Syntactic Modularity 9783110849141, 9783110130706

Table of contents :
Contents
Abbreviations
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: A General Overview of Imbabura Quechua
Chapter 3: Agreement, Cliticization and Case Marking in Imbabura Quechua
Chapter 4: Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quechua
Chapter 5: The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua
Chapter 6: A Modular Approach to the Analysis of Experiencer Constructions in Imbabura Quechua, Huanca Quechua and Other Languages
Chapter 7: Conclusions
References

Citation preview

Syntactic Modularity

Studies in Generative Grammar The goal of this series is to publish those texts that are representative of recent advances in the theory of formal grammar. Too many studies do not reach the public they deserve because of the depth and detail that make them unsuitable for publication in article form. W e hope that the present series will make these studies available to a wider audience than has hitherto been possible. Editors: Jan Koster Henk van Riemsdijk

Other books in this series: 1.

WimZonneveld A Formal Theory of Exceptions Generative Phonology

in

2. Pieter Muysken Syntactic Developments in the Verb Phrase of Ecuadorian Quechua 3. Geert Booij Dutch Morphology

7.

Marked-

in Syntax

6. Pieter Muysken (ed.) Generative Studies on Languages

Creole

8. Christer Platzack The Semantic Interpretation Aspect and Aktionsarten

of

and

10. Robert May and Jan Koster (eds.) Levels of Syntactic Representation 11. Luigi Rizzi Issues in Italian

Syntax

12. Osvaldo Jaeggli Topics in Romance

Syntax

Categories

15. Hilda Koopman The Syntax of Verbs Binary

17. Jerzy Rubach Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: The Structure of Polish 18. Sergio Scalise Generative Morphology

AnnekeNeijt Gapping

9. Noam C h o m s k y Lectures on Government Binding

14. Denis Bouchard On the Content of Empty

16. Richard S. Kayne Connectedness and Branching

4. Henk van Riemsdijk A Case Study in Syntactic ness 5. Jan Koster Locality Principles

13. Hagit Borer Parametric Syntax

19. Joseph E. Emonds A Unified Theory of Categories

Syntactic

Gabriella Hermon

Syntactic Modularity

1985 FORIS PUBLICATIONS Dordrecht - Holland/Cinnaminson - U.S.A.

Published by: Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 509 3300 AM Dordrecht, The Netherlands Sole distributor for the U. S.A. and Canada: Foris Publications U.S.A. P.O. BoxC-50 Cinnaminson N.J. 08077 U.S.A.

CIP-DATA Hermon, Gabriella Syntactic modularity / Gabriella Hermon. - Dordrecht [etc.] : Foris. - (Studies in Generative G r a m m a r ; 20) With ref. ISBN 90-6765-110-9 bound ISBN 90-6765-111-7 paper SISO 805.4 U D C 801.56=98 Subject headings: syntax ; generative grammar / Indian languages ; South-America.

ISBN 90 6765 110 9 (Bound) ISBN 90 6765 111 7 (Paper) ® 1984 Foris Publications - Dordrecht. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Printed in the Netherlands by ICG Printing, Dordrecht.

Contents

Abbreviations Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1. Crosslinguistic Variation and the Modularity of the Govern-, ment and Binding Theory 1.2. General Theoretical Assumptions: A Brief Outline 1.3. A Historical Perspective 1.4. Statement of the Problem Footnotes: Chapter 1 Chapter 2: A General Overview of Imbabura Quechua 2.1. Introduction 2.2. Major Types of Constituents and the Structure of Simple Clauses 2.3. Subordinate Clauses 2.4. A-movement and A-movement 2.5. Experiencer Constructions Footnotes: Chapter 2 Chapter 3: Agreement, Cliticization and Case Marking in Imbabura Quechua 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Subject-Verb Agreement 3.3. Object Cliticization 3.3.1. Object Cliticization in the Government and Binding Theory 3.3.2. Imbabura Quechua Object Cliticization 3.3.3. Object Clitics and S-Deleting Verbs in Imbabura Quechua 3.3.4. Clitic Doubling in Imbabura Quechua 3.3.5. Object Cliticization and Imbabura Quechua Experiencer Constructions 3.4. Case Marking Footnotes: Chapter 3

ix 1 1 2 8 11

17 17 18 23 35 38

41 41 41 46 46 48 50 51 55 57

iv

Contents

Chapter 4: Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quechua . . 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Nonfinite Complement Clauses 4.3. Finite Complement Clauses 4.4. Digression: Alternative Analyses for S-Deletion in Finite Complements 4.5. P R O , p r o and Pronoun in Adverbial Clauses 4.5.1. An Account of Switch Reference Phenomena 4.5.2. PRO, pro, Pronouns and the Avoid Pronoun Principiéis) 4.5.3. The Control of P R O 4.6. Experiencer Constructions and Binding 4.7. Binding Principles: at S-structure or LF? 4.8. The Residues of Control Theory: Restrictions on Antecedents of Anaphors Footnotes: Chapter 4 Chapter 5: The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua 5.1. Introduction 5.1.1. A Brief History of the E C P 5.2. Complementizer-trace Phenomena in Pro-drop Languages . . 5.3. The E C P in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua 5.3.1. Introduction 5.3.2. The ECP, Local Control and COMP-indexing in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua 5.3.3. An Alternative Analysis: Co-Case Marking 5.4. The Pro-drop Parameter Revisited 5.5. The E C P and Experiencer Constructions Footnotes: Chapter 5 Chapter 6: A Modular Approach to the Analysis of Experiencer Constructions in Imbabura Quechua, Huanca Quechua and Other Languages . . 6.1. Introduction 6.2. Lexical Experiencer NPs as D-structure Objects 6.3. Desiderative Experiencer NPs: Two Possible Analyses 6.3.1. Desiderative NPs as D-structure Subjects (Analysis A) 6.3.2. Desiderative NPs as D-structure Objects (Analysis B) 6.3.3. Evaluation of the Two Analyses 6.4. Residual Problems and Their Solution 6.4.1. Problematic Facts 6.4.2. P F Restructuring: A Possible Solution

69 69 78 81 92 102 102 108 112 113 119 120

135 135 135 139 145 145 145 156 159 163

169 169 170 172 172 175 178 181 181 186

Contents

vii

6.5

191 192

The Analysis of Other Languages 6.5.1. Huanca Experiencer Constructions 6.5.1.1. Verb Agreement, Object Cliticization and Case Marking 6.5.1.2. Binding Theory 6.5.1.3. The E C P 6.5.1.4. Control Theory 6.5.1.5. Summary and Analysis of Huanca Experiences 6.5.2. Kannada Experiencer Constructions 6.5.3. Modern Hebrew Experiencer Constructions 6.5.4. Italian Experiencer Constructions 6.6. Case Marking and Verb Agreement via A-Chains Footnotes: Chapter 6

Chapter 7: Conclusions 7.1. Introduction 7.2. Predictions about Experiencer Constructions in Government and Binding Theory 7.3. Reanalysis as an Instantiation of Move-a 7.4. Apparent Counterexamples 7.5. Summary and Theoretical Results Footnotes: Chapter 7 References

193 195 196 198 199 200 209 220 225

241 241 241 245 251 255

261

Abbreviations

The following is a list of some of the abbreviations used in glossing Imbabura, Ancash and Huanca Quechua. acc = accusative

pers = personalizer

affect = affective marker

pi = plural

asp = aspectual marker

poss = possessive

benef = benefactive

pr = present tense

caus = causative suffix

prog = progressive

circum = circumstantial marker

refl = reflexive

compl = complementizer

subj = subjunctive

coref = preferential

top = topic marker

dat = dative

val = validator

def = definite

wh qu = WH-question marker

desid = desiderative fut = future tense gen = genitive imp = imperative ind = indicative inf = infinitive neg = negative

Person markers are indicated by Arabic numerals following the tense marker of the verb. A hyphen between tense and person markers indicates that they are separate morphemes rather than a single portmanteau morpheme. For example:

Nom = nominalizer

pr 3 = third person present tense

nom = nominative

past-1 = first person past tense

noncoref = noncoreferential

fut 2 = second person future tense

obi = oblique OM = object marker 1 OM = first object marker pass = passive

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Crosslinguistic Variation and the Modularity of the Government and Binding Theory The main purpose of this investigation is to demonstrate how the modular nature of linguistic theory can explain crosslinguistic variation. I will show that the analysis of a particular construction in various languages is made possible in a theory which is highly modular, such as the theory of Government and Binding developed in Chomsky (1981), inter alia. 1 The construction under investigation has been called the non-nominative (or sometimes dative) subject construction, and is quite common in a wide variety of languages.2 The example in (1) illustrates the construction in Imbabura Quechua, the language on which the majority of the data in this book is based: 3 (1)

(nuka-ta) aycha-ta miku-naya-wa-n-mi me-acc meat-acc eat-desid-1 OM-pr 3-val 'I desire to eat meat'

Typically, in a wide range of languages, the NP which is semantically an experiencer or cognizer in this construction is marked with dative, accusative, genitive or oblique Case. The NP does not trigger subject-verb agreement. In many languages, however, this NP has syntactic properties normally associated with subjects in the specific language. This will be illustrated in considerable detail for a number of languages in this study, including languages from the Quechua family (Imbabura and Huanca), Kannada (a Dravidian language), Italian and Hebrew. It will be claimed that a unified analysis for the seemingly differing properties of the construction in these languages is possible in the Government and Binding theory, and that it is made possible by the fact that the theory is modular, in the sense discussed below, and by assuming that Universal Grammar specifies certain parameters on which languages can differ.

2

Syntactic

Modularity

1.2 General Theoretical Assumptions: A Brief Outline The theory within which this study is conducted is the theory of generative grammar developed in Chomsky (1981 and 1982), and in other recent works, such as those mentioned at the end of this section. This theory, most frequently referred to as Government and Binding theory, identifies Universal Grammar as a set of principles (or rule systems) which governs the application of grammatical processes. To account for the similarities and differences among natural languages, Universal Grammar is presumed to include a number of general principles which hold in all languages. Universal Grammar also contains certain parameters: i.e., variables which are left unspecified. These parameters can be instantiated in different ways in different languages. The questions of what these parameters are and how they may be instantiated are then major questions in this theory, and will be one of the issues addressed in this work. Universal Grammar is highly modular in a number of ways. First of all, the grammar contains more than one level of representation. The syntactic component of the grammar generates an infinite set of abstract structures: S-structures (to be distinguished from surface-structures). S-structures are assigned a phonetic form (PF) and a logical form (LF). The grammar must specify at least these three systems of representation: S-structure, PF and LF. In addition, the grammar must specify the rules which map one system of representation (or level) onto another: the rules of the syntactic component which map deep structure (D-structure)onto S-structure; the rules of the PF component which map S-structure onto PF, and LF rules mapping S-structure onto LF. The interacting subcomponents of the framework are organized roughly as follows:

(2)

Base rules

D-structure

X

Syntactic rules (Move-a)

T

S-structure

Phonetic form (surface-structure)

47 Logical form

3

Introduction

Universal Grammar is also modular in that the principles of the grammar are organized into major subsystems or subtheories. According to Chomsky (1981) the following subsystems of principles can be distinguished : (3)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

Bounding theory Government theory 6-theory Binding theory Control theory Case theory

Bounding theory contains the subjacency condition (see Chomsky, 1973). This condition prevents unbounded movement: i.e., it ensures that Move-a cannot apply across more than one bounding node. Bounding nodes include NP, S and S. The list of bounding nodes may differ from language to language, particularly in regard to whether S or S is the relevant bounding node. Rizzi (1982) discusses the latter question with respect to the grammar of Italian. See also Cole (1982b) on the question of bounding nodes in Imbabura Quechua. Informally stated, government theory as presented in Chomsky (1981) is based on the notion that a relationship of government holds between the head of a construction (the governor) and the categories dependent on it (the governed elements). More recently certain researchers have suggested that the notion of government is derivable from 0-theory. For example, Pesetsky (1982) derives government from direct 0-marking ( 0-marking by a lexical category), by means of the following condition: (4)

If a directly 0-marks /? then a governs j3

It remains to be seen, however, whether the notion of government is completely derivable from 0-theory. The central principle of government theory imposes certain restrictions on the distribution of the empty categories NP-trace and Wh-trace. This principle is the Empty Category Principle (ECP), which, informally stated, demands that all empty categories be properly governed. Proper government is derived from the general notion of government and is the focus of the discussion in Chapter 5, in which the interaction of the ECP with language specific instantiations of certain parameters will be examined. Chomsky (1981) considers a number of possible definitions of the government relation. The one I will use in this study is the definition which incorporates a requirement for minimal c-command. Government is defined as follows:

4

Syntactic

Modularity

(4)

a governs 0 if a minimally c-commands ¡3 where a = { N,A,V,P, INFL}

Minimal c-command is defined below: 4 (5)

a minimally c-commands 0 = def a c-commands /? and there is no 7 such that a c-commands 7 and 7 c-commands /3 and not 7 c-commands a

It is stipulated that governors are lexical categories of the X° level: N,A,V,P and INFL (the head of S), and that NP and S are absolute barriers to government. Thus, in a single clause a verb governs its complements but not the subject of the clause. The subject is governed by inflection (INFL) when inflection contains AGR (agreement). A slightly different approach to government is the one adopted in Borer (1981). Informally, this notion reflects the idea that government is based on c-command and on the restriction that this relationship must be internal to a maximal projection: (6)

Government (definition) In the configuration [.../3...a...0...] a can be said to govern j3 iff: _

-v-O

1. ii.

a= X where 0 is a maximal projection, if dominates 0 then

-deletion, the embedded subject is governed by the verb krina 'to believe'. The embedded subject is not, however, an argument of 'believe': i.e., it does not receive its 0-role from this verb and it is not subcategorized for by the higher verb. Thus it cannot be regarded as a complement of the verb krina. Since coindexing between the clitic

Agreement, Cliticization and Case Markingin Imbabura Quecha

51

and the doubled NP is supposed to fall out from the fact that the NP receives its 0-role from the verb on which the clitic is a feature, there is no explanation for the appearance of the clitic in (18)b. Note, however, that the verb and the clitic in the above example govern the embedded subject. I would like to suggest that the coindexing of the clitic and the doubled NP is possible whenever the clitic governs the NP. Coindexing is, then, not derivable from (^-assignment in Imbabura Quechua and is, therefore, possible between a clitic and an NP which is not a complement of the verb (i.e., an NP not subcategorized for and not assigned a 6 -role by the verb). The structural relationship of government is the only relevant relationship between the clitic + verb and the doubled NP. This formulation, which is, in effect, a weakening of the theory proposed in Borer (1981), will rule out coindexing the clitic with an NP governed by a postposition, but allow coindexing the clitic with an NP which is governed but not 0-marked by the verb. In French, for example, a clitic coindexed with an embedded subject can appear on the higher verb, with verbs similar to the ones discussed here for Imbabura: (19)

Je le1 crois [pro1 être le plus intelligent de tous] I him believe to be the most intelligent of all 'I believe him to be the most intelligent of all'

In the French examples, the clitic le is coindexed with the embedded subject, which is not a complement of croire and does not receive its 0-role from croire. Under the S-deletion analysis, however, croire and the clitic attached to it govern the embedded subject. I will, therefore, claim that coindexing is allowed between a governor and a governed element, and does not follow from 0-assignment. I will next consider another problem raised by the Imbabura Quechua data, the question of clitic doubling.9 3.3.4 Clitic Doubling in Imbabura Quechua According to the theory of clitics developed in Jaeggli (1981) and Borer (1981), the clitic can, under some special circumstances, co-occur with the NP it is coindexed with. In Jaeggli's framework the clitic absorbs government and, hence, the NP can be lexically filled only if it can get Case marked from an independent source, such as the inserted preposition a in Spanish, in (20) below. In Borer's framework the clitic always governs the NP, but since the clitic is a spell-out of the Case feature on the verb, it absorbs Case. Borer, therefore, predicts that the clitic and the NP can cooccur only if the NP can get Case marked from an independent source, such as an inserted preposition.

52

Syntactic

Modularity

(20)

lo vimos him(cl) saw-pl 1 'We saw Juan'

a to

Juan Juan

(20) is an example from River Plate Spanish, where clitic doubling (i.e., the co-occurence of a clitic with a coindexed NP) is possible in certain environments which are semantically specified. Jaeggli claims that in River Plate Spanish these environments are a subset of the environments in which the preposition a is present. Clitic doubling in these environments is optional, but highly preferred. Jaeggli and Borer claim that the fact that in these sentences there is an independent Case marking device (the preposition a) makes clitic doubling possible, since the preposition assigns Case to the NP. Thus, the sentence is "saved" from the Case filter in spite of the fact that the clitic absorbs the Case assigned by the verb. Similar facts are available from Romanian, where the preposition pe is available to Case mark direct objects under certain conditions; and from Hebrew, where the inserted preposition sel Case marks an NP in the construct state, when a clitic is present on the head of the nominal expression. See Borer (1981), Chapter 3, for a detailed discussion of the facts in Romanian, Spanish and Hebrew; and Jaeggli (1981) for a comprehensive discussion of similar facts in some Romance languages. The question, then, is whether clitic doubling is possible in Imbabura Quechua, and what the account is for the doubling facts. I will claim that in Imbabura Quechua clitic doubling can occur quite freely, in spite of the fact that there does not appear to be an independent Case marker for the doubled NP. Various ways will be suggested for incorporating the Imbabura Quechua facts into the theory of clitics presented here. As already mentioned, in Imbabura Quechua an NP coindexed with the clitic can appear as shown in the example below: (21)

Juan-ga nuka-ta1 maka-wa1- rka Juan-top me - acc hit -1 OM-past 3 'Juan hit me'

In the above example the direct object NP can appear if the speaker wishes to emphasize the fact that it was me and not somebody else that Juan hit. Note that a similar emphatic reading is necessary for the clitic doubling cases in Spanish and Romanian, when the NP is a pronoun which does not add any new information to the information carried by the clitic. Thus in (22) below, the appearance of the doubled NP in Romanian is possible only if the pronoun ea 'her' is emphasized:

Agreement, Cliticization and Case Markingin Imbabura Quecha (22)

am vazut-o be-1 see - her (cl) 'I saw her'

53

pe ea prep her

In general, the appearance of the doubled NP is as natural as the appearance of subject pronouns in a pro-drop language: i.e., the doubled NP (unless it bears special emphasis) is perceived as being redundant but certainly grammatical. Since clitics are claimed to absorb Case, the prediction is that the doubled NP in Imbabura Quechua has to receive Case from some other source. It seems, however, that no independent source for Case marking the NP is available in Imbabura Quechua, yet clitic doubling is always grammatical. The clitic itself is optional, but preferred, and the NP is optional but preferably null since it carries redundant information. What then can explain the doubling facts in Imbabura Quechua? One possible solution is to claim that in Imbabura Quechua the marker -ta on the doubled NP is in reality a base generated postposition which assigns Case to the NP. This, however, is not a coherent claim since NPs coindexed with a clitic have to be governed by the verb + clitic. Hence, the coindexed NP cannot be inside a PP, a maximal projection of P. Another solution would be to claim that the clitic in Imbabura Quechua is not a spell-out of Case, and hence does not absorb Case. Note that in languages like Romanian there is some evidence that the clitic contains some Case-like information. Thus the clitics for direct objects differ from the clitics for indirect objects. For example, I- is the masculine singular direct object clitic, while i- is the indirect object clitic. Similarly (in most dialects of Spanish) the clitics for direct and indirect objects differ. In Imbabura Quechua, however, -wa is used regardless of the Case of the doubled NP; i.e., it is used for both direct objects and indirect objects. Possibly a parameter for Case absorption could be suggested stating that clitics will absorb Case only if the clitic itself exhibits a Case feature. In languages in which the clitic is not a spell-out of the Case feature of the verb, doubling will always be possible without any further restrictions, since the doubled NP can get Case marked by the verb. Certain Bantu languages seem to present evidence for this proposal. A situation similar to that in Imbabura Quechua exists in Chi-Mwi:ni, a Bantu language closely related to Swahili, spoken in the city of Brava in Somalia. According to the description given in Kisseberth and Abasheikh (1977), Chi-Mwi:ni has a set of object clitics which are prefixed to the verb. The clitic itself is optional and agrees in noun class with the NP which is the "primary object" of the verb. "Primary object" refers to the NP which immediately follows the verb and which controls the clitic on the verb. What is interesting about these examples is that the NP coindexed with the clitic can optionally occur with the clitic present, as exemplified in (23):

54

Syntactic

Modularity

(23)

wake wa-mw-osheze mwarna women SM-OM-washed child "The women washed the child'

