head asymmetrically c-commands all the material inside the IN, thereby allowing V+N order to be maintained in the compound. Next, I discussed NI in Mapudungun, a language with what one might describe as canonical NI. Here, I showed that the IN in Mapudungun is not a bare root but rather an nP as in Northern Iroquoian. In contrast to Northern Iroquoian, however, the nominalizer head in Mapudungun is always phonologically null, while in Northern Iroquoian, there is a phonologically null allomorph of the nominalizer. Since the n head in Mapudungun never serves as a vocabulary insertion site, it is invisible to the LCA and, hence, establishes asymmetric c-command between the verbal root and the root inside the IN, the result of which is V+N order. Finally, I discussed lexical suffixation in Upriver Halkomelem. At first blush, lexical suffixation appears to damaging if not lethal to the proposal here since it was clearly demonstrated that the IN (aka the lexical suffix) is a bare root – the smallest variety of IN possible. V+N order is established, however, by virtue of the fact that the IN in Upriver Halkomelem must appear with a full DP double, which may be overt or covert. The structure of the full nominal, with the IN and the DP double together as a single constituent, does not give rise to a situation of symmetric c-command.

References

183

References Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baker, Mark C. 1985. “The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation.” Linguistic Inquiry 16 (3):373–416. Baker, Mark C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mark C., Roberto Aranovich, and Lucía A. Golluscio. 2005. “Two Types of Syntactic Noun Incorporation: Noun Incorporation in Mapudungun and Its Typological Implications.” Language 81 (1):138–76. Ball, Douglas. 2005. “Phrasal Noun Incorporation in Tongan.” In AFLA XII, edited by Jeffrey Heinz, and Dimitris Ntelitheos: UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics. Brousseau, Anne-Marie, and Elena Voskovskaia. 2007. “Nominalisation furtive dans les composés synthétiques: où se cache l’affixe-zéro?” Paper presented at the 11th Bilingual Workshop on Theoretical Linguistics, Concordia University, December 7–8, 2007. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On Phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, edited by P. Oltero, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chung, Sandra, and William Ladusaw. 2004. Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Donohue, Mark. 1999. A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fradin, Bernard. 2009. “IE, Romance: French.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, edited by Rochelle Lieber, and Pavol Stekauer, 417–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Galloway, Brent. 1980. The Structure of Upriver Halkomelem, a Grammatical Sketch and Classified Word List for Upriver Halkomelem. Sardis, BC: Coqualeetza Education Training Center. Galloway, Brent. 1993. A Grammar of Upriver Halkomelem. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Gerdts, Donna B. 2003. “The Morphosyntax of Halkomelem Lexical Suffixes.” International Journal of American Linguistics 69 (4):345–56. Gracia, Luisa, and Olga Fullana. 1999. “On Catalan Verbal Compounds.” Probus 11 (2):239–61. Harley, Heidi. 2007. External Arguments: On the Independence of Voice◦ and v◦ . Tromsø, Norway, April 12–14, 2007. Harley, Heidi. 2009. “Compounding in Distributed Morphology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, edited by Rochelle Lieber, and Pavol Štekauer, 129–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harmelink, Bryan L. 1992. “La incorporación Nominal en el Mapudungun.” Lenguas Modernas 19:129–37. Jones, Pei Te Hurinui, and Bruce Biggs. 1995. Nga iwi o Tainui: The Traditional History of the Tainui People. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press. Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2009. The Syntax of Sentential Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan, and Diane Massam. 2003. “Inversely Ordered DPs in Niuean.” In The Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association, edited by Sophie Burelle, and Stanca Somesfalean, 156–66. Université du Québec. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan, and Diane Massam. 2006. “Patterns of Phrasal Movement: The Niuean DP.” In Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages, edited by Hans-Martin Gaertner, Paul Law, and Joachim Sabel, 125–50. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