In (23) the clitic mw- agrees with the object NP mwa.na. If the clitic were to absorb Case, mwa.na would not receive Case and the sentence would be ruled out by the Case filter. Chi-Mwi:ni does have prepositions which can appear in front of certain object NPs. In (23), however, no preposition can appear in front of the object mwa.na. In general, prepositions only show up in front of objects which are not coindexed with a clitic (i.e., objects which don't trigger object clitics). Hence, an analysis relying on inserted prepositions as independent Case assigners for the doubled NP is definitely ruled out in Chi-Mwi:ni. Assuming that there exists a parameter of Case absorption, as discussed above, Chi-Mwi:ni would be an example of a language in which the clitic itself does not exhibit any Case marking, and hence can be assumed not to absorb Case. Note that in Chi-Mwi:ni the clitic only agrees with the doubled NP in noun class, and its form does not vary depending on whether the doubled NP is a thematic patient, goal, benefactive or even instrument. Moreover, in most instances, object clitics do not differ in form from the subject markers which are also prefixed to the verb. Thus, in the example cited above, wa- is the subject marker for third person plural nouns of class 3, and can also be the object marker for third person plural class 3 nouns, as exemplified in (24): (24)

Ja:ma 0-wa-somesheteze wa:na Nu:ru Jama SM-OM-taught-appl children Nuru 'Jama taught Nuru for the children'

It seems, then, that Chi-Mwi:ni is another instance of a language in which the clitic does not absorb Case, allowing the doubled NP to be lexically filled. This situation follows from the Case absorption parameter if it is assumed that clitics do not absorb Case in languages in which the clitic is not a spell-out of Case and does not exhibit any morphological variation which could be interpreted as an instantiation of Case. It seems, however, that given data from other Bantu languages, this generalization cannot be maintained. According to Bokamba (1981) Bantu languages are divided into two types: those that disallow clitic doubling and those that do not. The first category appears to be more common than the second and includes among others languages such as Dzamba, KiNyarwanda, ChiBemba, KiKongo, and Lingala. The languages allowing clitic doubling include KiSwahili and Chi-Mwi:ni. The difference between the Chi-Mwi:ni type and the type not allowing clitic doubling

Agreement, Cliticization and Case Markingin Imbabura Quecha

55

cannot, however, be due to a difference in whether the clitic does or does not exhibit Case marking. Object clitics in all of the Bantu languages are similar to the object clitics discussed in Chi-Mwi:ni, in that they do not exhibit any morphological variation which could be interpreted as an instantiation of Case. It must be concluded that the question of Case absorption by the clitic is independent of the question of whether the clitic itself exhibits morphological Case. Thus in Imbabura Quechua and Chi-Mwi:ni, the clitic does not absorb Case, while in other Bantu languages and also Hebrew, Spanish and Romanian, the clitic does absorb Case. The instantiation of the parameter of Case absorption in a particular language cannot be connected to the presence or absence of surface Case on the clitic itself. Clitics can be analyzed as a spell-out of Case in all languages, while Case absorption by the clitic must be an independent parameter which for some languages is marked [-] and others is marked [+]. 3.3.5 Object Cliticization and Imbabura Quechua Experiencer Constructions Next, I shall consider the level at which co-superscripting must be relevant. In Imbabura, it can be argued that the relevant component for co-superscripting and checking cliticization is the PF component. Thus, in passive sentences, the D-structure object cannot be co-superscripted with the object clitic, as illustrated in (25): (25)

*nuka-ka^ ypft^makay tuku-wa1-rka] I-nom-top hit pass-1 OM-past 3

In (25), if co-superscripting were to occur at D-structure, nuka should be able to be associated with the clitic -wa. If co-superscripting were to occur at S-structure, the trace in object position should be co-superscripted with the clitic. If it is assumed, however, that co-superscripting with object clitics only occurs in the PF component, the ungrammatically of (25) is explained.10 In the PF component, there is reason to believe that uncasemarked empty elements are invisible. Thus, in English, uncasemarked trace and PRO are invisible for the rule of io-contraction,generating forms like wanna, gonna, etc. (See Jaeggli, 1979.) If it is assumed, then, that clitics are base generated, and that co-superscripting occurs in PF, the NP trace left by Move-a in (25) will be invisible and the clitic will be barred.11 Thus, there is some evidence that cliticization is determined in the PF component. In 6.4 I will discuss additional evidence that object cliticization is a PF phenomenon, at least in Imbabura Quechua. To summarize, object cliticization in Imbabura distinguishes between NPs governed by the verb, on the one hand, and objects of PPs on the other. The relevant component for cliticization is the PF component.

56

Syntactic

Modularity

Next, I will show that experience« must be analyzed as objects in PF, since they can be associated with the object clitic -wa. This is exemplified in (26) for both lexical and desiderative experiencers: (26)

a. (nuka-ta)1 nana-wa1- r k a - m i me-acc hurt-1 OM-past 3-val 'I hurt' b. (nuka-ta)1 punu - naya-wa1- rka - mi me-acc sleep-desid-1 OM-past 3-val 'I want to sleep'

It is interesting to note that with experiencer verbs which allow two objects, either can trigger -wa. Thus with a verb like makanayana 'to desire to hit' -wa can be associated either with the experiencer as in (27), or with the non-experiencer object, as in (28): (27)

kan-da maka-naya-wa - n - mi you-acc hit-desid-1 OM-pr 3-val 'I desire to hit you'

(28)

kan-da maka-naya-wa - n-llu? you-acc hit-desid-1 OM-pr 3-Q 'Do you desire to hit me?'

On the basis of examples like (27) and (28), it must be assumed that at the level at which cliticization is determined the verb governs and Case marks two NPs, as indicated in the structure below: (29)

Vp[

NP

acc

acc

experiencer CI]

The experiencer is always to the left of the non-experiencer object, and either object can be co-superscripted and associated with the clitic -wa. Alternatively, instead of assuming that experiencer verbs are exceptions in that they govern and Case mark two objects, the following structure for the VP containing an experiencer verb could be assumed : VP

(30)

nul me- acc

V kan-da you-acc

maka-naya-n hit-desid-pr 3

Agreement, Cliticization and Case Markingin Imbabura Quecha

57

There is a problem, however, in assuming a structure like (30) for experiences. The structure in (30) is similar to the structure proposed for verbs with indirect objects. This structure, then, incorrectly predicts that experiencers should be Case marked with -man like other indirect objects. In what follows, I will, therefore, assume structure (29) rather than (30) for double object experiencers. This is discussed in greater detail in the next section. In conclusion, I have shown in this section that the data from object cliticization indicates that experiencers are PF objects in Imbabura Quechua. 12 3.4 Case Marking In this section I will show that experiencers in Imbabura have to be analyzed as objects in the PF component where Case is checked, since they are Case marked with accusative Case. There are two basic approaches to Case marking in EST: the Case assignment approach and the Base/Filter hypothesis. In the "On Binding" (OB) framework Chomsky posited Case assignment rules at various levels. The following rules were posited: (31)

a. NP is oblique when governed by P and certain verbs. b. NP is objective when governed by V. c. NP is nominative when governed by Tense.

In addition the following filter was posited: (32)

*N, where N has no Case and is lexical.

Oblique Case is assigned in the base and is determined by lexical properties of the governing category P (preposition) and V. Parts (b) and (c) apply at S-structure. Moreover, in OB Chomsky had to assume that Case was assigned to a Wh-word as part of the rule of Move-a, which copied the Case onto the trace whenever movement from S to COMP occurred. In the Government and Binding framework Chomsky proposes that all Case assignment takes place no later than S-structure. This is because Case seems to play a role in both the LF and the PF components. Only Case marked traces can be assigned 0-roles in LF (the Visibility Hypothesis of Chomsky, 1981), and in PF only Case marked empty elements are "visible" for phonological rules such as contraction of auxiliaries and to. (See Jaeggli, 1979, and 3.2 above on this issue.) The Case assignment rules are reformulated in the Government and Binding framework as follows:

58

Syntactic

Modularity

(33)

(i) NP is nominative if governed by AGR (ii) NP is objective if governed by V with the subcategorization feature:. NP (iii) NP is oblique if governed_by P (iv) NP is genitive in [ j ^ — X ] (v) NP is inherently Case marked as determined by properties of its [-N] governor

Note that in all instances there is a direct relationship between the notion of governor and Case assigner. AGR governs the subject position and assigns it nominative Case; a verb assigns objective Case to the NP it governs; and a preposition governs the NP in the prepositional phrase and assigns it oblique Case. Even inherent Case is determined by a [-N] governor. It is important to note that in both the OB and Government and Binding framework Case and government are closely linked. Thus, if an NP receives accusative Case, it must be due to the fact that the NP (or its trace in instances where Wh-movement has applied) is governed by a Case-assigning verb. No accusative Case can be assigned to subject NPs in tensed clauses. Since subjects are always governed by AGR in tensed clauses, they receive nominative Case. A slightly different approach to Case is proposed in Jaeggli (1978). Jaeggli proposes that all Cases are freely generated in the base: i.e., Case features are one of the (optional) components of the bundle of features referred to as an NP. Thus, any of the following NPs can be generated in any position: (34)

[NP], [NP, -NOM], [NP, +OBL], etc...

[NP, +NOM],

[NP, +OBJ],

[NP,-OBJ],

Sentences containing NPs with incorrect Case features will then have to be filtered out. Jaeggli proposes the following filters for English among others (Jaeggli, 1978, page 6): (35)

a. *[NP, -NOM] V t e n s e b. *P[NP, -OBL] c. *V[NP, - OBJ]

In addition, the Case filter: *[N, where N has no Case] has to be assumed. Note that all of Chomsky's Case assigning rules (in Chomsky, 1981, 3.2.2, (1)) can be reformulated in terms of filters. Chomsky views Case assignment and Case checking as equivalent devices and, in effect, proposes to adopt Case checking, although for expository purposes he assumes Case assignment.

Agreement,

Cliticization

and Case Markingin Imbabura Quecha

59

In what follows I will adopt the Case checking approach. I will assume that Case is optionally and freely generated in the base and checked in the PF component. For arguments that Case checking has to occur after S-structure in the PF component, see Jaeggli (1979) and Aoun (1979). 1 3 Turning to Imbabura Quechua, let us examine the nature of the Case checking rules needed in this language. As in English, subjects governed by AGR are marked with nominative Case and NPs governed by the verb are marked with accusative Case. The NP governed by V gets Case marked with -man (see 3.3.2 above). To handle subject and object Case marking, the following filters are needed: (36)

a. b. c. d. e.

*[NP, *[NP, * [NP, *[NP, *[NP,

-NOM] -ACC] -DAT] -OBL] -GEN]

+AGR V V P NP

I shall assume, then, that all Case markers are determined by the Case checking filters proposed above, without any exceptions. Note that what is generally called "Exceptional Case marking" under S-deleting verbs like believe is actually just structural Case and follows from Case filter (35)c in English: the verb believe governs the embedded subject position after S-deletion and, thus, can assign it objective Case. It will be assumed that all Cases are marked according to filters (35) and (36) for English and Imbabura Quechua, respectively. As far as Case marking on complements of the verb is concerned, according to (36) the verb assigns accusative Case (-ta) to its complement (the direct object). Dative Case, however, is assigned to the NP governed by V. The question, then, arises of how one can justify the distinction between Case markers such as -ta and -man, which are assigned by V and V, and postpositions such as -wan 'with' and -paj 'for', which assign oblique Case to the NPs they govern. It can be shown that Imbabura Quechua crucially distinguishes between NPs governed by the verb and NPs which are in another maximal projection and, hence, are not governed by the verb. Given the approach to cliticization taken in Borer (1981) and adopted here, NPs which can be coindexed with a clitic on the verb must be governed by the clitic (a feature on the verb). Since in Imbabura Quechua only NPs Case marked with -ta and -man can be coindexed with the object clitic -wa (as was discussed in the previous section), it must be assumed that for these NPs a government relationship exists between the verb and the NP. For all other NPs inside the VP no such relationship exists. This forces us to assume that the NPs which cannot be coindexed with the clitic are in a

60

Syn tac tic Modularity

different maximal projection from the verb. In 3.3 I have claimed that NPs which cannot be coindexed with the object clitic are part of a postpositional phrase. The postposition governs and assigns Case to the NP. The PP, being a maximal projection, prevents government of the NP inside the PP by the verb. Hence, the distinction between -ta and -man on the one hand and postpositions seems to be justified and follows from the requirement that NPs coindexed with a clitic be governed by the clitic, which is realized as a feature on the verb. The second question raised by (36) is the question of adjacency and the connection between adjacency and free word order inside the VP. This is discussed in great detail in Stowell (1981), who adopts Chomsky's (1980) proposal that Case assignment observes a strict condition of adjacency, for structures where Case is assigned under government. Stowell proposes the following restriction on Case assignment under government: (37)

In the configuration [a 0...] or [.../J a], a Case marks 0, where a. a governs j3 and b. a is adjacent to 0, and c. a is [-N]

According to the adjacency requirement objects marked with -ta should only appear immediately adjacent to the verb. Complements marked with -man, then, cannot be NPs Case marked by the verb since this would violate the adjacency requirement (in addition to violating the assumption that a verb can assign only one Case, discussed below). In Imbabura Quechua, however, as mentioned in the introduction in Chapter 2, word order inside the VP is quite free, and the complement marked by -ta need not appear adjacent to the verb. Is it the case that Imbabura Quechua simply violates the adjacency requirement? Stowell (1981) claims that in languages which have a morphological system with a large set of distinct Cases, the verb does not assign Case at all. The verb in these languages subcategories for NP complements which are intrinsically marked for specific Cases. Adjacency is therefore not a requirement for the presence of Case, and free word order inside the VP is a necessary consequence of Case being subcategorized for by the verb, rather than assigned by it. Note that, if this claim were extended to Imbabura Quechua, one would still have to distinguish between NPs for which the verb subcategorizes and PPs which are not subcategorized for by V and in which the postposition assigns Case to the NP in the PP. Strict adjacency is always observed in Case marking inside a PP and stranding of the postposition is impossible. However, no word order restrictions for the VP have to be noted. This approach is similar to the one proposed for Quechua in Muys-

Agreement, Cliticization and Case Markingin Imbabura Quecha

61

ken (1981), where it is claimed that the mechanism of phrase structure to constrain word order may be dispensed with and replaced by a set of independently needed interacting principles. Under this analysis, then, both -ta and -man are not assigned by the verb at all but are subcategorized for by the verb. Hence, constituent order in the VP is relatively free since adjacency is not required for Case marking. A different approach, the one I am adopting here, would be to assume that Imbabura Quechua does observe some ordering restrictions in its base and that complements marked by -ta have to be adjacent to the verb in all components. In PF, however, scrambling rules can rearrange complements of the verb, presumably after Case checking has applied. Adjacency, then, can be violated by applying a "late" PF scrambling rule: i.e., adjacency is only violated at surface structure. Imbabura Quechua is, then, not really a free word order language. The question of what is and is not a free word order language, and whether one should adopt the "unordered base" hypothesis universally, goes far beyond the scope of the discussion in this section. It seems reasonable to claim that in Imbabura Quechua verbs govern and Case mark certain complements (the ones marked by -ta) but not others. Adjacency at some level will have to be observed between the verb and the -ta Case marked complement. As far as -man is concerned, I think the issue remains undecided: it can either be assigned by the verb together with V as a governor, or it can be intrinsic (lexical) Case with the verb governing but not assigning Case to the complement. PPs, however, assign oblique Case to their complements. Since the verb does not assign Case to the NP inside the PP, there are no adjacency restrictions on PPs. I will next discuss the Case marking facts for experiencer NPs. Both lexical and desiderative experiencers are marked with accusative Case in Imbabura Quechua. Assuming again that Case is due to the Case distribution filters in (36), it must be assumed that experiencers are objects in PF, where the filters apply. It is undesirable to view the accusative Case as an exception to filter (36)a: i.e., I will not assume that Imbabura Quechua, unlike English, exceptionally allows accusative subjects when AGR is the governor and the head of the VP is an experiencer verb. To allow such an exception is equivalent to claiming that Case in this instance is simply irregular and does not follow from any principles. I will assume that Case always follows from government and no such irregularities exist, and, hence, objective Case on an NP indicates government of the NP by a verb.14 What are the consequences of viewing the experiencer as the object of the verb? According to this, it must be assumed that, at least in the PF component when Case is checked, experiencer verbs are always transitives, taking an NP object.

62

Syntactic Modularity

(38)

pro AGR yp[nuka-ta-ka me-acc-top 'I hurt' (It hurts me)

(39)

pro AGR yp[nuka-ta-ka yaija - n - mi] me-acc-top hunger-pr 3-val 'I hunger' (It hungers me)

nana-n-mi] hurt-pr 3-val

There is one complication with regard to Case marking in the experiencer construction. As noted in 3.3, experiencer verbs can take two objects. Both objects are Case marked with accusative Case, as illustrated below: (40)

nuka-ta-ka uma - ta me-acc-top head-acc '(My) head hurts me'

nana - wa - n - mi hurt - 1 OM-pr 3-val

(41)

nuka-ta-ka tanda-ta miku-naya - n - mi me-acc-top bread-acc eat-desid-pr 3-val 'I desire to eat bread'

The fact that in Imbabura experiencer verbs have to be allowed to Case mark two NPs with accusative Case violates the assumption implicit in Chomsky (1981) and Stowell (1981) that a verb can only Case mark one NP. This was stated in Aoun (1979) as the biuniqueness condition on Case assignment: (42)

An element may not assign Case to more than one nominal element

In addition, the adjacency requirement is violated, since the verb must assign Case to a non-adjacent NP (the experiencer NP) in (40) and (41). 15 Alternatively, it could be claimed that only one of the accusative NPs in (40) and (41) is Case marked structurally. The second NP has intrinsic Case: i.e., accusative Case is assigned due to some idiosyncratic property of the verb. In what follows I will adopt the intrinsic Case marking approach. I will claim that, just as one must allow certain verbs to assign accusative Case structurally to their direct objects in addition to subcategorizing for another (indirect) object which is intrisically Case marked with -man, experiencer verbs structurally Case mark a complement with accusative Case and also subcategorize for a second accusative complement (the experiencer NP). Experiencer NPs are, then, complements governed and subcategorized for by the verb. A filter of the following sort is therefore needed:

Agreement,

(43)

Cliticization

and Case Markingin

Imbabura

Quecha

63

*[NP,-ACC; NP-ACC] V e x p e r i e n c e r

To summarize, on the assumption adopted here that Case checking occurs in the PF component, experiencer NPs are PF objects in Imbabura Quechua.

NOTES 1. In Borer (1981), the ability of the post-verbal NP to trigger agreement followed from the application of rule-/? in the syntax of languages like Hebrew. Since rule-/? is not part of the system I am proposing here, a different explanation, such as the one discussed in 6.6, needs to be offered. 2. The system described here predicts that Buizio's ergative verbs and passive verbs would behave in exactly the same manner. There is nothing in this system which can predict why the object of a passive verb, which assigns a 0-role to its complement but not to its subject, should not be co-superscripted with pro in subject position. Hence, passive objects, just like objects of ergatives should not have to move to subject position in order to receive Case. This is, in fact, the situation in Hebrew, where objects of the nifal pattern verbs can appear in post-verbal position although they are Case marked nominative and they trigger subject agreement on the verb: (i)

niftax bet- kolno'a xadash be-Tel-Aviv opened-masc sg house- movie-masc sg new in Tel-Aviv 'A new movie theater was opened in Tel Aviv'

(ii)

nishme'a ce'aka gdola heard-fem sg scream-fem sg big 'A big scream was heard'

In English, however, objects of passive verbs must be moved into subject position since English does not allow an empty category in subject position. The prediction, then, is that in languages where pro can appear in subject position, passives will not be any different from ergative verbs since in both constructions two options are available. (a) The object happens to agree in co-superscripting with pro. In this case the object can remain in its base generated position since it will receive Case via a chain and it will also trigger agreement on the verb. (b) The object receives a superscript which differs from the superscript of pro. Hence, it cannot be Case marked or trigger agreement via a chain. It can, however, move into subject position. In this case, it will assume the superscript of the position it moves into and trigger agreement. Alternatively, one might claim that Move-a applies before random co-superscripting. Hence, NPs moved into the empty subject position simply assume the superscript of the position. NPs which do not move can receive nominative Case and trigger agreement only if they happen to get superscripted with an index which agrees with the index of pro. 3. As discussed in this section and in 6.6, objects of ergative verbs can also trigger subject verb agreement via a chain. 4. Lefebvre and Muysken (1982) claim that passives in Cuzco Quechua are derived from a biclausal source. Their arguments for a biclausal source can be extended to

64

Syntactic

Modularity

Imbabura Quechua. Note, however, that their arguments that in passives the embedded object receives nominative Case in the main clause due to Co-Case Marking cannot be extended to Imbabura Quechua for reasons noted in 4.4 and 5.3.3. Therefore, I will assume that in (5) nuka-ka is nominative since it is co-superscripted with AGR at S-stiucture and not due to some other general principle such as Co-Case Marking. 5. Chomsky's argument showing that co-superscripting occurs at deep structure involves rule R, the lowering of AGR onto the verb, in the syntax of Italian. As discussed in 3.2, there is not much evidence for the existence of rule R in the syntax of languages like Italian and Imbabura Quechua. Therefore, one of the major reasons for assuming that co-superscripting occurs at D-structure may not be relevant. I would like to emphasize that, as far as the data from Imbabura Quechua are concerned, it is irrelevant whether co-superscripting between AGR and the subject NP occurs in D-structure or S-structure. The only relevant issue is where the spelling out of AGR occurs. Moreover, as argued in 3.4, co-superscripting between a clitic and the object NP must occur at a later stage than D-structure. Assuming a unified account for all phenomena involving co-superscripting, the assumption made here that co-superscripting occurs at D-structure might have to be reconsidered. This would not affect the analysis of experiencers in Imbabura Quechua in any way. 6. I am assuming that the relationship between the clitic and the NP it governs is that of co-superscripting. For the sake of consistency, I have therefore made minor adaptations in Borer's analysis. See Borer (1981), Chapter 4, for exact details of her analysis. 7. In addition, Imbabura Quechua also allows the clitic -wa to appear on any verb, without any structural restrictions. In these instances -wa must be interpreted as an affective clitic, very similar to the benefactive use of clitics in Spanish of the sort mentioned in Perlmutter (1971). (i)

Imbabura Quechua wawa-ka punu -wa -rka baby-nom-top sleep-affect -past 3 'The baby fell asleep on me'

(ii)

Spanish me le arruinaron la vida a mi hijo 'They ruined my son's life! '

I would like to claim that these affective clitics are not coindexed with and governing an argument of V. No NP can appear in (i) or (ii) (as discussed for Spanish in Jaeggli, 1981). In instances in which an object is coindexed with a clitic (as in (11)-(12)), -wa does not have this affective meaning. Thus, (iii)

Juzi-ka riku-wa-rka José-nom-top see-1 OM-past 3 'José saw me'

does not mean that I was affected in any way. 8. I will assume that for indirect objects the V and V govern the complement NP, but the verb 0-marks the complement. Some verbs are thus subcategorized to assign two 0-roles and govern and Case mark two NPs. The NP exclusively governed by V

Agreement, Cliticization and Case Markingin Imbabura Quecha

65

will receive accusative Case, while the NP governed by both V and Vreceives dative Case. The claim^then, is that Case marking is structural, and Case itself is determined by whether V + V or only V governs the complement NP. Note that the Case marker -man needs to be distinguished from the postposition -man 'to'. NPs which are objects of the postposition -man cannot be associated with the clitic -wa: (i)

*nuka-man kallpa-wa - rka Ito run - 1 OM-past 3 'He ran to me'

9. Let us briefly review how the examples from Imbabura Quechua and French, in which the clitic is coindexed with the embedded subject, violate Borer's Complement Matching Requirement. Thus in (i) below the verb krina 'to believe' is subcategorized for a clausal complement. According to Borer, the complement transfers its referential index to an available thematic slot in the head. The clitic itself appears in this matrix, and its index has to match the index of the complement. This is not the case in (ii), which represents the thematic matrix for 'believe' in (i), after the index of the complement clause (which is 0-marked by the verb) was transferred: (i)

(ii)

Maria kri - wa 1 - rka [nuka-ta Maria-nom believe-1 OM-past 3 me -acc 'Maria believed me to have died'

wanu-shka-ta]^ die -Nom-acc

u

vv, r

e

n-|l

10. There is an alternative explanation for the fact that the clitic cannot appear in (25). If Borer's analysis, treating the clitic as a spell-out of Case is adopted, it is predicted that verbs which cannot assign Case (such as passive verbs and ergative verbs in some languages) will not be able to have a clitic. Neither ergative (as in (i)) nor passive verbs (as in (ii)) can have a clitic in a language like Spanish, in which Borer's analysis makes the correct prediction for the clitic doubling facts: (i)

*Marfa la fué pegado (por José) Maria-nom ci was hit by José 'Maria was hit by José'

(ii)

*se lo cayó el libro ci fell the book 'The book fell down'

In (i) and (ii) the verb cannot assign Case to its object even though it 0-marks and also governs the object at D-structure. The NPs in both sentences receive nominative Case from AGR, and, hence, clitic doubling should be possible. One possible explanation for (i) and (ii) is, then, that the clitic can never be spelled-out since the verb does not have a Case feature. If this analysis is adopted, the ungrammatically of (25) becomes irrelevant as far as the question of levels of application for co-superscripting is concerned.

66

Syntactic

Modularity

11. The variable (Case marked trace) left behind in instances of Wh-movement can be coindexed with -wa, as shown in (i), an example of Topicalization of a first person object: (i)

nuka-ta-ka Juan kri - n [Juzi t 1 maka-wa'-shka-ta] I -acc-top Juan-nom believe-pr 3 José-nom beat-1 OM-Nom-acc 'Me, Juan believes that José has beaten'

Since t is Case marked in (i), it is visible in PF and, hence, can get coindexed with the clitic -wa. 12. The question of where coindexing between the clitic and the object applies becomes irrelevant if one considers Clitic Spell-Out to be a local rule. Borer argues that the spell-out can occur at any stage, freely and optionally. Mechanisms which are independently motivated in the grammar would then check the spell-out for appropriateness. In Imbabura Quechua, the requirement t h a t the clitic govern the NP would rule o u t (25) regardless of the level at which the spell-out and coindexing occur. Note, however, that the government requirement would have to hold at Sstructure or in PF for (25) to be ruled o u t since in D-structure the clitic does govern the object NP. Hence, interpreting spell-out as a local rule, which can apply at any stage, does not destroy the argument that the spell-out needs to be checked at a particular stage (or level). In Imbabura Quechua it was claimed that the relevant level is the PF component. As discussed in 6.3, it actually turns out to be irrelevant whether the level is S-structure or PF (or even D-Structure for that matter) since experiencers will be base generated as objects and stay objects in S-structure and the PF component, and only be reanalyzed as subjects in post S-structure levels. 13. Another approach, suggested in Borer (1981) is that Case marking is a local rule, which can apply at any level (i.e., whenever its structural description is satisfied). Case marking can be viewed as movement of Case features from a Case assigning element to an adjacent NP complement, when the complement is governed by the Case assigning element (a verb or preposition for example). Under this assumption, then, Case assignment could apply in D-structure, S-structure or PF (and L F for that matter). In effect, Case assignment is free, and the ungrammatical instances are blocked by language independent devices such as the Case filter and the government requirement between the assigner and its complement. Since it is crucial at this stage in my argument to establish at which level Case marking is relevant, I will assume Case checking at PF rather than Case marking as a local rule. Note, however, that the analysis for experiencers suggested in 6.3 is compatible with the local rule approach. Since experiencer NPs are claimed to be objects at D-structure, S-structure and PF, the fact that they exhibit object Case marking is compatible with the claim that Case marking can apply as a local rule at any of these levels. 14. The fact that a verb governs a complement does not imply, however, that the verb assigns Case. As discussed in 3.2, not all verbs which govern an NP can assign Case to it. Burzio's "ergatives", for example, govern but do not assign Case (at least in some languages). Passive verbs are another example. 15. It seems that experiencer verbs are not the only verbs in Imbabura Quechua which must assign more than one accusative Case to their complements. Thus, after S-deletion the higher verb assigns accusative Case to the embedded subject in addition to Case marking the whole complement clause with accusative Case, as discussed in Chapter 2. The biuniqueness condition is also violated in the following sentence if we assume that the suffix -ta on the adverb is accusative Case:

Agreement, Cliticization and Case Markingin Imbabura Quecha (i)

67

Maria-ka napash-ta chay-ta ruia-rka Maria-nom-top quick-acc this-acc do - past 3 'Maria did this quickly'

Biuniqueness on -ta assignment is also violated in the following example from Cuzco (from Lefebvre and Muysken, 1982): (ii)

paqarin- ta allin-ta chay-ta ruwa-nki tomorrow-acc well-acc this-acc do - 2 'Tomorrow you will do this well!'

Lefebvre and Muysken claim that in order to account for these facts a Case marking rule must be posited in Quechua allowing any element in the domain of VP to receive the Case feature [+assigned by V], which in turn allows the verb to assign accusative Case to any element in its domain. An additional example, where biuniqueness seems to be violated, can be found in the causative construction in Imbabura: (iii)

nuka Juan-da-ka jirga-ta awa-chi-rka-ni I-nom Juan-acc-top poncho-acc weave-caus-past 1 'I had Juan weave a poncho'

I would like to claim that the only problematic cases for biuniqueness are the experiencers and the S-deleting verbs. As far as the adverbials are concerned, however, there is no reason to assume that -ta in this instance is assigned by the verb at all. Note that adverbials are marked with -ta even when the verb is intransitive. It is unclear how intransitive verbs can be Case assigners, even if the adverb can receive a feature [+assigned by V] as suggested by Lefebvre and Muysken: (iv)

wagli- ta tushu-n damage-acc dance-pr3 'He dances incorrectly'

(v)

napash-ta trabaja-rka quick-acc work -past 3 'He/she worked quickly'

It seems, then, that -ta in Imbabura Quechua (and other dialects) is an adverbial marker, deriving adverbs from nouns and adjectives as claimed in Cole (1982a). In the causative construction, another explanation, based on the fact that causatives are biclausal at some level, can account for the two accusative Case markers. It can be claimed that causatives are biclausal in D-structure. At this level, the verb awa'weave' assigns accusative Case to its object, and the causative predicate -chi- (which at S-structure is an affix on the verb) Case marks the embedded subject after reanalysis has occurred: i.e., at S-structure the derived verb awachi- 'cause to weave' governs and Case marks the embedded subject Juan. It is still necessary, however, under the Case filter approach, to allow causative verbs to appear with two accusative Case markers: (vi)

*[NP,-ACC; NP -ACC] V c a u s a t i v e

68

Syntactic

Modularity

It seems, then, that if one adopts the Case filter approach certain verbs appear with two accusative Case markers. In itself this is not a violation of biuniqueness since the verb in all these examples (with the possible exception of S-deleting verbs) assigns Case structurally only once. The second accusative Case is either assigned intrinsically or can be assigned by something else in the clause (such as the causative predicate).

Chapter 4

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quechua

4.1

Introduction

In this section I will review the binding conditions and show that they predict a difference between subject and object position as far as the distribution of anaphors and pronouns (both lexical and empty categories) is concerned. In 4.2-4.5 I will show how the binding principles apply in Imbabura Quechua and I shall suggest changes in the definition of governing category for Imbabura. It will be argued in 4.6 that desiderative experiencer NPs must be subjects at the stage at which the binding principles apply, but lexical experiencer NPs must be objects at this stage. Finally, in 4.7 I will consider the question of the level at which binding principles apply. In 4.8 I will discuss a restriction on PRO controllers in Imbabura Quechua which is not predicted without further stipulation by control theory or the version of binding theory which subsumes control theory. This restriction, however, creates another subject-object asymmetry which is used in testing the subjecthood of experiencer NPs. I shall now turn to a review of the principles. In the On Binding (OB) framework there were two conditions which held at LF: NIC (the Nominative Island Condition) and SSC (the Specified Subject Condition). Together they predicted that certain positions in a sentence are opaque: i.e., are not accessible to binding from outside their own S. Basically NIC and SSC together single out subjects of infinitivals and COMP as the only non-opaque positions in a sentence. All anaphors (lexical anaphors, trace and PRO) obeyed the NIC and the SSC. In the Government and Binding framework Chomsky develops a different approach, connecting the notions of government and binding. This approach overcomes some of the empirical and conceptual problems that arose in the OB framework. In the OB framework there was no explanation for why PRO and trace had a different distribution. Thus, for example, the binding principles of OB did not explain why PRO may appear in certain positions from which trace is excluded and why trace is acceptable in positions from which PRO is excluded. (See Chomsky, 1981, 3.1.) The distribution of the empty categories PRO and trace, however, falls out from the Government and Binding approach to binding conditions.

70

Syntactic Modularity

There are other conceptual problems in the OB framework which are solved in the Government and Binding approach. Chomsky (1981), 3,1, lists several of these: (1) redundancies between Case theory and binding theory; (2) the problem of explaining why the subject of a [+tense] clause and the domain of subject should be the two opaque domains; and (3) the problem of finding a more natural account of disjoint reference. These problems are all solved in the Government and Binding version of the theory of binding, basically by relating the notion of government, central to the theory as a whole, to the binding conditions. In chapter 3 of Chomsky (1981), Chomsky develops a theory of binding within the framework of the theory of government. Two notions of binding are distinguished: antecedent-binding (A-binding), which holds when the binder is in an A-position (argument position), and operator binding, when the binder is in an A-position (non-argument position). A trace in S is an anaphor if it is A-bound, and a variable if it is A-bound. (See also Chomsky, 1981, 2.6 (4).) Chomsky uses the notion "governing category" to develop the theory of binding within a general theory of government. This notion is characterized as follows (Chomsky, 1981, 3.2.3 (11)): (1)

a is the governing category for 0 if and only if a is the minimal category containing 0 and a governor of ¡3, where a = NP or S

The governors are V, P, Adj and AGR, and NP and S are absolute barriers to government. Chomsky (1981) gives a second definition of governing category which is claimed to be conceptually superior to the definition given in (1): (2)

P is a governing category for a if and only if ¡} is the minimal category containing a, a governor of a, and a SUBJECT accessible to a

SUBJECT is defined as either AGR or the subject of an infinitive, an NP or a small clause (i.e., the most prominent nominal element in the clause). Accessibility is defined as in (3): (3)

a. a is accessible to j3 if and only if 0 is in the c-command domain of a and assignment to of the index of a would not violate (b) b. *[t...5...], where 7 and 6 bear the same index

The definition in terms of accessible SUBJECT does not require the

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

71

stipulation that NP and S are the only governing categories. S is a governing category for a because it always contains a SUBJECT. NP is a governing category for a, when it contains a SUBJECT. Also, the question whether S or S should be selected as a governing category does not arise given the new definition of governing category. It is important to note that for the case of arguments within S, the revised theory of governing categories works in exactly the same way as the theory which does not refer to accessible SUBJECTS. Since clauses must have subjects and, hence, always contain an accessible SUBJECT, the governing categories in all the examples discussed in this section remain the same. The differences between the two definitions become crucial only with regard to arguments within NPs. Since in this chapter I consider only arguments of S in Imbabura Quechua, I will continue to use Chomsky's first definition, as given in (1). See also Harbert (1983) for arguments that the definition which does not include the notion of accessible SUBJECT is to be preferred. Nominal expressions are subdivided into three basic categories: (i) anaphors, (ii) pronominals and (iii) R-expressions (names and variables). Anaphors are lexical anaphors (such as reflexives and reciprocals). Pronominals can be either overt pronouns (both referential and pleonastic) or the empty category pro. Wh-trace is a variable, and thus falls under category (iii). The binding theory has one principle for each of the three categories: (4)

Binding Theory (Chomsky, 1981,3.2.3 (12)) (A) An anaphor is bound in its governing category; (B) A pronominal is free in its governing category; (C) An R-expression is free; (where bound is to be interpreted as A-binding).

Let me now illustrate how the binding theory makes correct predictions about both lexical NPs and empty categories. First consider overt anaphors, such as reflexives or reciprocals in English. Principle (A) of the binding theory predicts that the only instance where an anaphor can be bound from outside its own clause is in the position of the subject of an infinitival clause. Consider the following structures:

72

Syntactic

Modularity

(5) NP

INFL

VP

NP a AGR

VP NPa

(6) NP

INFL

VP

In (5), if NP a is an anaphor, it must be bound in its governing category (the S node of its own clause). Hence it cannot be coindexed with anything outside its own clause and examples such as (7) are ungrammatical: (7)

*John knew that himself was sick

If NP^ is an anaphor, it again has a governor (the verb) and must be bound in its governing category S. Thus (8) is ruled out: (8)

*John knew that Maiy liked himself

These cases were ruled out by the NIC and SSC respectively in the OB framework. In (6), NP^j is again governed by the verb and, thus, must be bound in its S, as illustrated in (9): (9)

*John expected Mary to like himself

However, in (6) the subject position NP a is not governed in its own S, since the clause (an infinitival) has no AGR governor. A verb like believe can delete the lower S (a marked property of these verbs in English), and can Case mark and govern the NP anaphor. Thus we get (10):

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha (10)

73

§[they believe ^[themselves to be intelligent] J

In (10) the reflexive is now bound in the highest S, its governing category after ^-deletion. The same predictions as for overt anaphors are made for NP-trace, the empty category which is [-pronominal, +anaphor], Empty categories must be properly governed and, therefore, must always have a governing category. Just like overt anaphors, NP-trace is barred in (5) from positions NP ft and NPo and in (6) from NP^. The only difference between overt anaphors and NP-trace is that, unlike a lexical anaphor, NP-trace can have a non-Case assigning governor, such as a passive particle or a (subject) raising verb like seem. These verbs also S-delete and govern into an embedded S, but they do not assign Case to the embedded subject. Therefore, the following distribution falls out from principle (A): (11)

a. * Johnj seems g[tj will leave] b. *Johrij seems g[Mary hit tj] c. Johnj seems g[t- to be sick] d. *Johnj seems g[Mary to hit tj]

(1 l)a is ruled out because the trace (governed by AGR) is not bound in its governing category, the embedded S. Note that even though S-deletion could apply here, we need to assume that (1 l)a is ungrammatical because an NP cannot have two governors, or alternatively we need to assume that a notion of minimal c-command is relevant in choosing the governor. This predicts that AGR is chosen over the verb seem as the local governor. (11 )b and d are ungrammatical since tj (governed by the verb hit) is not bound in its governing category, while (ii)c is grammatical since tj has no governor in its own clause (i.e., t j is the subject of an infinitival clause), and seem after S-deletion governs tj, which is now bound in its governing category (the matrix S). Let us turn to principle (B), dealing with pronominals. According to (B), pronominals (both lexical and empty) must be free in the same environment where anaphors are bound. This explains the phenomenon of disjoint reference. (See Chomsky, 1981, 3.2.3 (16).) Note that the empty pronominal pro will only obey principle (B) since its features are ^pronominal, -anaphor]. Let us next turn to the anaphoric pronoun PRO. Chomsky shows that because of the fact that PRO is both like an anaphor and like an overt pronoun, it must be regarded as a pronominal anaphor. Hence PRO will have to obey both principles (A) and (B) of the binding theory. This leads to a contraction: according to principle (A) PRO must be bound in its governing category, but according to principle (B) PRO must be

74

Syntactic

Modularity

free. This predicts that PRO will always be barred if it has a governing category. The solution to this contradiction is to assume that PRO can have no governing category. Thus the theorem PRO is ungoverned can be derived from the binding theory. This in turn determines that PRO can only appear as the subject of a nonfinite clause (an ungoverned position) when the matrix verb is not a verb like seem or believe. These verbs allow S-deletion and, hence, can govern into the lower clause. As a result PRO cannot appear as the complement subject in nonfinite clauses under S-deleting verbs, but NP-trace is allowed. This explains the complementary distribution of PRO and NP-trace. Turning to principle (C) let us note that bound variables (Wh-traces) are always free according to this principle, as distinct from NP-trace, which is always bound in its governing category. It will be remembered that in OB, Wh-trace did not seem to obey the SSC. Work by Lasnik and Freidin (1981) showed that variables do not obey the NIC either. In the Government and Binding framework, Chomsky claims that variables are never A-bound and that phenomena which in the earlier framework seemed to indicate that Wh-traces do obey the NIC fall out from an entirely different principle. (See the discussion of the ECP in Chapter 5.) Before turning to an examination of how the binding principles operate in Imbabura Quechua, I would like to discuss some recent revisions of the principles as suggested in Manzini (1983). Manzini proposes that control theory, dealing with restrictions on the control possibilities of the empty category PRO, should be subsumed under binding theory, since control is a configurational phenomenon constructed on essentially the same notions as binding theory. In order to be able to derive the control facts from the theory of binding, revisions are introduced in the theory of empty categories and in the notion of governing category, which is a central notion in the theory of binding. Manzini proposes that PRO, like NP-trace, is a pure anaphor, contextually determined to be [+anaphor, -pronominal]. This is similar to the proposal in Bouchard (1982) and reduces the inventory of empty category types to three, eliminating the empty category [+anaphoric, +pronominal]. As far as the theory of binding is concerned, Manzini introduces a change in the definition of governing category and also proposes a new notion of domain-governing category. Domain-governing category is defined as in (12): (12)

y is a domain-governing category for a iff a. y is the minimal category with a SUBJECT containing the c-domain of a and a governor for the c-domain of a, and b. y contains a SUBJECT accessible to a

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura

Quecha

75

This definition is based on Chomsky's definition of governing category using the notion of accessible SUBJECT. A c-domain of a is the minimal maximal category dominating a. Domain-governing category, then, differs from governing category in that it allows the governing category to contain the minimal maximal category dominating a. In the relevant cases of binding of PRO, the domain-governing category for PRO in (13) is S°, since it is S° which has a SUBJECT and contains the minimal maximal category dominating PRO (the embedded S), a governor for the embedded 'S (the matrix verb) and an accessible SUBJECT for PRO (the AGR and SUBJECT in the matrix clause are both accessible SUBJECTS for PRO):