184

6

V+N Order

Karetu, T. S. 1974. Te Reo Rangatira: A Course in M¯aori for Sixth and Seventh Forms. Wellington, New Zealand: GP Publications. Koopman, Hilda, and Anna Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kornfeld, Laura Malena. 2009. “IE, Romance: Spanish.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, edited by Rochelle Lieber, and Pavol Stekauer, 436–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krämer, Martin. 2009. The Phonology of Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. “Severing the External Argument from its Verb.” In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, edited by Johan Rooryck, and Laurie Zaring, 109–38. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Legate, Julie. 2003. “Some Interface Properties of the Phase.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (3):506–16. Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2):201–25. Marantz, Alec. 2001. “Words.” Paper presented at the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Southern California, February 23–25, 2001. Marvin, Tatjana. 2003. Topics in the Stress and Syntax of Words. PhD diss., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Massam, Diane. 2000. “Niuean Nominalization.” In Proceedings of AFLA 7, edited by Marian Klamer. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. Massam, Diane. 2001. “Pseudo Noun Incorporation in Niuean.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19 (1):153–97. Massam, Diane. 2009. “Existential Incorporation Constructions.” Lingua 119 (2):166–84. Megerdoomian, Karine. 2008. “Parallel Nominal and Verbal Projections.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, edited by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizaretta, 73–103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Michelson, Karin. 1991. “Possessor Stranding in Oneida.” Linguistic Inquiry 22 (4):756–61. Michelson, Karin, and Mercy Doxtator. 2002. Oneida-English/English-Oneida Dictionary. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Nespor, Marina. 1999. “Stress Domains.” In Word Prosodic Systems in Languages of Europe, edited by Harry Van der Hulst, 117–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Newell, Heather. 2008. “Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Phases.” PhD diss., McGill University, Montreal, QC. Ogawa, Yoshiki. 2001. A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A Grammar of Mapuche. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ulfsbjorninn, Shanti. 2009. “The Internal Structure of Compounds: A Phase Account of Aphasia.” Iberia 1 (1):143–68. Wiltschko, Martina. 2004. “Expletive Categorical Information: A Case Study of Number Marking in Halkomelem Salish.” In Northeast Linguistics Society (NELS). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications. √ Wiltschko, Martina. 2009. “ Root Incorporation: Evidence from Lexical Suffixes in Halkomelem Salish.” Lingua 119 (2):199–223.

Chapter 7

Conclusion

This brief chapter contains a few concluding remarks for this monograph. This book has explored the following concepts: • the synthesis of BPS and the LCA into a cohesive theory of phrase structure, and • the cross-linguistic tendency for NI to appear with N+V linear order. I attempted to capture this cross-linguistic generalization with a theory of phrase structure that incorporated both BPS and the LCA (adopting Moro’s principle of Dynamic Antisymmetry). The remainder of the discussion in this chapter is organized as follows. Section 7.1 presents a summary of the major findings of this monograph. Section 7.2 discusses some limitations of the theory. Section 7.3 gives a few brief concluding remarks and discusses some further areas of study not touched on here.

7.1 Summary The goals of this monograph were both empirical and theoretical. First, the proposal put forth here is intended to capture the cross-linguistic generalization that noun incorporation constructions and constructions with full DP objects have different word orders properties. Specifically, incorporated nominals are typically preverbal (Caballero et al. 2008) while the order of V and DP typically evenly split. Specifically, Caballero et al. showed that N+V order was most common among nonproductive or lexicalized instances of NI, while productive NI showed only a mild (though still significant) preference for N+V order. I argued that this asymmetry was due to the fact that lexicalized instances of NI typically contain a very small IN, based on the assumption that smaller forms (i.e., smaller trees) lexicalize more easily than larger ones. A smaller IN is more likely to form a point of symmetry with its selecting verbal root, thus, lexicalized instances of NI are more likely to exhibit the order N+V. Concerning productive cases of NI, I examined data from Northern Iroquoian, English, German, Persian, Tamil and Blackfoot (which has adverb incorporation), M. Barrie, Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 84, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_7,  C Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