PRO is not directly governed by anything, but its c-domain (S) is governed by the matrix verb. Thus the domain-governing category for PRO is defined as a category containing among other things the governor of the c-domain of PRO. By extending the notion of governing category of a to include governors of c-domains of a, PRO can have a (domain-) governing category. PRO as an anaphor falls under principle (A) of the revised binding theory. This principle states, informally, that anaphors have to be bound in their governing category or in their domain-governing category as defined above. The control facts fall out from the binding principles and the stipulation that an empty category can be [-tonaphor] only if it lacks Case. This stipulation replaces the theorem that PRO needs to be ungoverned in Manzini's system and has the effect of restricting PRO to the subject position in clauses which lack an AGR governor. While Manzini's proposal seems quite different from the way the binding theory is formulated in Chomsky (1981), the changes introduced in the definition of governing category only affect the question of what can be the proper domain in which PRO can be controlled. The fact that PRO can only occur in the subject position of an infinitival clause is predicted to follow from the stipulation that PRO cannot have Case. As far as the

76

Syntactic

Modularity

data from Imbabura Quechua in this chapter are concerned, Manzini's version of the binding theory makes the same predictions as Chomsky's binding theory. Manzini's theory, in addition, handles control facts, as discussed in 4.8 below. As far as the distribution of PRO is concerned, both Chomsky (1982) and Manzini (1983) make the same claim, namely, that PRO can only occur as the subject of an infinitival clause. Since the facts discussed in this chapter are explained equally well by both Chomsky's and Manzini's version of the binding theory, I will, in what follows, adopt the version proposed in Chomsky (1981) and (1982). I return to a discussion of control in Imbabura Quechua and the predictions made by Manzini's binding theory for the Imbabura control facts in section 4.8. Having summarized briefly how the binding principles work, I shall turn to Imbabura Quechua. As discussed above, principles (A) and (B) in English single out the position of the subject of an infinitival clause as the only position which can be A-bound from the outside (if the higher verb possesses the marked property of S-deletion) and also as the only position where PRO can appear (when the higher verb does not allow Sdeletion). To summarize, the binding principles predict a significant subject-nonsubject asymmetry for three major types of categories: 1. Lexical anaphors and NP-trace (i.e., categories which are [-pronominal, +anaphor] have to be bound in the domain of their own S if they appear in non-subject position, or in the subject position of a clause with an AGR governor. It is only in the subject position of an embedded infinitival clause that anaphors may be bound from the matrix S. 2. The empty category PRO, which cannot have a governed, can only show up in the subject position of a clause which lacks an AGR governor. Since nonsubject positions are always governed (by either the verb or a preposition) PRO is barred from these positions. 3. Pronominals (both overt pronouns and the empty category pro) must be disjoint in reference when appearing in the subject position of an infinitival embedded clause under S-deleting verbs. The disjoint reference reading is the result of the requirement that pronominals be free. If the pronominal were coindexed with an NP in the matrix clause, after Sdeletion the pronominal would be bound in its governing category (the matrix S) in violation of principle (B) of the binding theory. Let us turn to the Imbabura Quechua data now. Before examining how the binding principles work in Imbabura Quechua, we have to consider some major differences between Imbabura Quechua and English which will motivate some changes in the notion of governing category for Imbabura Quechua. As mentioned in the introduction to Imbabura Quechua in 2.3, Imbabura Quechua has two types of complement clauses: nominalized and subjunctive. Nominalized clauses can be [+tense] or [-tense], while sub-

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

77

junctive clauses are invariably [-tense]. In neither case is there the option of overt agreement markers in the embedded clause, although agreement can be overt in [+tense] nominalized clauses in other Quechua dialects (such as Ancash, Cuzco and Huanca). As claimed in the introduction, the governor of the subject in Imbabura Quechua has to be AGR and not tense, since [-tense] clauses differ in whether they have a governor for the subject position or not, as discussed in 4.3 below. In other words, Imbabura Quechua embedded clauses can be marked for [tagreement], even though agreement is never lexically instantiated, due to the loss of agreement markers in embedded clauses in Ecuadorian Quechua. Imbabura Quechua differs from English in that AGR and tense do not coincide in Imbabura Quechua. This is discussed in greater detail in 4.5 below. Imbabura Quechua complement clauses differ from English complements in another major way. In English and other European languages studied in the Government and Binding framework (i.e., Italian, Spanish and French), matrix verbs are free to choose either [+tense] or [-tense] complements. Thus, clauses embedded under verbs like seem or believe can be [-tense] or [+tense]: (14)

a. John believes -g [Mary to be sick] b. John believes g"[that Mary is sick]

In Imbabura Quechua and other Quechua languages, however, certain matrix verbs only take finite complements, while others only take nonfinite complements. Typically, raising verbs like yarina 'to seem' only allow nonfinite [-AGR] clauses, while verbs like krina 'to believe' only take finite complements. Yet another subgroup, verbs like rminana 'to want' and predicates like cushi kana 'to be happy', only take subjunctive complements. The subjunctive predicates are the only group which also allow a choice between [+AGR] and [-AGR] in their complement clauses. The various options for Imbabura Quechua are illustrated in 2.3. We are dealing, then, with a system which is different from English in that verbs must be subcategorized for certain complements only. I will show below that the universal binding principles, with slight modifications, can be extended to handle the Imbabura Quechua data. In 4.2 I shall discuss nonfinite complements and show what predictions the binding principles make for these sentences. In 4 3 finite complements will be discussed and a parameterization of the notion of minimal governor for Imbabura will be motivated. In 4.5 I will show how the binding principles predict the distribution of PRO versus pro and pronouns in the so-called "Switch Reference" constructions. For each of the clause types, I shall show how the binding principles predict a subject-object asymmetry. In the course of the discussion various alternative analyses will be presented.

78

Syntactic Modularity

Finally, in 4.6 the behavior of experiencer NPs will be tested as far as the binding principles are concerned. 4.2 Nonfinite Complement Clauses In this section I will show that the binding principles predict a significant subject-object asymmetry in nonfinite complements in Imbabura. In Imbabura Quechua two nominalizers are used in nonfinite indicative clauses: -y, which marked infinitivals in Proto-Quechua; and -na, which is replacing Proto-Quechua -y in Imbabura (and in Ecuadorian Quechua in general).1 In addition, we find a nonfinite subjunctive marker -ngapaj. As mentioned above, raising verbs in Imbabura Quechua allow only nonfinite embedded clauses. Assuming verbs like yarina 'to seem' to be Sdeleting in Imbabura Quechua, just as in English, we predict by principle (A) of the binding theory that NP-trace is always the subject of the clause embedded under these verbs, as shown in (15): (15)

a. kanj g[t^ungu-y ] yari-ngi you-nom sick-inf seem-pr 2 'You seem to be sick' b. kanj g[tj punu - y ] kati - ju - ngi you-nom sleep-inf continue-prog-pr 2 'You are continuing to sleep'

Since these verbs only allow nonfinite [-tense, -AGR] complements in Imbabura Quechua, a lexical NP cannot appear as the subject of the complement clause since it cannot get Case-marked: (16)

a. *Np[e] g[kan punu - y ] yari - n you sleep-inf seem-pr 3 ('(It) seems you be sleeping') b. *Np[e] §[kan punu - y ] kati - ju - n you sleep-inf continue-prog-pr 3 ('(It) continues you be sleeping')

As predicted by principle (A) of the binding theory, NP-trace cannot appear in the embedded object position (i.e., Move-a cannot "raise" an embedded object): (17)

*kan-gaj g[Maria v P ^ i m a ^ a "y]] yari-ngi you-nom-top Maria-nom hit-inf seem-pr 2 ('You seem (for) Maria to hit (you)')

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

79

Note that in addition to verbs which subcategorize for nonfinite subject complements, Imbabura Quechua also has a number of predicates which take finite [+AGR] subject complements. These predicates, however, will not allow NP-trace in the embedded subject position: (18)

a. *kan-gai "g[g[tjungu-j]] sirtu ka-rka-ngi you-nom-top sick-Nom true be-past-2 CYou were true/certain to be sick') b. *kan-gaj "g[g[tj wajcha-man kulki-ta kara-shka]] ali-mi you-nom-top orphan-dat silver-acc give-Nom good-val ('You were good to give the money to the orphan')

A lexical NP must appear in the subject position of the embedded clause in these cases. It seems, then, that predicates like sirtu 'true' and ali 'good' do not S-delete. As a result raising of the embedded subject is impossible, as exemplified in (18)a-b above. Returning now to object complements, as in English, we find PRO as the embedded subject under verbs which do not S-delete: (19)

a. nuka-kaj "g [PROj miku-y - ta] usha-ni I-nom-top eat-inf-acc able-pr 1 'I am able to eat' b. nuka-kaj "g [PROj trabaja-na-ta] kallari-rka-ni I-nom-top work-inf-acc begin-past-1 'I began to work'

Here PRO is ungoverned since the complement clause has no AGRgovernor. Again PRO is excluded from the governed object position in these clauses: (20)

*nuka-kaj "g[Maria yp[PROj maka-y - ta]] kallari-rka-ni I-nom-top Maria-nom hit-inf-acc begin-past-1 ('Ij began (for) Maria to hit PROj')

Next I will turn to subjunctive object complements. As mentioned in chapter 2, a verb like munana 'to want' can subcategorize for a complement which is [-tense] and [-AGR]. PRO can appear in the complement subject position since there is no AGR governor: (21)

nuka-kaj ^[PRO- miku-ngapaj] I-nom-top eat-inf(subj) 'I want to eat'

muna-ni want-pr 1

Unlike other "Equi" verbs, which allow only indicative complements,

80

Syntactic

Modularity

munana is subcategorized to take a subjunctive complement in addition to an indicative complement. There are two types of subjunctive clauses in Imbabura Quechua: clauses marked by -ngapaj and clauses marked by -chun. As discussed in chapter 2, the difference between the two types is that -ngapaj clauses are nonfinite and lack a governor, leaving the subject position ungoverned. -chun clauses, however, are finite since they have AGR as a governor. This predicts that PRO can appear as the subject of a clause marked by -ngapaj (as seen in (21) above) but not as the subject of a -chun clause. For a justification of this analysis see also 4.5 below. In (22), PRO is barred in the subject position of a finite -chun clause: (22)

*nuka-kaj -g [PROj AGR miku - chun ] muna-ni I-nom-top eat-finite(subj) want-pr 1 ('Ij want (that) PROj eat')

The [±AGR] distinction for subjunctives also predicts that, as a result of the Case filter, a lexical NP cannot appear as the subject of an -ngapaj clause which lacks an AGR governor, while it can appear as the subject of a -chun clause. This prediction is again borne out: (23)

(24)

*nuka-ka "g[Juan miku-ngapaj ] muna-ni I-nom-top Juan eat-inf(subj) want-pr 1 ('I want (that) Juan eat') nuka-ka [Juan AGR miku - chun ] muna-ni I-nom-top Juan-nom eat-finite(subj) want-pr 1 'I want (that) Juan eat'

Previous analyses of Imbabura Quecha claimed that -chun and -ngapaj are examples of "Switch Reference", with -chun as [-proximate] (different subject marker) and -ngapaj as [+proximate] (same subject marker). (See, for example, Cole, 1982a, Hermon, 1981, and Lefebvre, 1980.) Lefebvre (1980), discussing adverbial switch reference, posits a [iproximate] node on the S level for Cuzco Quechua. If [-proximate] is chosen, the subject of the embedded clause must differ from the subject of the main clause. If [+proximate] is chosen the subject of the main and the embedded clause must be identical. I claim that it is unnecessary to posit such an ad hoc account for the Switch Reference data. 2 This is because the distribution of PRO versus lexical NP follows from the binding principles and the assumption that -chun marks finite clauses with an AGR governor, whereas -ngapaj marks nonfinites which lack an AGR governor. This analysis is further motivated in 4.5 below where I discuss Switch Reference phenomena in adverbial clauses.

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

81

I have shown in this sub-section that the binding principles predict a difference in distribution for anaphors in subject and object position in Imbabura. In 4.6 this difference will be exploited to test whether experiencers are subjects or objects for the binding principles. 4.3 Finite Complement Clauses In this section I shall discuss how the binding principles apply in finite clauses in Imbabura, predicting yet another subject-object asymmetry. 3 As discussed in Chapter 2, Imbabura has a large number of verbs which subcategorize for finite (object) complements. The verbs fall into a number of major categories: a. verbs of knowledge like yarn 'to think', yachana 'to know' and krina 'to believe' which take a finite indicative complement; b. verbs of saying like villana 'to tell' and nina 'to say' which also take indicative finite complements; c. verbs of desire like munana 'to want' and adjectives like cushi 'happy' which are subcategorized for subjunctive complements. It will be shown below that one property some of these verbs, but not others, share is the ability to S-delete and consequently govern the embedded subject position. I will claim that S-deletion can occur with all verbs taking finite object complements, with the exception of verbs of saying like nina and villana and predicative adjectives like cushi. Turning now to the binding principles, as predicted by principles (A) and (B), PRO is barred from the subject position in finite complement clauses while lexical NPs are allowed: (25)

*fiuka-kaj -g [PROj AGR miku-shka-ta] yacha - ni I-nom-top eat-Nom-acc know -pr 1 ('Ij know (that) PROj has eaten')

(26)

nuka-ka -g[g[Maria AGR chayamu-shka-ta] I-nom-top Maria-nom arrive - Nom-acc 'I believe (that) Maria has arrived'

(27)

nuka-ka -g[g[wawa AGR miku-shka-ta]] ni-rka-ni I-nom-top child-nom eat-Nom-acc say-past-1 'I said (that) the child ate'

kri - ni believe-pr 1

Moreover, principle (B) predicts that disjoint reference does not apply to the embedded subject position. Thus the pronoun pay can be co-referential with Juanga in (28) since Juanga is outside the pronoun's governing category and the pronoun is free in its own governing category: 4

82

Syntactic

Modularity

(28)

Juan-gaj g-[g[payy AGRpunu - ju - na-ta]] Juan-nom-top he-nom sleep-prog-Nom-acc 'Juan ;i believes (that) he:: will be sleeping' i>j

kri - n believe-pr 3

The facts mentioned in this section so far hold of all verbs which take either indicative or subjunctive finite complements. Returning now to principle (A) of the binding theory, the prediction is that since these verbs always take complements with an AGR governor, NP-trace cannot appear in the complement subject position since it would be an anaphor which is free in its governing category, in violation of principle (A). Another prediction is that the complement subject will invariably be Case marked with nominative Case since it is governed by AGR. These predictions are correct as far as the complements embedded under verbs of saying are concerned. The same facts also hold for subjunctive complements under the adjectival predicate cushi 'happy': (29)

NP-trace is ruled out by binding principle (A) *Maria-kaj nukani-shka ka-rka "g [tj AGR chayamu-shka-ta] Maria-nom-top I say-pass be-past arrive-Nom-acc 'Maria was said by me to have arrived'

(30)

Nominative Case as the only option a. *Juan-ga "^[Maria-ta AGR chayamu-shka-ta] Juan-nom-top Maria-acc arrive-Nom-acc ni - wa-rka say-1 OM-past 3 'Juan said to me (that) Maria has arrived' b. *nuka-ka -g [Maria-ta AGRchayamu-chun] I-nom-top Maria-acc arrive-finite (subj) ('I am happy (that) Maria is arriving')5

cushi-mi happy-val

Given the examples in (29)-(30), Imbabura Quechua seems to be like English in not allowing NP-trace in the subject position of finite complements and in marking this position with nominative Case. Imbabura Quechua, however, differs from English in that it allows NP-trace in this position under matrix verbs such as krina 'to believe', yarn 'to think', muruma 'to want', yachana 'to know', and rikun 'to see': i.e., under all verbs except the verbs of saying and predicate adjectives with subjunctive complements. The same verbs also allow accusative Case on the complement subject. (31)a, b and c illustrate the fact that these predicates take finite complements in which AGR is the governor of the complement

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

83

subject. The complement subject is Case marked by AGR with nominative Case. (32)a and b illustrate that the same predicates also allow accusative complement subjects or NP-trace in the complement subject position: (31)

a. Juan-ga "g[g[Maria AGR chayamu-chun]] muna-n Juan-nom-top Maria-nom arrive-finite(subj) want-pr 3 'Juan wants (that) Maria arrive' b. Juan-ga ^ [ g [Maria AGR chayamu-shka-ta] ] ya - n Juan-nom-top Maria-nom arrive-Nom-acc think-pr3 'Juan thinks (that) Maria has arrived' c. Juan-ga [Maria AGR kitu-pi ka - j - ta] kri - n Juan-nom-top Maria-nom Quito-in be-Nom-acc believe-pr 3 'Juan believes (that) Maria is in Quito'

(32)

a. Accusative NP in embedded subject position: Juan-ga [Maria-ta AGR chayamu-shka-ta] kri - n Juan-nom-top Maria-acc arrive-Nom-acc believe-pr 3 'Juan believes Maria to have arrived' b. NP-trace in embedded subject position: Maria-kaj nuka kri - shka ka-rka Maria-nom-top I believe-pass be-past [tj AGR chayamu-shka-ta] arrive-Nom-acc 'Maria was believed by me to have arrived'

How can this distribution be explained? An explanation is available if we consider these verbs (with the exception of verbs of saying and predicate adjectives) to have the ability to S-delete. Since there is never an overt complementizer in Imbabura Quechua,6 after the S-deletion option is exercised, the embedded subject position is governed by the matrix verb and also Case marked by it. Since the governor is now the matrix verb, anaphors are allowed in the embedded subject position as long as they are bound in the main clause. Thus, these Imbabura Quechua examples are similar to the cases where believe S-deletes in English except that in Imbabura Quechua the class of S-deleting and exceptionally Case assigning verbs is slightly different. A closer look, however, at the structure of Imbabura Quechua finite clauses makes this explanation untenable in its present form. Remember that in English S-deletion has the desired effect only when the embedded clause is nonfinite and the embedded subject lacks a governor. Note the following contrast:

84

Syntactic

Modularity

(33)

a. I believe g[him to have left] b. *I believe g[him will leave]

(34)

a. Johnj was believed g[tj to have left] b. * Johnj was believed g[tj has left]

In the (b) sentences, although S-deletion has applied, the embedded subject is still governed by AGR. Thus (33)b and (34)b are ruled out by the assumption that an NP cannot have more than one governor, or alternatively by the minimality requirement for c-command, which predicts that when an NP has two potential governors, it is the local governor which counts: i.e., AGR is the relevant governor for (33)b and (34)b, not the matrix verb. As a result (33)b is ungrammatical because there is no source for the accusative Case on him, and (34)b is ruled out because we have an NP-trace which is not bound in its governing category. Note, however, that in Imbabura Quechua it is exactly sentences analogous to the (b) sentences in (33-34) above which are grammatical. As noted before, in Imbabura Quechua verbs like krina and yarn take only finite complements. Thus, we must assume that in Imbabura Quechua, contrary to English, S-deletion and government by the matrix verb is allowed into a finite clause. One could attempt to parameterize the difference between English and Imbabura Quechua in the following way: in English a minimality requirement has to be introduced into the concept of government to assure among other things that in cases like (35) where Sdeletion has applied, it is AGR and not the matrix verb which is relevant for government and Case assignment: (35)

NP V S [NP' AGR VP]

Thus, in (35) AGR minimally c-commands (and, hence, governs) NP'. The matrix verb, however, only c-commands, but does not minimally ccommand NP'. Hence, the matrix verb in this case cannot govern NP'. This is, in fact, the approach taken by Chomsky (1981), 5.2, p. 304. For Imbabura Quechua, however, it has to be stipulated that in a structure like (35) it is not the local governor (AGR) which is relevant but the higher governor V. Given this stipulation, Imbabura Quechua differs from English in exactly the way observed above.7 The question then arises of why Imbabura Quechua differs from English in allowing government by a matrix verb into a finite clause. It might be tempting to connect this property of Imbabura Quechua to the fact that in Imbabura Quechua, as in most other Quechua languages, all embedded indicative complements are nominalized. It could be claimed, then, that in nominalized clauses AGR is not as strong a governor as

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

85

in verbal clauses, allowing another governor (the matrix verb after Sdeletion) to govern the complement subject position. It remains a fact, however, that S-deletion is an option only with certain verbs. In the instances in which S-deletion does not apply, AGR in the complement clause is the governor of the complement subject, assigning it nominative Case. It is impossible, then, to claim that in general nominalized clauses do not have a governor for the complement subject position. Moreover, as observed above, government by a higher verb is also possible into subjunctive finite complements marked by -chun. Thus, it is not only nominalized clauses in which one would have to claim that AGR is not a strong governor, but all embedded finite clauses. There is, however, another difference between embedded clauses in Imbabura Quechua and embedded clauses in English, which could explain their nonisomorphic behavior. In English, INFL inside embedded clauses does not differ from INFL in main clauses. Thus English has the same range for very limited agreement markers in both main and embedded clauses and also marks tense the same way in all finite clauses. In Imbabura Quechua, however, tense and AGR in matrix clauses, differ substantially from tense and AGR markers in embedded clauses, as discussed in the introduction to Imbabura Quechua in chapter 2. In main clauses tense and agreement markers are always overt. In embedded finite clauses, however, tense is marked by the nominalizing suffixes in indicative clauses, while subjunctive complements are inherently tenseless. AGR, on the other hand, is abstract in all complements in Imbabura Quechua and is never lexically realized. It could be claimed, then, that AGR in Imbabura Quechua is not really a governor since it is an abstract element. (As discussed in Chapter 2, tense itself cannot be a governor in Imbabura Quechua since subjunctive clauses are [-tense], yet the complement subject in -chun clauses is a governed position.) This approach predicts, then, that despite the fact that in Imbabura Quechua these complements are marked for tense, they are really equivalent to English infinitivals since there is no overt agreement. This approach, however, fails on two grounds: _ a. As mentioned before, in the instances in which S-deletion does not apply, the complement subject is a governed position in these clauses, and receives nominative Case. AGR must then be a governor even though it is not lexically realized. b. In non-Ecuadorian Quechua languages, agreement in nominalized clauses is overt, yet the complement subject position can be governed by the matrix verb after S-deletion, just as in Imbabura Quechua. For example, in Ancash, a North Central Peruvian dialect, complement subjects occur with accusative Case under verbs like krei- 'believe' after S-deletion. Agreement in this instance is overt, as seen by the second person marker -yki:

86

Syntactic Modularity

(36)

Maria krein g[qam-ta aycha-ta miku-shqa -yki-ta] Maria-nom believe you-acc meat-acc eat- Nom - 2 -acc 'Maria believes you to have eaten the meat'

Similar facts hold for Cuzco Quechua. In Cuzco, nominalized clauses always exhibit overt agreement, yet the complement subject can be governed from the matrix clause. The facts for Cuzco are discussed in detail in Lefebvre and Muysken (1982), although their analysis differs substantially from the one offered here. It is impossible to claim, then, that the fact that in Imbabura Quechua the complement subject can, under special circumstances, be governed by the matrix verb, is due to the abstractness of AGR in complement clauses. The fact that Imbabura Quechua allows government by a governor which does not minimally c-command, as opposed to government by a minimally c-commanding element, cannot follow directly from the structure of complement clauses in Imbabura Quechua. It must be stipulated, then, that in languages like Imbabura Quechua, a potential lexical governor is preferred for the complement subject even though a local governor is available: i.e., government by the matrix verb of the complement subject is permitted even though AGR is available as a minimally c-commanding governor in the clause. The preference for a non-local governor over a local governor is, then, a (marked) feature of such languages as Imbabura Quechua. Let us now account for (29-32) in the light of this analysis for Imbabura Quechua. I will assume that S-deletion is an optional property of verbs like want, believe and think. Thus, the sentences in (31) have the following structure (at both D-structure and S-structure): 01')

stNPfstslNP'

AGRV

„on,ll

Note that, although there is no evidence for an overt complementizer in Imbabura Quechua, it must be assumed that both S and S nodes are present unless the matrix verb exercises the option of S-deletion. In a structure like (31') NP' is governed by AGR, and if NP' is an anaphor it must be bound in its governing category (the lower S). If NP' is a pronoun it must be free in the lower S, by binding principle (B). This predicts the disjoint reference facts of (28) and the nominative Case marking of NP' in (31). _ For the sentences in (32), however, it will be assumed that S-deletion did apply. The following is the structure for these sentences after Sdeletion: (32')

g[NP S [NP' A G R V n o m ] ] V ]

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura

Quecha

87

In (32') the matrix V and not AGR governs NP' (under the marked convention of non-minimal government in Imbabura Quechua). This accounts for the accusative Case of the NP in (32)a. By binding principle (A) NPtrace is now possible in this position if bound in the matrix S as in (32)b. In (29-30) the matrix verb is nina 'to say', which does not allow Sdeletion. Thus we have the following structure: (29'-30') NP s [ s [ N P ' AGR V N o J ] V As expected, NP' cannot be accusative in (30) and NP' cannot be NP-trace as shown in (29). The account given above for exceptional government and Case marking in Imbabura Quechua also explains a number of other facts connected to verbs which have the option of deleting the S. In what follows I will review these facts and show how the S-deletion analysis accounts for the data in each case. Accusative complement subjects differ from nominative complement subjects in a number of ways. These differences can be explained if we assume that accusative subjects are governed by the matrix verb after Sdeletion (hence the accusative Case), whereas nominative subjects are governed by AGR in their own clause. The governing categories also differ: the governing category for the complement accusative subject is the matrix S, while the governing category for the nominative complement subject is the S of the complement clause. A number of facts follow from this difference. 1. Validator placement: As discussed in the introduction, validators in Imbabura Quechua can only appear on elements of the main clause. In the Government and Binding theory this effect can be achieved by base generating the validator at the S level of the main clause and allowing the validator to attach only to elements in the governing category where the validator is generated. Since validators are always generated in the matrix S, they can never appear on constituents of a complement clause: i.e., elements which are not in the same governing category as the validator. The restriction on validators predicts that validation of nominative complement subjects should be ungrammatical, while the validation of an accusative complement subject should be allowed. This is a direct result of the fact that the latter are governed in the matrix S by the verb. This prediction is borne out, as exemplified below. In the (b) sentence the matrix verb yachan 'knows' governs the complement subject after Sdeletion. In the (a) sentence S-deletion did not take place. The complement subject is governed by AGR in the lower clause and cannot be validated:

88

Syntactic Modularity

(37)

a. *Juankri-n Maria-mi Juzi-ta riku-shka-ta Juan believe-pr 3 Maria-vai José-acc see- Nom-acc ('Juan believes (that) Maria saw José') b. Maria yachan Francisco-ta-mi wasi-man shamu-shka-ta Maria knows Francisco-acc-va/ house-to come-Nom-acc 'Maria knows (that) Francisco came home'

2. Disjoint reference: Another fact explained by the S-deletion analysis has to do with application of disjoint reference. As discussed in section 4.1, disjoint reference with pronouns is a result of binding principle (B). A nominative complement subject pronoun, governed by AGR in its own clause, can, according to principle (B), only be coindexed with an NP outside its governing category: i.e., with an NP in the matrix clause. An accusative complement subject pronoun, which according to the analysis presented here is governed in the matrix clause, cannot be coindexed with an NP in the matrix clause since this constitutes a violation of the requirement that pronouns be free in their governing category. This contrast is exemplified below. In (38)a the complement subject is free in its governing category (the embedded S), but in (38)b the accusative pronoun is bound in its governing category (the matrix S): (38)

a. Juzi;1 kri-n

pay; ; kayna shamu-shka-ta '»J José believe-3 he-nom yesterday come-Nom-acc 1 • came yesterday' 'José;i believes that he; >J

b. Juzi; kri-n i

J i-kayna [ pay-taj j

shamu-shka-ta

José believe-3 he-acc yesterday come-Nom-acc José- believes hinij to have come yesterday' 3. Object cliticization: As discussed in section 3.3 the object clitic -wa can only be coindexed with an NP governed by the clitic. The clitic itself is attached to the verb. As predicted by the S-deletion analysis, nominative complement subjects cannot be coindexed with a clitic which appears on the verb of the main clause. Accusative complement subjects, however, can be coindexed with -wa since they are governed by the verb to which the clitic is attached. Note that (39)b is more natural with special emphasis on the pronoun coindexed with the clitic. Without special emphasis the pronoun is felt to be redundant. The fact that in Imbabura Quechua the clitic can govern an NP which is not 0-marked by the verb was discussed in detail in section 3.3.3. As mentioned in that section, Imbabura Quechua seems to differ from dialects like Cuzco which only allow coindexation between a clitic and an NP if the NP receives its 0-role from the verb+clitic.

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

89

The equivalent of (39)b is therefore ungrammatical in Cuzco, as discussed in Lefebvre and Muysken (1982). (39)

a. *Juzi yacha-wax-n nuka 1 Maria-ta juya-j-ta José know-1 OM-pr 3 I-nom Maria-acc love-Nom-acc ('José knows that I love Maria') b. Juzi nuka-ta 1 yacha-wa'-n Maria-ta juya-j - ta José me- acc know-1 OM-pr 3 Maria-acc love-Nom-acc 'José knows me to love Maria'

4. Reflexive anaphors: In Imbabura Quechua reflexivization is indicated by attaching the clitic -ri to the verb. There are no reflexive lexical anaphors or pronouns which can be used without the -ri clitic. This is illustrated in (40)a and b : (40)

Maria1 ispiju-pi pay-lla-ta1 riku-ri-rka Maria-nom mirror-in her-only-accsee-refl-past 3 'Maria saw only herself in the mirror' b. * Maria1 ispiju-pi pay-(lla)-ta1 riku-rka Maria-nom mirror-in her-(only)-acc see-past 3 ('Maria saw (only) herself in the mirror') a.

In (40) an emphatic reflexive anaphor is used. Much more frequently, however, an empty anaphor is used: 8 (41)

Maria1 ispiju-pi j»^p[e]1 riku-ri-rka Maria-nom mirror-in see-refl-past 3 'Maria saw herself in the mirror'

Both the overt and empty anaphor must be in a position governed by the clitic -ri. Thus, for example, only direct and indirect objects can be reflexivized as shown in (42)-(43). Objects of postpositions cannot be reflexivized, as shown in (44): (42)

Direct object mana ali runa-ka1 jyjpfe]1 wanu-chi - ri - rka not good man-nom-top die-caus -refl-past 3 'The bad man killed himself'

(43)

Indirect object Maria-ka1 ^pfe] 1 kwintu-ta Maria-nom-top story-acc 'Maria told herself a story'

yupa - ri - rka recount-refl-past 3

90

Syntactic

Modularity

(44)

Oblique object nuka-paj1 ^ [ e ] 1 papa - ta I - for potato-acc 'I washed a potato for myself

maylla(-*ri) - rka-ni wash -(refl)- past-1

Note that the overt and empty elements governed by the clitic -ri behave like anaphors in obeying binding principle (A). Just like reflexive anaphors in English, the empty element coindexed with -ri must be bound in its governing category. In (45) ungrammatically results since the empty anaphor is not bound in its governing category: (45)

*(nuka)1 -g[Juan ispiju-pi Np[e] x riku-ri-chun] (I-nom) Juan-nom mirror-in see-refl-finite muna-ni want-pr 1 ('I want Juan to see myself in the mirror')

(45) is grammatical if the empty anaphor is coindexed with Juan, which binds it in its governing category. Technically speaking, the clitic -ri seems to ensure that the empty element coindexed with it is contextually determined to be [-pronominal, +anaphor]. Like NP-trace, this empty category is subject to binding principle (A). 9 Note that the empty category cannot be pro since pro is a pronominal, subject only to principle (B) of the binding theory. This would predict that (45) should be grammatical since pronouns have to be free in their governing categories, -ri, then, differs from the object clitic -wa, which, as discussed in 3.3, governs the empty category pro. Note also that -ri itself does not count as binder for the anaphor. The anaphor can only be bound by a (subject) NP which is coindexed with the anaphor and is in the same governing category as the anaphor and the clitic -ri which governs the anaphor. Having described the distribution of reflexive anaphors in some detail, let me next turn to the interaction of S-deletion with reflexive anaphors. As shown in (46), if S-deletion does not apply, a reflexive anaphor cannot appear in the complement subject position since it will not be bound in its governing category, the lower S: (46)

*nuka ! ^ [ g ^ p f e ] 1 Kitu-pi ka - j-ta] ] I-nom Quito-in be-Nom-acc ('I said (that) myself is in Quito')

ni - ri -rka-ni say-refl-past 1

If the verb allows S-deletion, a reflexive anaphor can show up in the complement subject position if S-deletion has applied. In (47) the empty

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

91

anaphor can show up in the complement subject position after S-deletion under a verb like krina 'to believe'. AfterS-deletion the anaphor is governed by the matrix verb. Hence, its governing category is the matrix S instead of the embedded S and fgp[e] is bound in its governing category: (47)

a. nuka1 s [jsjp Ce]1 Kitu-pi ka - j - ta] I-nom Quito-in be -Nom-acc kri - ri - rka-ni believe-refl-past 1 'I believed myself to be in Quito' b. nuka1 yacha-ri-rka-ni [e]1 Kitu-pi ka - j - ta] I know-refl-past-1 Quito-in be-pres Nom-acc 'I know myself to be in Quito'

In conclusion, S-deletion interacts with the binding principles in affecting the distribution of reflexive anaphors in complement subject position, as shown in (46)-(47) above. 5. Word order possibilities: As discussed in the introduction, word order is not very strict in Imbabura Quechua. However, elements of the embedded clause cannot freely appear in the main clause unless they are moved by Move-a. Elements which appear inside the same governing category can be freely ordered with the restrictions noted in Chapter 2. S-deletion should affect word order possibilities in the following way: after S-deletion the complement subject is governed in the matrix S. Hence, it should be able to be placed anywhere in that S, just like any other main clause constituent. If S-deletion does not apply, the complement subject can only "move around" inside the complement clause. In (48), after S-deletion, the complement subject can appear in front of the matrix verb. In (49) S-deletion has not applied. Hence, the complement subject cannot be moved into the matrix S. (48)

Maria Francisco-ta yacha-n kay- pi ka - j - ta Maria-nom Francisco-acc know-pr 3 this- in be - Nom-acc 'Maria knows Francisco to be here'

(49)

a. * Maria Francisco yacha-n kay-pika - j - t a Maria-nom Francisco-nom know-pr 3 this- in be - Nom-acc ('Maria knows Francisco to be here') b. * Maria Francisco ni - n kay-pi ka-j-ta Maria-nom Francisco-nom say-pr 3 this-in be-Nom-acc ('Maria says that Francisco is here')

Let me summarize the main point of this section. I showed that the

92

Syntactic Modularity

binding principles hold for Imbabura Quechua complements, but that exceptional government and Case marking with verbs like krina t o believe' can also apply into finite clauses in Imbabura Quechua. Note that S-deletion and exceptional government again create a subject-object asymmetry: only embedded subjects are affected by S-deletion, the embedded object is still governed by its verb and thus cannot be bound from outside its own S. The Imbabura Quechua facts presented in this subsection thus provide us with another test case for the status of experiencers. 4.4 Digression: Alternative Analyses for S-Deletion in Finite Complements Let me digress here and mention two alternative analyses for the data presented in 4.3. It will be shown that these alternatives must be rejected in favor of the S-deletion analysis presented in 4.3. 1. Subject-to-Object Raising. In Cole and Hermon (1981) the array of facts discussed in the previous section was interpreted as evidence for a rule of Subject-to-Object Raising (SOR) which applied under verbs like munana 'to want', krina 'to believe' and yarn 'to think' in Imbabura Quechua (but not under nina 'to say'). SOR took as input a structure like (50)a, giving (50)b as the output:

SOR was assumed to be one instantiation of Move-a in Imbabura Quechua, moving an NP into an empty object position, leaving behind an NP-trace. In the OB framework, we noticed various problems with such an analysis, but it accounted for the range of data mentioned in this subsection. More specifically, once SOR applied, the embedded subject became a matrix

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura

Quecha

93

direct object. It was claimed that, among other things, this explained the accusative Case marking on the raised NP, the option of having NP-trace in this position, the appearance of the reflexive marker -ri on the verb of the main clause, and the facts connected to disjoint reference and cliticization. In other words, in the pre-SOR structure the nominative NP was an opaque domain due to the NIC. 10 The post-SOR accusative NP, however, was part of the matrix clause and thus could be bound by elements in the matrix clause. In the Government and Binding framework, an SOR analysis is highly implausible. Note that positing an empty NP position under the matrix verb violates the assumption that all positions under the VP receive 0-roles from the verb. If the empty position were to receive a 0-role, movement of the complement subject to this position would be ruled out by the 0criterion. Also note that, as Chomsky remarks in Chomsky (1981), footnotes 91 and 108, chapter 2, even if a non- 0-marked empty position were allowed for certain verbs, it would still be necessary to assume Sdeletion in addition to Move-a (SOR); otherwise the NP-trace left by Move-a would not be bound in its governing category (the lower S). Thus, in the Government and Binding framework it would have to be assumed that both S-deletion and SOR (Move-a) can apply. This is, however, an unwarranted redundancy. I showed above that in the Government and Binding framework S-deletion (and exceptional government and Case marking) explains the range of facts which motivated a rule of SOR in the "On Binding" framework in Cole and Hermon (1981). In the Government and Binding framework, however, we do not need any special mechanism in addition to S-deletion and it becomes unnecessary to assume empty positions inside VPs. 2. Raising as Move Case. Another alternative to S-deletion is presented in Lefebvre and Muysken (1982). Lefebvre and Muysken claim that in Quechua there is no difference between movement to an A position and movement to an A position. Both are instances of a rule Move Case, which is an instantiation of Move-a. Elements can be moved out of their clauses freely and receive Case while passing through a Case position located in COMP on the S level. Case is assigned into the Case position by the verb governing the COMP. Lefebvre and Muysken call the Case marking rule into COMP Co-Case Marking since the Case assigned into COMP will always coincide with the Case assigned by the verb to the complement clause. As in Chomsky (1981), the COMP position serves as an "escape hatch" for raising, and the raised elements ultimately land in the matrix clause or in the highest COMP. In order to make this analysis possible, Lefebvre and Muysken have to assume that Quechua allows for non- 0positions to be generated in the verbal projection. Wh-movement and NPmovement are then indistinguishable in Quechua since both are, in effect,

94

Syntactic

Modularity

movement to a non-0-position under VP, with Co-Case Marking of the moved element when it passes through the COMP of its own clause. There are no restrictions on what can be moved out of an embedded clause or on the number of elements which can move. Let us now see how the Lefebvre and Muysken raising analysis accounts for the facts presented in 4.3 above. According to Lefebvre and Muysken accusative Case on the complement subject is due to Co-Case Marking into COMP. It follows from their analysis that only verbs which are Case assigners will allow raising since raising is, in effect, Move Case. This would explain why predicative adjectives like cushi 'happy' will not allow raising. The disjoint reference, cliticization, reflexivization and word order facts will then follow in their framework from the assumption that the raised element lands in the matrix clause, in a non-0-position under VP. Their analysis then seems_to account for the facts mentioned in section 4.3 just as well as the S-deletion analysis. It remains to be seen then how the Lefebvre and Muysken analysis differs from the one presented here. I will show below that the two analyses differ in the predictions they make and I will claim that the S-deletion analysis is to be preferred on both empirical and theoretical grounds. The Lefebvre and Muysken approach is also discussed in 5.3.3, where this approach is rejected as an alternative account for the ECP in Imbabura Quechua. It is clear that there are certain theoretical problems with an account like the one proposed by Lefebvre and Muysken, but this is not the main concern in this section. I would like to mention a few of the problems however, (a) It is undesirable to allow non- 0-positions under VP since this destroys the parallelism between subcategorization and 0-role assignment. In Quechua, verbs will have to be subcategorized for a large number of non- 0-positions to serve as landing sites for all the elements raised out of the complement clause, (b) If all movement in Quechua is A-movement, all traces in Imbabura Quechua (including traces left by raising from subject position) will be interpreted as variables. This can lead to considerable complication since variables are exempt from binding principle (A). The Lefebvre and Muysken approach makes the claim that this principle does not hold in Imbabura Quechua. However, as shown in this chapter, Imbabura Quechua, just like English, seems to obey principle (A) of the binding theory, (c) Another drawback of the Lefebvre and Muysken approach is that in addition to positing a general rule of raising and CoCase Marking, it would appear that they also have to assume S-deletion. This is not discussed explicitly in Lefebvre and Muysken (1982). It seems, however, that in order to allow the main clause to Case mark into COMP, S-deletion is necessary, at least in a system in which S is an absolute barrier to government and, hence, Case marking. Once S-deletion is posited for all Case assigning verbs, it becomes unclear why Co-Case

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

95

Marking into COMP is to be preferred over Case marking the complement subject directly. 11 In conclusion, the theoretical arguments presented in Chomsky (1981) against a subject to object raising rule also hold against Lefebvre and Muysken's raising analysis. Let me next turn to a discussion of the empirical differences between the analysis presented in 4.3 and Lefebvre and Muysken's raising approach. The major difference between the S-deletion analysis and the raising analysis is that the raising approach predicts that if a verb allows raising from an embedded subject position, raising from all positions in the embedded clause should be possible. The S-deletion analysis makes no such claims. In addition to S-deletion (which has the effect of allowing Amovement from the complement subject position), A-movement can apply, moving elements of the complement subject clause, via COMP, to the COMP of the matrix clause. These NPs are predicted to "land" only in the highest COMP, and cannot appear in a clause internal position inside the main clause. Before discussing the differences in predictions between the two analyses any further, let me first describe the raising approach in greater detail. In the raising analysis, all NPs from inside the complement clause can be raised (via COMP, where they get Co-Case marked) to a clause internal position in the matrix clause. If the raised element is a question word, an additional restriction is required to ensure that it will end up in the matrix COMP. This is shown by Lefebvre and Muysken to be the situation in Cuzco Quechua. In Cuzco, due to raising, in addition to embedded subjects, objects and obliques can freely appear as elements of the main clause. More than one element can be raised at a time, although for some speakers there exists a restriction against raising both the subject and a complement object or oblique. This is examplified in (51)-(54)below. All examples are from Lefebvre and Muysken (1982): (51)