185

186

7

Conclusion

all of which show N+V order. Pseudo Noun Incorporation constructions in Niuean as well as Romance V+N compounds, NI in Mapudungun and lexical suffixation in Upriver Halkomelem, on the other hand, have postverbal incorporated nominals. Following Massam’s approach, pseudo incorporated nominals remain in the complement to VP because there is no need for raising to take place in these constructions. Other cases of NI and related phenomena with V+N order were shown to arise because the verbal root asymmetrically c-commands all the material in the IN, thus the V+N order respects the LCA and no movement need take place. From a theoretical perspective, this dissertation has explored the possibilities in unifying two recent proposals on phrase structure – namely, Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure. A core problem in bringing these two proposals together concerns the initial merger of two heads (the Initial Merger Problem). Whereas previous approaches tried to obviate this problem, I take the generalization above, that incorporated nouns, which are typically bare, are preverbal, to suggest a Dynamic Antisymmetric approach to noun incorporation, following proposals by Moro (2000, 2004). Thus, when a verb merges with a bare noun, an instance of symmetric c-command is formed, and the noun must raise to SpecVP to satisfy the LCA. If another head with phonological content merges with this VP, that head and the noun in SpecVP will again be in a symmetric c-command configuration and will trigger the VP to raise to the specifier of the new head. This movement, which I call Compl-to-spec Roll-Up, will take place until a phonologically null head is merged with the derivation, since such heads do not need to be ordered linearly. The second major theoretical point addressed here is the recent claim that head movement does not exist (Harley 2004; Fanselow 2003; see Chomsky 2000; Kayne 2003; Koopman and Szabolcsi 2000; Mahajan 2003 for discussion on this topic). Under this assumption, it is impossible to maintain a approach along the lines suggested by Baker (1988) to noun incorporation since his analysis relies crucially on head-movement. A phrasal movement analysis of noun incorporation is pursued using data from the incorporation of verbal roots into the verbal predicate. Such verbal roots must appear with a nominalizer morpheme suggesting that something larger than a head is involved in noun incorporation in Oneida. In other words, noun incorporation can be pursued without resorting to head movement.

7.2 Limitations In this section I note some limitations of the proposal argued for in this monograph. All of the instances of NI and related phenomena have assumed that the verbal root takes a kind of nominal expression as a complement (or an adverbial element). In the standard case, the verb takes a full DP (or KP) as a complement. In the majority of the cases of NI I have covered here, the IN is a bare nP; however, in some cases it is a bare, undifferentiated root. As a consequence, all the forms of NI discussed here have taken the form V+N or N+V. That is, in all cases the IN was immediately

7.2

Limitations

187

adjacent to the verbal root. I discuss here some cases of NI which does not respect this adjacency. These cases are not meant to signal an immediate demise of the proposal put forth here, but to stimulate further research on this topic. Note that any syntactic approach to NI must deal with the same issues. Likewise, any templatic approach to NI must explain why in the vast majority of cases of NI, the verbal root and the IN are adjacent. While the syntactic approach developed here does capture this asymmetry, it stops short of explaining the following facts. Consider first NI in Plains Cree (Hirose 2003). Hirose distinguishes true instances of NI from the use of medials (an additional root present in addition to the main verbal root). The first example below illustrates true NI, and the second contains a medial (Hirose 2003: 142, ex (5a,b)). Note that in the second example the morpheme glossed by.tool is a transitive marker. As above, the verbal root is italicized and the IN/medial is in boldface. 1. a. ni-nip-ih-âwas-o-n 1-sleep-TR -child-INTR-LOC ‘I put a/the child/children to sleep.’ b. kip-âpisk-ah-am(-w) close-mineral-by.tool-I . TH-3 ‘S/he closed it with/as stone/metal.’ While the medial is immediately adjacent to the verbal root, the IN is separated from the verbal root by a transitive marker. Under the assumption that the nominal complement is selected directly by the verbal root, the data in 1 are mysterious. Hirose develops an analysis of verbal predicates in which arguments are selected not by the root, but by functional projections above the root.1 As a result, the linearization facts fall out naturally for Hirose, but post a problem for the analysis here. Consider next NI in Ainu (Kaiser 1997; Shibatani 1990). NI in Ainu has typical properties of NI found in other languages. For instance, it is available only to direct objects and subjects of unaccusatives. The following examples illustrate the phenomenon (Shibatani 1990: 63, ex (109a,b); 64, ex (111b)). 2. a.

kina a-e rusuy herbs 1. SG-eat want ‘I want to eat herbs.’