Raising of embedded subject mariyacha xwancha-q-ta- muna-n [ej platanu ranti-na-n-ta] Maria Juan GEN AC want 3 banana buy SUB 3 AC 'Maria wants Juan to buy bananas'

(52)

Raising of embedded direct object a. mariyacha platanu-ta-n^ muna-n [xwancha-q ej ranti-na-n-ta] Maria banana AC AF want 3 Juan-GEN buy SUB 3 AC 'Maria wants Juan to buy bananas'

96

Syntactic

Modularity

(53)

Raising of embedded obliques mariyacha merkadu-pi muna-n [xosecha-q platanu ranti-na-n-ta] Maria market LO want 3 José GEN banana buy NOM 3 AC 'Maria wants José to buy bananas in the market'

(54)

Multiple raising mariyacha xosecha-q-ta platanu-ta merkadu-pi muna-n Maria José GEN AC banana AC market LO want 3 [ranti-na-n-ta] buy NOM 3 AC 'Maria wants José to buy bananas in the market'

Note that in Cuzco raising can occur out of all nominalized embedded clauses. In Cuzco, according to Lefebvre and Muysken's analysis, complement clauses can have the internal structure of N'", with the subject occuring in genitive Case, or the internal structure of V " \ with a subject in nominative Case. Imbabura Quechua, however, has only complement clauses with the subject in nominative Case. Lefebvre and Muysken claim that raised elements retain their Case marking from the embedded clause in addition to receiving Case via Co-Case Marking from the matrix verb. This explains the double Case in (51). Obliques and objects, however, do not seem to get Case marked again by Co-Case Marking. As shown in (52)-(54), these NPs seem to retain whatever Case they are assigned in their own S. It looks then as if raising only changes the Case of the embedded subject. Other NPs do not seem to be affected by Co-Case Marking at all. This is, in effect, the prediction made in a system which has Sdeletion and exceptional Case marking which affects only the embedded subject position. The fact that some complement subject NPs in Cuzco can be doubly Case marked will have to be treated as an exceptional fact in the S-deletion analysis. Lefebvre and Muysken, however, claim that CoCase marking applies in all instances, even for objects and obliques, predicting that, in principle, all NPs can receive double Case. They set up a system of Case features and stipulate that only certain combinations of these features will be allowed, with the result that although Co-Case Marking applies in all instances, only embedded subjects exhibit double Case marking. A whole new system of Case features and stipulations about their interaction is necessary in the Co-Case Marking system to explain the asymmetry between the overt effects of Co-Case Marking on subjects versus the null effects of Co-Case Marking on nonsubjects. In the analysis presented here, no Co-Case Marking is assumed. It is, therefore, predicted that when nonsubjects are moved from the complement clause by Amovement, they always exhibit the Case assigned to them in the compie-

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

97

ment clause since they always "land" in an A-position, which is not a Case position. In addition, however, complement subjects can be affected by S-deletion, which results in the matrix verb governing and Case marking the complement subject. To summarize the discussion up to this point, it seems that despite the fact that certain stipulations about Case assignment via Co-Case Marking have to be introduced, the Lefebvre and Muysken analysis of raising as Move Case seems to make the correct predictions for Cuzco. The question then is whether this analysis also makes the correct predictions for Imbabura Quechua. I will claim that it does not, at least not for most speakers. I will also show that the raising analysis can by no means be generalized to all Quechua languages. For example, Ancash, which is a Quechua I dialect, does not exhibit the range of data expected under a raising as Move Case analysis. Imbabura Quechua differs from Cuzco in several crucial ways. Imbabura does not exhibit the range of facts which led Lefebvre and Muysken to propose their raising analysis in Cuzco. These differences are discussed below, (a) Imbabura Quechua, unlike Cuzco, never exhibits double Case marking. Imbabura Quechua only allows nominative complement subjects (or accusative subjects if S-deletion has applied). Thus, there is no overt evidence in Imbabura Quechua for Co-Case marking since there never is Case doubling, (b) The Imbabura Quechua equivalents to (52)(54) above are not accepted by most speakers, as discussed in Cole (1984a). Cole's informants were all from the area around Otavalo, Ecuador, and thus by no means represent a conclusive sample of Imbabura Quechua speakers. Consultants from Mariano Acosta, however, also rejected these sentences. For these speakers (which I will arbitrarily name group I), only the Imbabura Quechua equivalent of (51) is acceptable, as predicted by the S-deletion and exceptional Case marking analysis proposed in 4.3. Other NPs can be extracted if they land in the COMP of the matrix clause. I assume this to be A-movement, as discussed in Chapter 5. Hence, the contrast between (55) and (56) below, where the sentences in (56) are the analogues of (52), from Cuzco. (55)a and b are examples of Wh-movement of non-subjects from the complement clause, while (56)a and b are examples of raising of complement nonsubjects. Both are the same process (A-movement) in the Lefebvre and Muysken analysis, which consequently predicts that if (55) is grammatical, (56) should be equally well formed. (55)

a. ima-ta-tajj nukatayta kri-n what-acc-wh qu my father-nom believe-pr 3 [nuka Utavalo-pi t- randi-shka-ta] I-nom Otavalo-in buy - Nom-acc 'What does my father believe I bought in Otavalo?'

98

Syntactic

Modularity

b. pi-manda-tajj nukatayta kri-n who-from-wh qu my father-nom believe-pr 3 [nuka chay wagra-ta tj randi-shka-ta] I-nom that cow-acc buy - Nom-acc 'From whom does my father believe I bought the cow?' (56)

a. *nukatayta chay wagra-taj kri-n my father-nom that cow-acc believe-pr 3 [nuka Utavalu-pi tj randi-shka-ta] I-nom Otavalo-in buy - Nom-acc ('My father believes I bought that cow in Otavalo') b. * nukatayta Pidru-manda- kri-n my father-nom Pedro-from believe-pr 3 [nuka t- chay wagra-ta randi-shka-ta] I-nom that cow-acc buy - Nom-acc ('My father believes I bought the cow from Pedro')

Most speakers, when presented with sentences like (56)a felt this sentence to be very "funny", since the only interpretation they got was the one with chay wagrata that cow' as a base generated object of the verb krina 'to believe', receiving its 0-role from the verb. It seemed silly to them that the father would believe a cow. Sentences in which such an interpretation is not available (for example with the matrix verb yarn t o think') were simply rejected. Note that no such interpretation ever arises in the cases when the verb governs the complement subject after S-deletion. Thus (57) expresses a belief about a fact even though the complement subject appears inside the main clause as a result of S-deletion: (57)

nuka tayta chay wagra-ta kri-n my father-nom that cow- acc believe-pr 3 [sara-ta miku-shka-ta] corn-acc eat - Nom-acc 'My father believes (that) that cow ate the corn'

I conclude then that for speakers of group 1 only movement of complement subjects after S-deletion is possible. The fact that the subject in (57) appears in front of the matrix verb was explained as a result of a low level PF scrambling rule, which in Imbabura Quechua allows elements of the same governing category to be freely reordered. This is discussed in further detail in 6.4. There is no support then in the grammar of these Imbabura Quechua speakers for a general rule of raising and Co-Case marking.12 Ancash Quechua seems to work in a similar fashion. As discussed in Cole (1984a), Ancash only allows NPs from the lower clause to appear

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

99

inside the matrix clause when the embedded clause is an infinitival control structure, as in (58). There is evidence in these cases that a rule of restructuring applies, merging the two clauses, with the effects noted in Cole (1984a), which include free ordering inside the new uniclausal structure: (58)

a. Input to clause reduction g[noqaj muna-a [0j José-ta rika - y] -ta] I want-1 José-acc see- inf -acc b. Output of clause reduction g[noqaj José-ta muna-a 0j r i k a - y - t a ] I José-acc want-1 see-inf-acc 'I want to see José'

Raising out of finite indicative complements is, however, impossible: (59)

*noqa qellay-ta^ malisya-a g[Fuan 0j suwa - nqa-n] -ta I money-acc suspect-1 Juan steal- ind-3 acc 'I suspect Juan stole the money'

Clause reduction also applies in infinitival control structures in Imbabura Quechua. Examples of Imbabura Quechua clause reduction are discussed in 6.4. As far as Ancash is concerned, after clause reduction, any element of the embedded clause can appear in front of the matrix verb. Since clause reduction and restructuring have applied, elements of the (Dstructure) embedded clause can also be validated : (60)

noqa libru-ta-m muna-a I-nom book-acc-val want-pr 1 'I want to read that book'

lei- y - ta read-inf-acc

It is important to note that even though Ancash does not allow raising of nonsubjects from complement clauses, there are no restrictions on Whmovement of nonsubjects from inside these complement clauses. Thus, the object in example (59) in Ancash can be questioned by Wh-movement, as discussed in Chapter 5. The raising analysis cannot account for this range of facts since under this analysis all elements of an embedded clause should be able to move into the matrix clause without any restrictions as long as the verb is a Case assigner. In conclusion, Imbabura Quechua and Ancash Quechua as described here differ from Cuzco Quechua in not allowing all elements form the embedded clause to move into VP-internal positions inside the matrix clause.13

100

Syntactic

Modularity

As discussed in Cole (1984a), however, the facts presented here do not hold for all speakers of Imbabura Quechua. For some speakers (who are referred to by Cole as group 2 speakers), the sentences equivalent to the Cuzco examples which argue for raising are indeed grammatical. Cole claims that these examples are explained by positing a rule of topicalization, followed by scrambling from COMP into the main clause. In effect, Cole's analysis is similar in some respects to Lefebvre and Muysken's: in both analyses the claim is that these examples are due to A-movement of elements from the embedded clause into the main clause. In both analyses, these elements then move through COMP but eventually land inside the matrix clause. Cole, however, does not posit a rule of Co-Case Marking since, as discussed above, there is no clear need for such a rule in Imbabura Quechua. Elements moved out of the embedded clause via Amovement always retain their Case marking from their original position. To summarize, for speakers of group 2, a raising type analysis is possible, the question of Co-Case marking being an independent question. For Ancash Quechua and for speakers of group 1 in Imbabura Quechua, however, there is no motivation for a rule of raising (with or without CoCase marking). A general analysis in terms of raising or Move Case must, therefore, be rejected for these languages. There are additional problems with a Move Case analysis, however, problems which make a Move Case analysis suspicious even for speakers of group 2: i.e., speakers who allow raising of nonsubjects out of complement clauses. These problems have to do with the fact that an analysis of raising as Move Case assumes that Co-Case marking always applies. Hence, the analysis crucially depends on the matrix verb assigning Case to the moved NP by Case marking the element when it moves through COMP. Lefebvre and Muysken claim, therefore, that only verbs which are Case assigners allow Co-Case marking and raising. In Cuzco, the verb nina 'to say' is claimed by Lefebvre and Muysken not to be a Case assigner, thus not allowing raising of an element from the complement of this verb. Lefebvre and Muysken claim that in Cuzco this verb is not a Case assigner since it does not subcategorize for a complement clause. This is due to the fact that nina has a special function in Cuzco of marking direct quotes. In Imbabura Quechua, however, as discussed in 4.3, verbs of saying, including nina do take object complements and assign Case to the whole clause. These verbs, however, cannot S-delete, as discussed in the previous section. In the Lefebvre and Muysken framework, these verbs have to be analyzed as non-Case-assigners to explain why raising does not apply, a somewhat peculiar claim since they obviously assign Case to the complement clause as a whole. Moreover, the prediction according to the Move Case analysis is that no movement (including Wh-movement) out of the complement of these verbs should be possible. This is, in fact, what

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

101

Lefebvre and Muysken claim for Cuzco, although they do not cite examples to corroborate their claim. In Imbabura Quechua, however, for speakers of both group 1 and 2, although the complement subjects of these verbs are not Case marked accusative, all other elements of the complement can be questioned by Wh-movement, as discussed in 5.3.3. These facts are explained in a framework in which S-deletion (which only affects complement subjects) and A-movement, which affects any element of the complement, are not considered to be instances of the same general process of raising (Move Case). The asymmetry between complement subjects and complement nonsubjects under verbs such as nina then strongly argues against a general rule of Move Case, even for speakers of group 2, who allow raising of nonsubjects out of complements in general. Even for these speakers, two separate processes (one of S-deletion with exceptional Case marking and one of A-movement) need to be posited. With most verbs, both S-deletion and A-movement can apply, explaining the fact that for group 2 speakers both subjects and nonsubjects are extractable under verbs like krina and yarn. For some verbs like nina, however, Sdeletion is impossible while A-movement is possible. Since there is no evidence for Co-Case marking in Imbabura Quechua and there is no isomorphism between A-movement of nonsubjects and raising of subjects even for group 2 speakers, it seems more reasonable to assume that group 2 speakers differ from group 1 speakers in allowing topicalized NPs (NPs on the S level) to scramble into the matrix S domain, thus explaining why (56)a and b are grammatical for these speakers. It is impossible then to posit a general rule of raising as Move Case in Imbabura Quechua. In summary, whereas the Lefebvre and Muysken approach accounts for a large number of facts in Cuzco Quechua which are claimed to all follow from the raising as Move Case approach, this approach obscures the distinction between A-binding and A-binding, a distinction which has been shown in other contexts to be of great significance (cf. Cole, 1984b, and Aoun, 1981). Furthermore, Lefebvre and Muysken's approach makes the wrong predictions for Imbabura Quechua (and Ancash) in a number of instances. This is due, in my view, to the fact that in the CoCase Marking framework Wh-movement, NP-movement and S-deletion are all parts of the same general process. As a result the differences between S-deletion and Wh-movement cannot be captured. I will therefore assume that S-deletion is the correct analysis for the data presented in section 4 3 . The other facts handled by Move Case need to be accounted for by a general rule of Move-a and by claiming that group 2 (but not group 1) speakers in Imbabura Quechua allow scrambling of topicalized NPs into the matrix S, as discussed in Cole (1984a). I will next turn to an analysis of certain adverbial clauses in Imbabura

102

Syntactic

Modularity

Quechua and examine how the binding theory predicts a subject-object asymmetry in these clauses. 4.5 PRO, pro and Pronoun in Adverbial Clauses 4.5.1 An Account of Switch Reference Phenomena In this section I will propose an analysis for Switch Reference phenomena in Imbabura. I will show that the binding principles (more specifically the theorem that PRO must be ungoverned)predict a subject-object asymmetry in the distribution of PRO in certain Switch Reference adverbial clauses. This phenomenon is, then, another test for distinguishing between subjects and objects. In the next section this test will be used to show that desiderative experiencer NPs are analyzed as subjects by the binding principles, while lexical experiencer NPs are analyzed as objects. Imbabura Quechua has two types of adverbial clauses which have been claimed by Quechua researchers to be examples of Switch Reference. Switch Reference is a term coined by William Jacobsen (Jacobsen, 1967) for North-American Indian languages and is generally used to refer to an overt marking on subordinate clauses which indicates whether the subject of the subordinate clause is or is not co-referential with the subject of the matrix clause. In Imbabura Quechua there are certain pairs of suffixes in subordinate clauses which seem to have a similar switch reference function. I discussed the function of the subjunctive markers -ngapaj and -chun, which appear in the complements of verbs like munana 'to want', in 4.2 and 4.3 above, and proposed an analysis in which the choice of -ngapaj or -chun follows from binding theory and the assumption that -ngapaj clauses are [-AGR] while -chun clauses are [+AGR] and hence have a governed subject position. A similar distribution of suffixes is found in certain adverbial clauses in Imbabura Quechua. First, let us consider purpose adverbial clauses, which also use the subjunctive suffixes -ngapaj and -chun. In these adverbial clauses -ngapaj in the subordinate clause indicates that the subject of the adverbial clause is co-referential with the subject of the main clause and -chun signals that the subject of the adverbial clause must be distinct from the subject of the main clause. In non-subjunctive adverbial clauses in Imbabura Quechua (usually adverbial clauses of time or manner), -shpa is the co-referential marker and -jpi marks obligatory noncoreference. Examples are given in (61) and (62) below: 14

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha (61)

103

Purpose adverbial clauses a. nuka-ka

[kan-da riku- j ^ j ^ j ] wasi-man ri-ju - ni

I-nom-top

you-acc see- ^ *ncmcoref^ ^ o u s e ' t o g°-P r °g-P r 1

'I am going home to see you' b. [kan

nuka-tariku- j *^gapaj i

] wasi-man ri-ju - ni

(noncoref > . you-nom me-acc see-

^ *coref

)

house-to go-prog-pr-1

'I am going home for you to see me' (62)

Time adverbial clauses a. nuka-ka

[Kitu-pi

I-nom-top Quito-in

ka-

] kan-da

be- j * ^ , [ c o r e f i

riku-rka-ni

y ° u " a c c see-past-1

'When I was in Quito, I saw you' b. [(nuka) Kitu-pi

ka- j i^hpa i

i riku-wa-rka-ngi

(I-nom) Quito-in be- j " ^ Q ^ 6 ^ !

see-1 OM-past-2

'When I was in Quito, you saw me' (61 )a shows that only -ngapaj can be used when the matrix and embedded subjects are co-referential. (61)b shows that only -chun is acceptable when the two subjects are non-coreferential. (62)a and (62)b show parallel data for non-subjunctive adverbial clauses (time adverbial clauses in this instance). Let us now consider the main differences between coreferential adverbial clauses (with -ngapaj and -shpa) and non-coreferential clauses (with -chun and -/pi). Two major features of these clauses are described below. 15 1. In coreferential clauses the subject of the subordinate clause must be PRO; no lexical NP can appear in this position: (63)

a. *Juan-ga [wawa miku-ngapaj] trabaja-rka Juan-nom-top child-nom eat - coref work-past 3 ('In order for the child to eat, Juan worked') b. * [payj j Kitu-pi ka-shpa] Juarij riku-wa - rka hej Quito-in be-coref Juanj see-1 OM-past 3 ('When he- • was in Quito, Juan- saw me') *>J

1

104

Syntactic

Modularity

In the non-coreferential -jpi and -chun clauses, lexical NPs show up in the embedded subject position, as shown in (61)b and (62)b. Note that, in this case, if the lexical NP is a pronoun which is co-referential with a matrix object (as in (62)b) or understood to be referring to something previously mentioned in the discourse, the null pronoun pro is acceptable. Imbabura Quechua has null pronominalization in addition to overt pronouns. In fact, the null pronoun option is usually preferred. Thus, in finite indicative complements null pronouns are preferred if the pronoun is [+proximate] although the overt pronoun pay is also acceptable: (64)

Juanj [proj llugshi-na-ta] ni-rka Juan-nom leave-nom-acc say-past 3 'Juanj said that hej will leave'

If pay 'he' is used in (64) instead of the null pronoun, there is a strong implication that pay and Juan are disjoint in reference due to the Avoid Pronoun principle as discussed in 4.3 and in this section. Thus, in (62)b a null pronoun can replace the nuka 'I' of the embedded clause since nuka is co-referential with the matrix object. Clearly we are dealing with a null pronoun and not PRO here since pro also occurs in discourse controlled co-referential positions. (65)

\pro-x shina ni - jpi - mi],

chay charij r u n a - k a j

this say-noncoref-val that rich man-nom-top ashtawan ka-shna ni-rka: more this-way say-pr 3 '(Hej)having said this, the rich manj in this way said: ...' (from Charij runahuan Lazaruhuanmi, "The Rich Man and Lazarus", a short story published in Otavalo, Ecuador) The referent of proj is not ARB (as we would expect with uncontrolled PRO), but Abraham, who is the character speaking to the rich man in the passage preceding the one quoted. Pay 'he' can also be used in this context, but a null pronoun is the preferable option, as predicted by the Avoid Pronoun principle. The main difference between the coreferential and non-coreferential adverbial clauses is, then, that no lexical NP may appear as subject with -ngapaj and -shpa, while lexical NPs are acceptable as the subject of -chun and -jpi clauses (although a null pronoun is also acceptable). 2. A second characteristic of the coreferential clauses is that it is always the embedded subject position which is relevant in determining coreference. Thus, we cannot use -ngapaj or -shpa in (66) where the matrix subject is coreferential with a subordinate object:

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha (66)

105

*[Juan riku-wa-ngapaj] Quitu-man ri-rka-ni Juan-nom see-1 OM-coref Quito-to go-past-1 ('I went to Quito, in order for Juan to see me')

Only -chun, the non-coreferential marker,is acceptable in (66). What can provide an explanation for characteristics 1 and 2 of switch reference constructions? Note that merely stating that certain markers are used for coreference while others are used for non-coreference does not provide an explanation for properties 1 and 2. In the Government and Binding framework, however, characteristics 1 and 2 can be associated with the occurrence of PRO in control structures. The requirement that PRO be ungoverned entails that PRO be limited to the subject position in (nonfinite) embedded clauses. Also, it is predicted that no lexical NP can show up in the position occupied by PRO. Since this is an ungoverned position, no Case can be assigned to the NP. Thus PRO is allowed, while a lexical NP is barred by the Case Filter. The above mentioned considerations, then, justify an analysis in which the subject in coreferential -ngapaj and -shpa clauses in Imbabura Quechua lacks a governor, forcing a PRO interpretation for the subject position: (67)

a. NPj [PROj V-ngapaj]VP -shpa

In a structure like (67)a, characteristics 1 and 2 of Switch Reference constructions follow from the binding theory and the Case Filter, In contrast, clauses marked with -chun and -jpi do not admit PRO subjects. Only R-expressions and pronouns (both lexical and null) can appear in the subject position in these clauses. This strongly suggests that -chun and -jpi adverbial clauses have a [+AGR] governor, which governs the subject in these clauses, predicting that PRO is never possible in the subject position. The following structure for finite subjunctive and adverbial clauses is posited:

(67)

(NP \ b. NP [ j pronoun >AGR V-chun] VP (pro ) -jpi

It must be assumed that the governor in (67)b is AGR and not tense since neither subjunctive clauses nor adverbial clauses are marked for tense. The tense of these clauses is generally determined by the tense of the main clause. Thus, in (68) the time clause is understood as past because the main clause is in the past tense.