1 Hirose develops a neo-Kratzerian approach to argument structure whereby thematic roles head their own functional projections and are responsible for introducing the argument into the clausal structure. Thus, for Hirose, the VP level compositional semantics has the structure in ib rather than in ia.

i. a. eat(apple, e) ∧ Agent (John, e) b. eat(e) ∧ Agent (John, e) ∧ Patient (apple, e)

188

7

Conclusion

b. kina-e-rusuy-an herbs-eat-want-1.SG ‘I want to eat herbs.’ c. a-mukcar-tuye 1.SG -chest-cut ‘I cut his chest.’ Note that transitive predicates appear with prefixal 1st person agreement (a-) while intransitive predicates appear with suffixal 1st person agreement (-an). There is variation in which form surfaces when NI takes place. Note in particular the last example that shows clearly that the IN is part of the verbal complex. Consider now the following examples with applied objects (Shibatani 1990: 686, ex (121b)) and (Kaiser 1997), citing (Kindaichi and Chiri 1936). 3. a. ratki apa a-sapa-e-puni hung door 1.SG -head-APPL-lift ‘I lifted the suspended door with my head.’ b. ka-e-rikin rope-APPL -climb ‘climb by rope.’ Here, we observe that an applicative marker intervenes between the IN and the verbal root. Again, under the assumption that the IN is selected directly by the verbal root, then these data are puzzling. Kaiser notes that NI in these cases appears as the result of a feeding operation. Crucially, the IN is the applied object, not the direct object. In order for NI to take place, Kaiser argues, the applicativization must take place first so that the IN can merge as a direct object rather than as an oblique or adjunct. Regardless, these data are problematic for any analysis in which the verbal root selects the IN directly.2 One final example of this kind of problem comes from Movima, a language isolate spoken in Bolivia. Consider the following examples (Huade 2006: 390, ex (1a, b)). 2 One solution to the Ainu data is that the applied object is introduced by an Appl head and that this ApplP is selected directly by the verb. The derivation for 3b, then, is as follows. I leave the precise implementation to future work.

i.

√P √P

ApplPj √i

√

ApplP

ka Appl e

ti

rikin

tj

7.2

Limitations

189

4. a. wul-na=n kis ART. PL . A sow-DR=2 ‘You sow melon.’

saniya melon

b. ij wul-a-saniya (ni-kis saniya) you.INTR sow-DR-melon (OBL - ART. PL . A melon) ‘You sow melon.’ What we observe is that the verbal root and the IN are separated by a morpheme encoding valency and thematic relations. Again the lack of strict adjacency is problematic for the current analysis. Note that in the majority of cases, strict adjacency between the V and IN is observed. This is expected under the analysis proposed here, but not under a templatic approach to the structure of the verbal complex. Note also that the morpheme that intervenes between the V and the IN fulfils the same function in two of the languages (Plains Cree and Movima). Whether this fact is significant or not requires further research (though see Muro 2009 for a recent approach). Another potential limitation of the current proposal concerns cases of NI where more than one element undergoes incorporation. Consider for example the following Chukchi data in 5 (Muro 2009: 133, ex (4a–d)) and the Sora data in 6 (Steever 1986: 274, ex (12)).3 5. a. g m-nan uwikuk-in kenre-t t-ell- -net pot-POSS scorching-ABS . PL1.SG . SUBJ -take-LNK -3. PL . OBJ I.ERG ‘I removed scorching from the pot.’ e

e

t- -kenre-ll- -g b. g m-nan uwikuk I.ERG pot 1. SG . SUBJ - LNK-scorching-take-LNK -3. SG . OBJ ‘I removed scorching from the pot.’ e

e

e

c. ∗ g m-nan t-uwikuk-ll- -g I.ERG 1. SG . SUBJ-pot-take-LNK -3. PL . OBJ (‘I removed scorching from the pot.’)

kenre-t scorching-ABS . Pl

e

e

d. g m-nan t-uwikuk-kenre-ll- -g 1. SG . SUBJ-pot-scorching-take-LNK -3. SG . OBJ I.ERG ‘I removed scorching from the pot.’ e

e

6. aN-

‘gan- su:N‘byina- ba enter- house- woman- OPT- 1. PL ‘Let us make the woman enter the house.’ CAUS -

Chukchi allows double incorporation. Note that the incorporation of the oblique object is dependent on the incorporation of the direct object. Again, these facts are

3 Muro cites (Kurebito 1998: 104) for the Chukchi data. The glosses have been modified minimally

to fit the conventions used here. The morpheme glossed as LNK (linker) is assumedly an epenthetic vowel. Sora is an Austro-Asiatic language spoken in Eastern India.

190

7

Conclusion

difficult to capture in a straight-forward manner with the machinery proposed here (although see Muro 2009 for an in depth discussion). To conclude, I have shown various instances of NI that are problematic for the proposal set out here. First, I discussed instances in which the IN and the verbal root are not adjacent, such as Plains Cree, where the verbal root and IN are separated by a transitivity marker; Ainu, where the verbal root and the IN are separated by an applicative marker; and Movima, where the verbal root and the IN are separated by a marker of thematic relations. Second, I discussed an instance of NI in Chuckchi, where more than one element undergoes incorporation. These problems should not be seen as fatal to the Dynamic Antisymmetric view of NI developed here, but rather as issues for further research. To this end, I outlined in the footnotes some possible approaches to some of these issues. I move now to general conclusions for this monograph and discuss some implications for further research in other domains.

7.3 Conclusions and Implications In this monograph, I have examined the possibility of bringing Antisymmetry and the ban on head-movement in line with Bare Phrase Structure. In particular, I considered a version of Antisymmetry that allows points of symmetry in the derivation to be resolved by movement. This is the position taken by Moro (2000, 2004), referred to as Dynamic Antisymmetry. In this version of Antisymmetry, the LCA holds only at the PF level of grammar, rather than at every stage of the derivation. I argued that, rather than being a weakened version of Antisymmetry, it is actually a more well-grounded take on the matter. The key points considered were that linearization is a PF constraint, so there is no need to be concerned with linear order throughout the syntactic derivation. Furthermore, Kayne’s original reason for proposing that the LCA holds throughout the derivation was that the LCA was responsible for the properties of X-bar Theory. The adoption of Bare Phrase Structure instead of X-bar Theory obviates the need to maintain the LCA throughout the derivation and places it in the phonological component, where it belongs. As a point of departure, I considered the initial merger of two heads, a structure which immediately violates the LCA. The symmetry was resolved by raising the complement to the specifier position of the head. It was shown that phrase structure continues to be built up by a series of instantiations of external merge followed immediately by internal merge, and that this method of building structure continues until the derivation merges a phonologically null head. At this point, the XP that is the complement to the phonologically null head does not need to raise any higher since whatever phonologically specified head merges above that can be linearized with the rest of the phrase structure. Again, the resolution of symmetry was the only trigger for movement considered here. The conclusions reached about noun incorporation in Northern Iroquoian suggest empirically that the XP-movement analysis of noun incorporation is on the right track. Specifically, the incorporation of verbal roots into a verb showed that something larger than a head must be incorporating since the verbal roots must be accompanied by a nominalizer. It was also shown that deviations from the

7.3

Conclusions and Implications

191

productive nature of noun incorporation in Northern Iroquoian can, for the most part, be explained by independent morphological factors, indirectly supporting the claim that noun incorporation is syntactic. This study has implications for the nature of phrase structure in general. I have examined how noun incorporation works in other languages that are not typically thought of as exhibiting noun incorporation, and whether noun incorporation is a unitary phenomenon with one structural explanation cross-linguistically. The phenomenon of pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean suggests that not all types of noun incorporation are the same. What remains unanswered is the restriction of noun incorporation in languages such as English to gerunds and nominals, while it is productive on verbs in Iroquoian. Clearly the approach pursued here in and of itself cannot answer this question.4 This study makes strong claims about the nature of syntactic structure. The process of building structure in the Complement-to-Spec Roll-Up manner described here is predicted to occur universally. Whether this claim receives empirical support from a wide range of languages or not will hopefully be the topic of future research. If this consequence of building phrase structure turns out to be falsified, it will force us to question the basic assumptions we have about Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure. Recall also that the only trigger of movement discussed here was the resolution of symmetry. Although Moro (2000) claims that this might be the only trigger of movement in natural language, the traditional triggers of movement in a Minimalist approach, OCC/EPP and overt feature checking will have to be evaluated against this claim. Although I have dealt primarily with noun incorporation and related phenomena, this clearly is not the only empirical domain against which the theory of phrase structure and linearization proposed here can be tested. There are two situations to consider here. The first, which we have dealt with extensively throughout this thesis, is the merger of two heads. The second, which has crept into the discussion in minor ways, is the merger of a head with a projection that has a head as its specifier. These are illustrated in 7a and b, respectively. 7.

a.

b.