106

Syntactic

Modularity

(68)

a. Kitu-man chaya-shpa-mi rijsi - ta riku-rka-ni Quito-to arrive-coref-val acquaintance-acc see-past 1 'When I arrived in Quito, I saw a friend' b. nuka Kitu-man chaya-jpi - mi rijsi riku-wa-rka I Quito-to arrive-noncoref-val acquaintance see-1 OM-past3 'When I arrived in Quito, a friend saw me'

It is significant that in (68) both -shpa and -jpi clauses are interpreted in the same way as far as tense is concerned: first, arrival in Quito, and second, seeing, or being seen by a friend. In general, then, the action in the adverbial clause is interpreted to occur sequentially before the action of the main clause regardless of the tense of the main clause. It is possible, however, to interpret the events as occurring simultaneously. Sometimes the progressive aspect suffix -ju is used in the adverbial clauses to ensure the simultaneous interpretation: (69)

a. trabaja-ju-shpa - mi puglla-ngi work -prog-coref-val play-pr 2 'While you work, you play' b. nuka trabaja-ju- jpi - mi kan puglla-ngi I work - prog-noncoref-val you play - 2 'While I work, you play'

Again, both -shpa and -jpi clauses use the aspectual marker -ju. No difference in tense can be detected between the coreferential and non-coreferential adverbial clauses in (68) and (69). I will assume in what follows that time adverbial clauses are [-tense]. Similarly, subjunctive clauses (both purpose adverbials and object complements) are not marked for tense. Both the coreferential -ngapaj and the non-coreferential suffix -chun imply that the action in the embedded clause occurs at a time which is later than the action in the main clause, whatever the tense of the main clause may be. Thus, tense is relative to the tense of the main clause: i.e., these embedded clauses are not independently marked for tense. This was discussed in the overview of Imbabura Quechua and in 4.2-4.3 above. Since no difference in tense can be detected, I will assume that in -chun and -jpi clauses which behave like finite clauses with a governed subject position, the governor of the subject position is AGR, although AGR is abstract in these instances.16 Although there is no overt morphological evidence in Imbabura Quechua for the [±AGR] distinction in these clauses, there is ample evidence in other Quechua languages, in which agreement in embedded clauses is marked overtly, that adverbial clauses do indeed differ as to whether they are [+AGR] or [-AGR].

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

107

It was mentioned in chapter 2 that in Ecuadorian Quechua agreement markers were lost in all embedded clauses. In other Quechua languages, however, agreement markers were retained. This holds for both Quechua I languages (like Ancash and Junin-Huanca) and Quechua II (like CajamarcaCanaris, San Martin, Cuzco and Ayachuco). In some of the languages mentioned above, we find an interesting dichotomy: no agreement markers are used in the coreferential adverbial clauses (marked by a form cognate to Imbabura Quechua -shpa or by -r, which is the coreferential marker in some of the Quechua I languages), while non-coreferential adverbial clauses have obligatory subject-agreement suffixes. 17 This is illustrated for Ancash Quechua below: (70)

a. Lima-chaw ka- j *^hpa a i "ka-shqa-yki Lima-in

be-

see-fut-1-2

'When I am in Lima, I will see you' b. Lima-chaw ka- j

j ,

rika -ma-rqu-nki

Lima-in

be- j ^oncoref 1) s e g _j QM-past-2 ( *noncoref > 'When I was in Lima, you saw me'

In (70)a no agreement marker can be used. I assume the clause to be nonfinite with a PRO in subject position. In (70)b agreement in the adverbial clause is obligatory. In Ancash there is a direct correlation between finiteness and agreement and there is surface evidence that -shpa clauses are [-AGR] while -pti (cognate to Imbabura Quechua -/pi) clauses are [+AGR]. Note that no agreement markers may be used with Ancash -r adverbial clauses either. Clauses with -r are similar in use to -shpa clauses. In fact, -r is the only marker used in co-referential adverbial clauses in most Quechua I languages. Thus, in the Ancash region -shpa is only found in the Huaraz and Aija dialects. (See Parker, 1976, 7.2.3, on this issue.) Also, no agreement markers can be used with infinitival -y in any of these languages. A similar distribution of agreement is found in Junin-Huanca, where 4 is the co-referential adverbial clause marker. Huanca also uses a second subordinator for co-referential clauses, -shtin, which again cannot take agreement markers, -pti (cognate to Imbabura Quechua -jpi), however, must be followed by agreement. See Cerron-Palomino(1976),6.14-6.14.3, on these issues. A Quechua II language in which a similar distribution of agreement is found is Cajamarca- Canaris, where -pti must take agreement markers

108

Syntactic

Modularity

while -shpa cannot. (See Quesada, 1976, 9.2.2.) The same situation exists in Sucre (Bolivian) Quechua. (See Stark, Segovia and Segovia, 1971.) I claim, then, that although there is no overt marking of agreement in Imbabura Quechua, in the dialects in which agreement is marked overtly, finiteness directly correlates with agreement. In Imbabura Quechua, a language in which agreement markers in embedded clauses have been lost, no such overt instantiation of agreement can be found. 18 I will next turn to the discussion of two additional properties of finite -chun and -jpi clauses. 4.5.2 PRO, pro, Pronouns and the Avoid Pronoun Principle(s) While the analysis presented above predicts that in (61)a and (62)a PRO can appear as the subject of the embedded clauses and that PRO will be barred from (61)b and (62)b, it does not explain why in finite subjunctive complements (with -chun) and adverbial clauses (with -jpi) an overt pronoun or pro in subject position cannot be interpreted as coreferential with the matrix subject. After all, there are instances of subject pronouns (both overt and null) in finite indicative complements which can be coreferential with the matrix subject: (71)

Juan-

kri - n

-g[ j

j llugshi-na-ta]

Juan-nom believe-pr 3 he-nom leave-Nom-acc 'Juanj believes (that) hej will leave' With finite subjunctive and adverbial clauses, such coreference is excluded : (72)

a. * Juanj

muna - n

"g[ j p ^ j

miku-chun]

Juan-nom want-pr 3 he-nom eat- noncoref ('Juanj wants (that) hej should eat') b. *Juan-gaj

[ j^

j trabaja-ju - jpi - mi] puglla-n

Juan-nom-top work - prog-noncoref-val play - pr 3 (•While he is working, Juan plays') Note that the major difference between (71) and the sentences in (72) is that (71) is not a control structure. Thus, PRO never occurs with verbs like believe (in both English and Imbabura Quechua). The verb muna'want', however, subcategories for both a control structure allowing PRO in embedded subject position in a nonfinite clause and a finite subjunctive clause. Similarly, in (72)b the option of using PRO with a nonfinite ad-

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura

Quecha

109

verbial clause is always available. I would like to suggest that the sentences in (72) are ungrammatical due to a principle which states that PRO should be chosen over a pronoun where possible. Chomsky (1981), 2.4.2, suggests that such a principle (the Avoid Pronoun principle) holds in English to explain the choice of referent for the overt pronouns in certain embedded clauses: (73)

John would much prefer [his going to the movie]

In (73) there is a strong preference for taking the referent of his to be someone other than John, particularly when his is unstressed. Chomsky suggests that the choice of referent for his is not dictated by the disjoint reference principle, since a co-referential pronoun can occur in this structure: (74)

John would much prefer [his (own) book]

Rather, the choice of referent in (73) is dictated by a principle stated in most general terms as Avoid Pronoun, which imposes a choice of PRO over an overt pronoun where possible. In (73) PRO may appear instead of an overt pronoun, as shown in (75): (75)

John would much prefer ^ [ P R O going to the movie]

In (74) PRO may not appear; hence the pronoun is not required to have a different index from that of the subject. There are, however, some serious problems with the claim that the Avoid Pronoun principle is involved in predicting that in (71) and (72) the pronoun cannot be coreferential with the matrix subject. If the principle is predicting that an empty category should be preferred over a lexical category, as stated in Chomsky (1981), then pro (the null pronoun) should be just as acceptable as PRO in (72). This, however, is not the case. I would like to suggest that the Avoid Pronoun principle as stated in the current literature encompasses, in effect, two separate classes of phenomena which need to be captured by two separate principles. One principle involves the prediction that in pro-drop languages, the null pronoun pro is to be preferred over a lexical pronoun. This also accounts for the preference of pro over an overt pronoun in the disjoint reference examples in (64) and (71). The principle, then, states that in cases where pro can be determined (whether locally or non-locally), pro is preferred over a lexical pronoun. The use of an overt pronoun does not lead to ungrammatically but is unnatural if the pronoun does not add any new information since the addition of the pronoun is viewed as redundant. In

110

Syntactic

Modularity

(64) and (71) pro can be determined non-locally from the matrix clause since non-local determination of pro is an option in Imbabura Quechua. A second principle determines the choice of PRO over pronouns (both lexical and null) in subjunctive and adverbial clauses. This principle, which in English accounts for the contrast in gerundive clauses mentioned in this section, is what Bouchard (1983) called the Elsewhere principle. This principle, according to Bouchard, requires that an anaphor be used instead of a pronoun in a position where an anaphor is possible. According to Bouchard, it is this version of the Avoid Pronoun principle (in fact the only version in his system) which accounts for the choice of PRO over pronoun in the like-subject subjunctive constructions in French: (76)

a. *je veux que j'aille voir ce film ('I want that I go see this movie') b. je veux PRO aller voir ce film 'I want to go see this movie'

In (a) the clause is subjunctive while in (b) it is infinitival. In French, the Elsewhere principle predicts that the clause with an anaphor should be chosen over the clause with a pronoun. This is similar to the situation in subjunctives and adverbial clauses in Imbabura Quechua. In Imbabura Quechua, both finite and nonfinite clauses are available in subjunctive and adverbial clauses, the nonfinite version being similar to the French infinitival clauses. The Elsewhere principle dictates, then, that the nonfinite clause with PRO be used instead of the finite clause with a pronoun whenever possible. This holds regardless of whether the pronoun is lexical or pro, as shown in (72) for Imbabura Quechua. Imbabura Quechua, then, provides additional evidence for the Elsewhere principle as stated in Bouchard (1983). In addition, I claim that a restricted version of Chomsky's Avoid Pronoun principle (which states that pro should be preferred over a lexical pronoun) is at work in predicting the preference of pro over a lexical pronoun in pro-drop languages. One distinction between the two principles is that Avoid Pronoun is always a pragmatic principle and not a grammatical principle. Thus, its violation never leads to ungrammaticality, just to redundance or a preference of one reading over another (as in the cases where an overt pronoun creates a preference for the disjoint reference reading). The Elsewhere principle, however, can be either a pragmatic principle (as in the case of English gerundives) or it can be grammaticized in some languages and become a principle of grammar. This is presumably the case in French, where its violation leads to ungrammaticality, and in Imbabura Quechua, where using a structure with a pronoun when a structure with PRO is available leads to ungrammaticality. Note again that in (71) the use of a

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

111

pronoun is grammatical since the verb krina Ho believe' does not subcategorize for a nonfinite control structure (in which PRO would be possible), munana 'to want' in (72)a, however, does allow either finite or nonfinite complements. Therefore, using a pronoun or pro which is coindexed with the matrix subject violates the Elsewhere principle, since in exactly these instances PRO is also possible. Obviously, if the pronoun or pro in (72) are not controlled by the subject, but refer to some other individual, the Elsewhere principle does not apply since in this instance a control structure with PRO is not an option (see 4.5.3 below). It was claimed above that the Elsewhere principle is not part of the grammar in some languages but is a grammatical principle in others. It is interesting to observe that while in Imbabura Quechua the principle is grammatical, in other Quechua languages the principle is not part of the grammar. For example, in Ancash Quechua, sentences equivalent to (77)a in Imbabura Quechua are perceived by some speakers to be just unnatural instead of outright ungrammatical. These speakers will prefer using -r (and -shpa) (the nonfinite adverbial clause markers), but they also accept a finite clause with -pti (Ancash cognate to Imbabura Quechua -jpi) in these cases: (77)

a. Imbabura Quechua * [(nuka) Lima-pi ka-jpi] trabaja-rka-ni I Lima-in be-noncoref work-past-1 (While I was in Lima, I worked') b. Ancash Quechua [pro Lima-chaw ka-pti i] trabaja-rqo-o Lima-in be-noncoref-1 work-past-1 'While I was in Lima, I worked'

pro in Ancash is locally determined by the person agreement marker in the adverbial clause and is coreferential to the subject of the main clause. Most speakers do prefer the use of PRO with an -r or -shpa clause in these cases, but (77)b is judged to be "not the best way of saying it" instead of being outright ungrammatical, while the Imbabura equivalent (given in (77)a) is judged to be ungrammatical. In Imbabura Quechua the principle must be part of the grammar, while in Ancash it is not. In conclusion, I have argued that the Avoid Pronoun principle is to be viewed as two distinct principles: one principle (Avoid Pronoun) which is always pragmatic in nature and states that pro should be preferred over a lexical pronoun in pro-drop languages; and a second principle (the Elsewhere principle) which dictates the preference for an anaphor (PRO)

112

Syn tac tic Modularity

over a pronoun (lexical or null). It is only the second principle which can be grammaticized in some languages, such as French and Imbabura Quechua. I will next turn to the discussion of yet another property of Switch Reference constructions which does not follow from the binding principles. 4.5.3 The Control of PRO There is an additional fact connected to Switch Reference constructions which does not fall out from the theorem that PRO must be ungoverned. In (61) and (62), the relevant coreference is between the subordinate subject and the matrix subject, any other matrix position being irrelevant for the choice of the markers in the adverbial clause. While the assumption that we are dealing with PRO versus pronoun structures (i.e., finite versus nonfinite) predicts that it is the embedded subject (and not object) which is relevant, it does not predict that only subjects can control PRO. Note that PRO cannot be used when the controller is a matrix object. Only a lexical NP, a pronoun (or pro) and a finite clause can be used in this case: (78)

(79)

*[PROj Kitu-pi ka-shpa] kan-daj riku-rka-ni Quito-in be-coref you-acc see-past-1 ('I saw you when you were in Quito') [(kan)j Kitu-pi ka - jpi ] kan-da^ riku-rka-ni (you-nom) Quito-in be-noncoref you-acc see-past-1 'I saw you when you were in Quito'

The question of what determines the controller of PRO has to be handled separately. Note, however, that there is another sub-theory in the Government and Binding framework: the theory of control. Traditionally (see Chomsky, 1980), control theory addressed the question of what the potential controller of PRO is. Note that in Imbabura Quechua, as discussed in 4.8, a general restriction on PRO controllers is needed: only subjects seem to control PRO; objects never do: (80)

Subject controlled PRO nuka-ka -g[PRO trabaja-y-ta] kati - ju - ni I-nom-top work-inf-acc continue-prog-pr 1 'I am continuing to work'

(81)

Object controlled PRO *Juan-daj kacha-rka-ni ~g[PROj tanda-ta apamu-y - ta ] Juan-acc send-past-1 bread-acc bring-inf-acc ('I sent Juan to bring bread')

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

113

In fact, the only way to express (81) is to use a subjunctive with the finite marker -chun: (82)

Juan-daj kacha-rka-ni "§[(payj) tanda-ta apamu - chun] Juan-accj send-past-1 hej bread-acc bring-noncoref 'I sent Juan to bring bread'

This is more fully discussed in 4.8. In conclusion, Switch Reference phenomena can be shown to follow from certain basic assumptions which are independently motivated, such as the binding theory, the Case Filter, the Avoid Pronoun principle and the Elsewhere principle and stipulations on PRO controllers (see 4.8). It is crucial for the analysis of experiencers in Imbabura Quechua that Switch Reference phenomena are another example of a subject-object asymmetry which is entailed in part by the binding principles. In the next section, Switch Reference phenomena will be used as a test to determine whether experiencers are subjects or objects at the level at which the binding principles apply.

4.6. Experiencer Constructions and Binding Let me finally turn to the main point of this chapter. I have shown in 4.1-4.5 that in Imbabura Quechua the binding principles result in a significant subject-object asymmetry. Essentially, under non S-deleting verbs both subject and object positions are opaque domains, except for subjects of nonfmite clauses, a position in which PRO is obligatory. Under S-deleting verbs which are non-Case-marking (subject raising and passive verbs) NP-trace can appear. Under S-deleting verbs which also Case mark (like munana 'to want') the embedded subject can be governed and Case marked by the matrix verb despite the fact that AGR is present in the embedded clause (a marked property of Imbabura Quechua). The subject in these cases is a non-opaque domain. Embedded objects, however, are always opaque domains, regardless of finiteness or S-deletion. The above facts all follow from the binding principles and the assumptions about Sdeletion and exceptional government. Next, let us examine whether experiencers are treated as subjects or objects by the binding principles. (83)a shows that desiderative NPs must be analyzed as subjects at the stage at which binding is checked, since NP-trace can appear in this position. Example (83)b illustrates that lexical experiencer NPs must be analyzed as objects since NP-trace cannot appear in the position normally occupied by a lexical experiencer.

114

Syntactic

(83)

a.

Modularity

kan-gaj g [ t j punu - naya - y] yari-ngi you-top sleep-desid-inf seem-pr 2 'You seem to want to sleep' b. *kan-gaj g [ t j yarja - y ] yari-ngi you-top hunger-inf seem-pr 2 ('You seem to be hungry') c. g[kan-da yaija - y ] yari - n you-acc hunger-inf seem-pr 3 '(It) seems you to be hungry'

In (83)a the desiderative experiencer in D-structure is in a complement clause. It undergoes Move-a, leaving an NP-trace behind. Binding principle (A) predicts that NP-trace can only show up as the embedded subject of an infinitival (under an S-deleting verb like yarina 'seem'). Thus, the experiencer NP (or rather its trace in this case) must occupy the subject position at the stage when binding is checked. (83 )b shows, however, that lexical experiencer NPs cannot be raised by Move-a. It must be concluded that this is so because the (NP-trace) anaphor is excluded by binding principle (A) from its position in (83)b; the position being that of an object governed by the verb and unbound in its governing category (the lower S). This indicates that lexical experiencer NPs, unlike desideratives, are objects at the stage where the binding principles apply. This analysis also predicts the grammatically of (83)c. I assume (83)c to have the following structure at the level where the binding principles apply: (83)

c'. g[pro g[pro yp[kan-da yarja — y ] J yari - n ] you-acc hunger-inf seem-pr 3

The experiencer object is Case marked by its verb. The empty subject (pro) can stay in the lower clause as it is excused from the Case Filter since it is not a lexical NP. A similar distinction between desideratives and lexicals emerges when the distribution of PRO is considered. First consider PRO under socalled "Equi" verbs like munana 'to want' or katina 'to continue': (84)

Desiderative experiencers a. nuka-ka^ ^ [ P R O j punu - naya - y-ta ] I-nom-top sleep-desid-inf-acc kati - ju - rka - ni continue-prog-past - 1 'I continued to desire to sleep' b. nuka-kaj -g[PROjpunu - naya-ngapaj ] muna - ni I-nom-top sleep-desid-inf(subj) want-pr 1 'I want to desire to sleep'

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha (85)

115

Lexical experiencers a. *nuka-kaj •^[PROjyaija - y - ta] kati - ju - rka - ni I-nom-top hunger-inf-acc continue-prog-past-1 ('I continued to be hungry') b. *nuka-kaf "g[PROj yaija-ngapaj ]manamuna-ni - chu I-nom-top hunger-inf(subj) neg want-pr 1-neg ('I don't want to be hungry')

In (84)a and b PRO can appear in the position of a desiderative experiencer. I therefore conclude that this must be the position of the subject of an infinitival, the only ungoverned position in the clause. PRO, however, cannot appear in the position of a lexical experiencer NP, as shown in (85)a and b. This indicates that for the binding principles, the position occupied by lexical experiencer NPs is a non-subject position, governed in this case by the verb. 19 Therefore, PRO is excluded in (85)a and b. A similar distribution exists when we consider PRO in purpose and time adverbial clauses (the Switch Reference constructions): (86)

Desiderative experiencers a.