XP X

Z

XP X

YP Z

YP Y

WP

Other applications of the first type include nominal complements such as professor of linguistics and linguistics professor. An obvious proposal is that the root, profess, oft-cited observation about NI in English is that it cannot appear on verbs (∗ I truck-drove to Calgary). Harley (2009) suggests that English has a language-particular rule such that v cannot dominate two roots. This would mean that forms such as babysit must be analyzed as containing a single lexical root. 4 An

192

7

Conclusion

√

takes a bare noun complement, linguistics, which must raise to Spec P to satisfy the LCA. 8.

√P √P

nPi linguistics

√

ti

profess √

The P, then, is selected by the agentive nominalizer /-er/ (realized orthographically as ‘or’), triggering another round of Complement-to-Spec roll-up. This results in the final structure [nP [√ P [nP linguistics]i profess ti ] j or tj ]. In the construction professor of linguistics, the preposition of assumedly takes a full DP complement. Since prepositions are Case assigners, of must take a DP complement, not a bare noun as a complement, since bare nouns cannot be assigned Case. Other possibilities for further exploration include well-known examples of inversion phenomena. One such example is the following inversion in Swedish nominals whereby the order between the determiner and the noun varies depending on the definiteness of the determiner. 9. a. huset house- DET ‘the house’ b. et

hus house ‘a house’ DET

Another possible line of inquiry along the same lines is the difference in order between finite and non-finite relative clauses in German and Turkish. The following German example shows that finite relative clauses are post-nominal while gerundive relative clauses are pronominal. 10. Die Kinder [die grünen Äpfeln the children who green apples ‘the children who have eaten green apples’ 11. Die [grünen Äpfeln essenden] the green apples eat.GER ‘the children eating green apples’

gegessen eat.PART

haben] have.3 PL

Kinder children

As Kayne (1994) has described, relative clauses cannot be analyzed as right adjunction, since only left-adjunction is available to UG. Kayne develops an analysis of

7.3

Conclusions and Implications

193

relative clauses in which the base position for the head noun is inside the relative clause. This idea has been pursued at great length in the Antisymmetry program (Bianchi 1999). Another possibility to consider, though, is that the relative clauses is in the specifier of a functional projection in the extended nominal projection and that in languages with post-nominal relative clauses, the noun raises above the XP hosting the relative clause (Kim 1997). Under the theory proposed here, we would expect a point of symmetry between the noun in 10 and the relative clause, while there is no such point of symmetry in 11. This point of symmetry in 10 would then trigger the noun to raise above the relative clause. One final example in this vein is the following well-known contrast in English, in which an adjectival phrase with a complement must appear post-nominally. 12. a. b. c. d.

the (very) proud man the man (very) proud of his daughter ∗ the man (very) proud ∗ the (very) proud of his daughter man

Adjective phrases that do not contain a complement are generally pre-nominal in English.5 Another idea suggested to me was in the area of morphology, specifically with the prefix re-. Thus, the difference between redo and do again resides in the fact that again is a phrasal adverb that the verb asymmetrically c-commands upon Merge. Consider the following well-known facts concerning re-. 13. a. John edited three books again. (ambiguous) b. John re-edited three books. (unambiguous) Assuming a Larsonian analysis to the placement of adverbs in the clause (Larson 2004), the verb takes as its first complement either the adverb again or the adverbial affix re-. In the former case, the adverb again constitutes an entire phrase, allowing linear order to be established without movement. In the latter case, the affix re- and the verb c-command each other, thereby forcing the affix to raise to SpecVP, giving the order re-edit. Again, a full analysis awaits further research. The approach argued for here makes predictions beyond issues of incorporation. In a typical scenario, the first projection above the root is the categorizing head (n, v, or a). The merger between such a head and the root should nearly always trigger Complement-to-Spec roll-up, meaning that categorizing morphemes

5 See Cinque (2010), however, who discusses cases where adjectives can appear with pre-nominally or post-nominally, with slight differences in meaning (every visible star vs. every star visible).

194

7

Conclusion

should by-and-large be suffixal. I am not aware of any typological work in this area; however, it would be a relatively straightforward task.6 Another avenue in which the effects of the theory of phrase structure proposed here can be tested is that of clitics. Clitics are arguably a bare head rather than a complex phrase. As such the possibility arises in which the clitic occupies the specifier of an argument position and is in a symmetric c-command relation with the immediately higher head (the configuration in 7b). Clitics were briefly mentioned in Chapter 2, but a complete analysis along these lines must wait for future research. Finally, one of the strengths of the proposals in this monograph is that it explains noun incorporation without adding any new theoretical machinery to UG. Noun incorporation comes for free from the interaction of Bare Phrase Structure and Antisymmetry. In fact, Bare Phrase Structure was accepted without any changes from its original conception, and Antisymmetry was altered only from those aspects which referred to X-Bar Theory. Thus, to the extent that the proposal developed here is successful, it represents a novel way in which to understand a wide variety of phenomena related to noun incorporation. Given that the current proposal adopts Bare Phrase Structure and Antisymmetry in virtually unaltered forms, the extent that the current proposal turns out not to be valid would then indicate that either or both of Bare Phrase Structure and Antisymmetry must undergo serious revision.

References Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Caballero, Gabriela, Michael J. Houser, Nicole Marcus, Teresa McFarland, Anne Phycha, Maziar Toosarvandani, Suzanne Wilhite, and Johanna Nichols. 2008. “Nonsyntactic Ordering Effects in Syntactic Noun Incorporation.” Linguistic Typology 12 (3):383–421. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, edited by Roger Martin, D. Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2003. “Münchhausen-Style Head Movement and the Analysis of Verb Second.” UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 13:40–76.

6 I am aware of one counter-example to this prediction: namely, Upriver Halkomelem. This language arguably has prefixal nominalizers, as Wiltschko (2005) argues with the following data (citing Galloway 1993: 137f.):

i.

s-xíp NZLR -line

‘line’

s-ts’ómeqw NZLR -great.grand.child/parent ‘great-grand-child/parent’

See Wiltschko (2005), however, for investigations of syntactic effects below the level of the categorizing head.

References

195

Galloway, Brent. 1993. A Grammar of Upriver Halkomelem. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Harley, Heidi. 2004. “Merge, Conflation and Head Movement: The First Sister Principle Revisit” In NELS 34, edited by Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf, 239–54. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Harley, Heidi. 2009. “Compounding in Distributed Morphology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, edited by Rochelle Lieber, and Pavol Štekauer, 129–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hirose, Tomio. 2003. Origins of Predicates: Evidence from Plains Cree. London: Routledge. Huade, Katharina. 2006. “A Grammar of Movima.” PhD diss., Raboud Universiteit, Nijmegen. Kaiser, Lizanne. 1997. “The Interaction of Noun Incorporation and Applicative Formation in Ainu.” In Yearbook of Morphology, edited by Geert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 157–178. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 2003. “Antisymmetry, Adpositions and Remnant Movement.” Paper presented at the Workshop on Antisymmetry and Remnant Movement, New York University, October 31 – November 1. Kim, Young-Kook. 1997. “Agreement Phrases in DP.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9:281–302. Kindaichi, Kyosuke, and Mashiho Chiri. 1936. Ainugo Gohô Gaisetsu [An Outline of Ainu Grammar]. Tokyo: Iwanami Publishers. Koopman, Hilda, and Anna Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kurebito, Tokusu. 1998. “A Report on Noun Incorporation in Chukchi.” In Languages of the North Pacific Rim 4, edited by Osahito Miyaoka, and Minoru Oshima, 97–113. Kyoto: Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University. Larson, Richard K. 2004. “Sentence Final Adverbs and “Scope”.” In Proceedings of NELS 34, edited by Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf, 23–43. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications. Mahajan, Anoop. 2003. “Word Order and (Remnant) VP Movement.” In Word Order and Scrambling, edited by Simin Karimi, 217–37. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Moro, Andrea. 2004. “Linear Compression as a Trigger for Movement.” In Triggers, edited by Anne Breitbarth, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 387–430. Berlin, New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Muro, Allesio. 2009. “Noun Incorporation: A New Theoretical Perspective.” PhD diss., Universitá degli Studi di Padova, Padova. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steever, Sanford B. 1986. “Morphological Convergence in Khondmals: (Pro)nominal Incorporation.” In South Asian Languages: Structure, Divergence and Diglossia, edited by Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, Colin P. Masica, and Anjani K. Sinha, 270–86. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Wiltschko, Martina. 2005. “The Syntax of Pre-categorical Roots.” In Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas, 10, edited by S. Armoskaite, and J. J. Thompson. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.

Index

A Adverb Incorporation, 150, 185 Ainu, 187, 190 B Bare Phrase Structure, 26–30, 194 Blackfoot, 15, 17, 58, 127, 150, 152–154, 185 C Canonical Use Constraint, 8, 15 Cantonese, 13–14 Catalan, 167 causatives, 178, 181 CED, 60, 65–66, 68, 71 Chinese, see Mandarin; Cantonese Chipewyan, 14 Chukchi, 58, 151, 189 clitics, 194 Condition on Extraction Domains, see CED coordination, 149, 152 D Ditransitives, see under Noun Incorporation double, 169, 182 doubling, 93, 118, 123 Dynamic Antisymmetric, 167 E English gerunds, 127, 130, 132, 137, 154 F French, 159, 168, 170 G German, 4, 127, 138, 139–143, 154, 159, 161, 168, 170, 185, 192 Greek, 56, 58, 150

H Halkomelem, 140–141, 159 head movement, 23, 25, 34–36, 39–40, 46, 186 Headedness Parameter, 23–25, 43, 45, 48 head-movement, 190 I Initial Merger Problem, 1, 3, 47, 53–56, 58–60, 71, 77, 81, 83, 88, 186 irregular plurals, 141–142 Italian, 168–169 J Japanese, 14 L LCA, 1, 23, 30, 34, 53–54, 56, 58–61, 63–64, 66, 71–75, 77–79, 81, 83–88, 132, 136–137, 142, 146, 149, 155, 159, 162–163, 167, 171, 175, 177, 182, 185, 186, 190, 192 lexical plurals, 143 lexical suffixation, 176–177, 182 Linear Correspondence Axiom, 23 See also LCA M Mandarin, 11, 18 M¯aori, 160–161 Mapudungun, 159, 172–175, 182 mass, 128–129, 133, 135–137, 141, 154 Morphological Visibility Condition, 1, 108 Movima, 188–189 Multiple Spell-Out, 60–61, 65–68 N Niuean, 159–167, 182, 186, 191 nominalizer, 112, 128, 131

M. Barrie, Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 84, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7,  C Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

197

198 Nominalizers, 113 Noun Incorporation ditransitives, 9 ditransitives and, 118 doubling and, 93 dummy noun, 103 frozen scope and, 15 history of study of, 5 idiomatic readings, 13 non-objects, 7, 9, 11 order of verb and noun, 2, 5, 33, 127, 159 properties of, 5–8 pseudo noun incorporation, see Pseudo Noun Incorporation subject incorporation, 6 O Oneida, 159, 161, 174, 180 Onondaga, 3, 179, 181 Order of verb and noun, 1, 8, 127 P Persian, 4, 127, 143–146, 154, 159, 161, 185 Plains Cree, 187, 189–190 Polysynthesis Parameter, 109–110 Portuguese, 168–169 Pseudo Noun Incorporation, 160, 163, 165

Index R Romance, 48, 186 See also individual languages Romance Compounds, 167 S Self-Merge, 54, 57, 59–60 semantic incorporation, 143 semi-reflexive, 102–103, 105 Sierra Popoluca, 127, 130–131 Sora, 189 Spanish, 129, 159, 167, 172, 182 stress, 169–172, 182 Swedish, 192 T Tamil, 127, 147–150, 154, 161, 185 Tukang Besi, 165–167 Turkish, 69 U Upriver Halkomelem, 159, 176–177, 179, 181–182, 186 W West Greenlandic, 16 X X-Bar Theory, 23, 36