[PRO miku-naya-shpa] aycha-ta randi-rka-ni eat-desid-inf meat-acc buy - past-1 'When I desired to eat, I bought meat' b. "g[PRO punu - naya-ngapaj ] pastilla-ta ufya-rka-ni sleep-desid-inf(subj) pill - acc drink-past-1 'In order to desire to sleep, I took a pill' (87)

Lexical experiencers a.

[PRO nana-shpa] doktur-pag-man ri-rka-ni hurt-inf doctor-poss-to go-past-1 ('When I hurt, I went to the doctors') b. *g[ama PRO chiri-ngapaj ] nina-ta rura-rka-ni not cold-inf(subj) fire-acc make-past-1 ('In order not to be cold, I made a fire')

In (86)a and b PRO appears as the subject of a nonfinite adverbial clause which has a desiderative experiencer verb. The fact that PRO is barred from this position when the verb is a lexical experiencer (examples (87 )a and b) indicates that with lexicals the PRO is in a governed (object) position. Again, desiderative experiencer NPs are treated as subjects by the binding principles, but lexicals are not. There are certain complications regarding the behavior of desiderative

116

Syn tac tic Modularity

experiencer NPs in the Switch Reference constructions discussed in this section. It seems that at least some speakers of Imbabura Quechua, in addition to using desiderative experiencer NPs with -ngapaf and -shpa clauses, also allow the use of finite clauses (-chun and -jpi) with these experiences. I will return to these facts in 6.3, where I propose an account for this distribution. Let us next examine the predictions about subjecthood of experiencer NPs under S-deleting verbs. As discussed in 4.3 above, S-deletion interacts with the binding principles since it changes the governing category of the complement subject. The question, then, is whether experiencer NPs are affected by S-deletion. If they are, these NPs must be in subject position since S-deletion does not affect complements of the embedded verb. Two major types of effects of S-deletion need to be distinguished. S-deletion interacts with the binding principles since it changes the governing category of the complement subject. S-deletion also affects such processes as cliticization, validation and word order options since these are formulated to take into account the notion of governor and governing category. These processes, however, are independent of the binding principles. There is reason to believe that some, if not all of these, are relevant in the PF component. This was the assumption made in 3.3 in the discussion of cliticization. How does S_-_deletion affect experiencer NPs? Let me first examine the interaction of S-deletion with the binding principles in experiencer constructions. As shown in (88) below, NP-trace is possible with a desiderative experiencer verb embedded under an S-deleting verb such as krina 'to believe': (88)

wawa - kaj Maria kri - shka ka-rka child-nom-top Maria believe-pass be-past 3 [tj ufya- naya - j - ta] drink- desid-Nom-acc 'The child was believed by Maria to be thirsty'

This is in line with the fact that desiderative experiencer NPs seem to behave as subjects for the binding principles in general, as discussed in this section. Turning next to lexical experiencer NPs, NP-trace is much less acceptable: (89)

?? wawa - ka^ Maria kri - skha ka-rka child-nom-top Maria believe-pass be-past 3 [t j nana - ju -j - ta] hu rt -p rog-Nom-acc ('The child was believed by Maria to be hurting')

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura

Quecha

117

Informants were able to give only relative judgments on the difference between (88) and (89) above, but (89) was judged consistently to be less acceptable than (88), in which NP-trace forms a chain with a desiderative experiencer. A similar (relative) difference in acceptability is observed if (90) and (91) are compared. In (90) the reflexive clitic -ri, which is attached to the matrix verb, governs an empty reflexive anaphor. This anaphor is the complement subject and it is coindexed with the matrix subject nuka. After S-deletion applies, the complement subject is bound in its governing category, thus satisfying binding principle (A). The interaction of reflexive anaphors with S-deletion was discussed in 4.3 above. The examples below show a difference in the behavior of desiderative and lexical experiencer NPs, although it needs to be stressed that the difference in grammatically here is less clear than the difference in grammaticality in the examples noted throughout the rest of this section. (90)

nuka- yacha-ri -rka-ni I-nom know-refl-past-1 'I knew myself to be hungry'

miku-naya-shka-ta] eat-desid-Nom-acc

(91)

?? nuka^ yacha-ri -rka-ni [j^p[e]j nana-shka-ta] I-nom know-refl-past-1 hurt-Nom-acc ('I knew myself to be hurting')

Lexical experiencer NPs are not affected by S-deletion as far as the binding principles are concerned, supporting the claim that these experiencer NPs are not subjects in the component in which binding theory applies. Desiderative experiencers, however, are affected by S-deletion, confirming the conclusion reached earlier in this section that these NPs must be in subject position at the stage at which the binding principles apply. The situation, however, is much less clear when the other "side effects" of S-deletion are considered. It seems that S-deletion affects the ability of both desiderative and lexical experiencers to cliticize to the matrix verb, to accept validators and to freely reorder inside the matrix clause. Note that Case marking in itself cannot be used as a diagnostic for the application of S-deletion since experiencer NPs are Case marked with accusative Case regardless of whether S-deletion has applied. The sentences below illustrate the fact that experiencer NPs under S-deleting verbs can be coindexed with a clitic on the matrix verb, can be validated, and can be reordered inside the matrix clause. No differences exist in these examples between desiderative and lexical experiencers:

118

Syntactic

Modularity

(92)

Cliticization a. bruja-ka g [(nuka-ta)1 punu - naya - chunj witch-nom-top me-acc sleep desid-finite(subj) muna-wa1 - rka want-1 OM-past 3 'The witch wanted (that) I desire to sleep' b. bruja-ka g [(nuka-ta)1 nana - chun ] witch-nom-top me-acc hurt-finite(subj) muna-wa1 - rka want-1 OM-past 3 'The witch wanted (that) I hurt'

(93)

Validation of experiencer NPs a. g[wawa-ta-wiz' punu-naya - j - ta] ya - ni child-acc-vfl/ sleep-desid-Nom-acc think-pr 1 'I think that it is the child who is sleeping' b. g[wawa-ta-m/ nana - j-ta] ya - ni child-acc-va/ hurt-Nom-acc think-pr 1 'I think that it is the child who hurts'

(94)

Word order possibilities a. bruja-ka nuka-ta muna - n g[punu-naya - chun ] witch-nom-top me-acc want-pr 3 sleep-desid-flnite(subj) "The witch wants (that) I desire to sleep' b. bruja-ka nuka-ta m u n a - n g[nana - chun ] witch-nom-top me-acc want-pr 3 hurt-finite (subj) 'The witch wants (that) I hurt'

It is crucial, however, that the above noted effects of S-deletion do not affect the claim that lexical experiencer NPs are not subjects in the component in which binding is checked. As discussed in 3.3, it is possible to view cliticization as a PF phenomenon. This is further discussed in 6.4, where I return to the problem of accounting for the facts in (92)-(94). It will be claimed that in Imbabura Quechua validation, cliticization, and also word order restrictions are checked in the PF component, after certain restructuring processes have applied. Hence, the behavior of experiencer NPs, as indicated in (92)-(94) above, is only relevant as far as their status in the PF component is concerned and does not affect their status at Sstructure or at LF. It is, however, a problem for the analysis in general that, according to (92)-(94), experiencer NPs seem to behave like subjects at PF. Earlier it was claimed that, given the Case marking, cliticization and

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

119

agreement facts discussed in chapter 3, experiencer NPs needed to be analyzed as PF objects. I will postpone further discussion of this apparent contradiction to 6.4 below. In conclusion, the binding principles have been shown to predict a distinction between subject and objects in Imbabura Quechua. Desiderative experiencer NPs have been shown to behave like subjects at the level at which binding is relevant, while lexical experiencer NPs were shown to be objects at this level. 4.7 Binding Principles: at S-structure or LF? I shall next try to establish at which level the binding principles apply. Clearly the principles must apply to the output of Move-a, since they restrict the distribution of traces. Moreover, the principles seem to take into account whether S-deletion has applied. This leaves two options: the principles hold at S-structure or they hold at LF. There is reason to believe that certain LF-movement rules are exempt from the binding principles, as shown in Chomsky (1981), 3.2.3. Three such rules are relevant: (95)

(i) The rule of quantifier movement (ii) The LF rule of Wh-movement (iii) The rule of focus

Perhaps the clearest illustration of how rules in the LF component are exempt from the binding principles is from the rule of focus in LF. Consider (96): (96)

John said that Bill had seen HIM (with focal stress on HIM)

In (96) HIM may be proximate to John. HIM is a pronoun which is free in its governing category (the embedded S) satisfying binding principle (B). HIM, however, can be bound by John in the higher S. In LF (96) is converted to (97) by the LF rule of focus: (97)

for x = he, John said that Bill had seen x

In (97) HIM has been replaced by a variable which must be free (i.e., cannot be A-bound), according to binding principle (C), and hence cannot be bound by John. The LF movement rule converted a structure to which the binding theory applied correctly to an LF representation to which it applies incorrectly. Similar evidence is given by Chomsky (1981), 3.2.3,

120

Syn tac tic Modularity

for LF rules (i) and (ii) of (95). Chomsky regards this a prima facie evidence that binding theory must apply prior to LF, at S-structure. Note that there is no independent evidence that binding must apply at Sstructure. The only indication is that the principles must hold prior to LF movement rules. Since in most cases S-structure is the direct input to LF movement rules, with no significant intervening level, it can be assumed that the relevant level for binding is S-structure. A slightly different view on the question of levels is presented in Solan (1984). Solan argues that binding theory applies at both the levels of S-structure and LF. He attempts to show that the rule of focus interpretation, the interaction of which with binding principle (C) constituted Chomsky's main argument for binding theory applying at S-structure only, is most likely part of discourse grammar. Thus, focus interpretation cannot be used as an argument against the application of binding theory at LF. A radically different approach to the question of levels is suggested in van Riemsdijk (1981) and van Riemsdijk and Williams (1981). It is suggested in these works that an additional level of NP-structure must be posited. This level is between D-structure and S-structure and, crucially, precedes Whmovement. In this conception of core grammar, binding theory (as well as Case marking and the theory of control, among others) applies at NPstructure. If the NP-structure proposal is indeed correct, binding theory is only relevant prior to the LF component. 20 For now, I will accept the proposal that binding theory holds at Sstructure. I leave open the question of whether binding theory needs to apply at NP-structure (prior to Wh-movement) since the issue of NPstructure is an independent question. If binding theory holds at S-structure, desiderative experiencer NPs must be analyzed as subjects and lexical experiencer NPs as objects at this level. In chapter 6, I will re-open the question of what the correct level for the application of the binding principles is and make the tentative proposal that the binding principles should apply in a separate sub-component which follows S-structure but precedes LF. 4.8 The Residues of Control Theory: Restrictions on Antecedents Anaphors

of

I will now examine whether control theory makes any predictions about the subjecthood of experiencer NPs in Imbabura Quechua. I will claim that control theory itself, as stated in Chomsky (1981) and Manzini (1983), does not make any predictions about the subjecthood of PRO controllers. It will be shown that an independent stipulation is necessary in Imbabura Quechua about PRO controllers. This stipulation, which as

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

121

shown below cannot be stated as part of the theory of binding, states that only subjects can be controlleers of PRO in Imbabura Quechua. The behavior of experiencer NPs in control structures will be examined. I will show, that although experiencer NPs can be PRO controllers, which suggests that they be analyzed as subjects, there also exist sentences in which experiencer NPs are not PRO controllers. It will be suggested that the modular nature of the theory offers a solution to this apparent contradiction. Chomsky's remarks on control (Chomsky 1980) and Manzini's control theory, which, as discussed in 4.1, is part of Manzini's revised version of the theory of binding, account for a number of facts related to control structures. Leaving the question aside of whether it is empirically correct or even theoretically desirable to subsume control theory under the binding principles, it should be pointed out that a theory dealing with the distribution of PRO also has to address the question of the choice of antecedent for PRO. This is the issue I want to discuss in this section. In "On Binding" Chomsky suggests certain principles which determine the choice of antecedent for PRO. He proposes that the basic principle of control is the "Minimal Distance Principle" of Rosenbaum (1967). This principle predicts that a verb with an object complement assigns object control, as in (98)b, and an intransitive verb lacking a complement assigns subject control, as in (98)a. (98)

a. Jotuij tried b. John persuaded Bill|

[PROjtowin] [PROj to leave]

Certain verbs, however, are exceptions to this principle. These are verbs like promise, which take a complement, but nevertheless impose subject control: (99)

Johnj promised Bill [PROj to leave]

Chomsky proposes that these verbs are marked in the lexicon with the features [+SC] ("assign subject control") (see Chomsky, 1980, p. 33). It seems then that whether PRO is controlled by a subject or object depends on the structure of the matrix clause (i.e., on whether the verb is transitive or intransitive) and on the lexical features associated with certain verbs. Note that it is the subject at D-structure and not S-structure which is relevant for checking control with verbs which are marked [+ Subject Control], Thus (100) is ungrammatical since subject control is impossible as required by the verb (at D-structure the passivized verb has no subject). (100) *John was promised t [PRO to win]

122

Syntactic

Modularity

In addition, the control properties predicted by the Minimal Distance Principle can sometimes be reversed. In Chomsky (1981), 2.4.3, the following examples are cited: (101) a. John asked the teacher to leave early b. John asked the teacher to be allowed to leave early In (101)a either the subject or the object can control PRO, in (b) subject control is preferred to object control. In Chomsky (1981), 2.4.3, the principles are discussed which play a role in determining control of PRO. It is suggested that control theory involves a number of facts: structural configurations, semantic properties of the verb and other semantic and pragmatic considerations. There is no attempt, however, to present a fullfledged theory of control; there only is a discussion of some of the properties such a theory has to have. The question of what will determine whether the controller of PRO is the subject or the object in the main clause is left unanswered. In Manzini (1983) the theory of control is made much more explicit. Incorporating the notion of domain-governing category into the binding theory and treating PRO as a pure anaphor, subject to principle (A) of the binding theory, makes definite predictions about the configurations in which PRO can be controlled. This theory predicts the distribution of PRO in subject and object complements as well as in the subject position of nominals and object position of subjectless nominals. Manzini also accounts for the fact that in object complements of S, PRO must be coreferential with the object or with the subject of S. It is also predicted that PRO in these complements cannot have arbitrary reference and cannot be controlled by something outside the S. Manzini's approach, however, just like Chomsky's control theory, does not predict whether in a given example subject control of PRO should be preferred over object control. Manzini concludes with regard to this problem that, on syntactic grounds, both subject and object control are always possible and that either subject or object control is excluded for other reasons, possibly on semantic grounds. I will next examine the question of what can constitute a PRO controller in Imbabura Quechua. I will show that in Imbabura Quechua only subjects can be PRO controllers. This fact, however, does not directly follow from control or binding theory as stated in the works discussed above. A stipulation to this effect needs to be added to the grammar of Imbabura Quechua. As argued below, this is a structural stipulation, the last residue of control theory, since all other aspects of control are presumably handled by the binding theory and by the stipulation that empty anaphors cannot be Case marked. (See Manzini, 1983, and the discussion

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

123

in 4.1.) As discussed below, given the facts related to control of PRO by experiences in Imbabura Quechua, one cannot extend Manzini's theory of binding to include the requirement that controllers be subjects. While such an extension is possible, it makes the wrong predictions as far as the control and binding facts with lexical experiencers are concerned. Rather, as mentioned above, a stipulation independent of binding theory and holding at a different level must be added to the grammar. I shall next turn to an examination of the control facts in Imbabura Quechua. In Imbabura Quechua there are three control structures: infinitival indicative constructions using the nominalizers -y/-na, subjunctives using -ngapaj, and adverbial clauses (purpose and other) using -shpa. In Imbabura Quechua only subject controlled PRO seems to be possible. Most control verbs are obligatory same-subject verbs: i.e., intransitives in which the subject is the only possible controller. (102) Juanj [PROj kalpay-ta] Juan run-inf-acc 'Juan began running'

kallari-rka began - past 3

Example (103) illustrates that object controlled PRO is impossible in Imbabura Quechua: (103) * Juan-da- kunvinsi-rka-ni [PRO^ Kitu-man Juan-acc persuade-past-1 Quito-to ('I persuaded Juan to go to Quito')

ri-y-ta] go-inf-acc

The only way to express (103) is by using a finite subjunctive complement, with a lexical NP in the complement subject position instead of PRO, as exemplified in (104): (104) Juan-daj kunvinsi-rka-ni [(pay)j Kitu-man ri - chun] Juan-acc persuade-past-1 he-nom Quito-to go-noncoref 'I persuaded Juan (that) he go to Quito' Note that in (104) the pronoun could also be pro since null pronominalization is an option in Imbabura (see 4.5 above). Since the verb kunvinsim 'to persuade' due to its meaning does not allow subject controlled PRO, it cannot take PRO at all. With subjunctive adverbial clauses, in which both the main clause subject and object are potential controllers, only subjects can control PRO. This again differs from English, where in this type of control (called "nonobligatory control" by Williams, 1980), the PRO antecedent can be either a subject or an object: i.e., the antecedent is not thematically or grammatically uniquely determined:

124

Syntactic

Modularity

(105) a. bought a book [PROj to read] b. I bought Billj a book [PROj to read] The facts for Imbabura Quechua differ from English and are illustrated below: (106) Purpose adverbial clause - object as controller *Juan-daj kacha-rka-ni [PROj Kitu-man Juan-acc send-past-1 Quito-to ('I sent Juan to go to Quito')

ri-ngapaj] go-coref

(107) Time adverbial clause - object as controller *[PROj miku-ju-shpa] Juan-da^ eat-prog-coref Juan-acc ('I saw Juan eating')

riku-rka-ni see-past-1

In (106) the nonfinite subjunctive marker -ngapaj (which appears in nonfinite clauses with a PRO subject) cannot be used with a PRO controlled by a matrix object. (106) can only be understood as 'I sent Juan (somewhere, unspecified) so that I could go to Quito'. The same is true in (107), which can only be interpreted as 'I saw Juan when I was eating' (see 4.5 on this issue). In Imbabura Quechua, but not in English, where control of PRO could be semantically determined, one needs to stipulate that only subjects qualify as PRO controllers. Note that it is impossible to claim that in Imbabura Quechua certain verbs are simply marked [+SC], as Chomsky (1980) suggested for English, since in adverbial clauses this restriction applies with any verb in the main clause. The restriction on PRO controllers, then, is a purely structural restriction which creates another subject-object asymmetry. I shall now turn to the issue of levels. What is the appropriate level for determining control; that is, is it D-structure, S-structure or LF subjects which are PRO controllers in Imbabura Quechua? Evidence from passive sentences seems to indicate that it cannot be D-structure which is relevant since passive subjects can be PRO controllers: (108) Maria-ka[mana PROj yanu-shpa] kusa maka-y tuku-n Maria-nom-top neg cook-coref husband beat-inf pass-pr 3 'Not cooking (when she doesn't cook), Maria is beaten by her husband'

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura

Quecha

125

(109) Maria-kaj [ama PROj waka-ngapaj] tayta kalpa-chi-y Maria-nom-top neg cry- coref father run -caus-inf tuku - rka pass-past 3 'So that she wouldn't cry, Maria was sent away by her father' At D-structure the passive verb has an empty subject. Hence, control cannot be determined at this level for Imbabura. At S-structure, however, after Move-a had applied, Maria is the subject in (108) and (109) and can, therefore, control the PRO in the adverbial clause. Passive sentences then provide evidence that control has to be determined after Move-a has applied. Note that these sentences do not establish whether control is determined at S-structure or at LF since at both levels the same structure for passives exists. 21 I will next examine control phenomena in experiencer constructions. In lexical and desiderative experiencer constructions both a control and a non-control structure exists. (110) a. [PROyaku-pi ka-shpa-ka] chiri-wa-rka-mi water-in be-inf-top cold-1 OM-past 3-val 'Being in the water, I was cold' b. [(nuka) yaku-pi ka - j p i - k a ] chiri-wa-rka-mi (I-nom) water-in be-finite-top cold-1 OM-past 3-val 'When I was in the water, I was cold'

(111) a. [PROtrabaja-shpa-ka] miku-naya-wa-rka-mi work-inf-top eat-desid -1 OM-past 3-val Working, I had a desire to eat' b. [(nuka) trabaja-jpi-ka] miku-naya-wa-rka-mi (I-nom) work-finite-top eat-desid-1 OM-past 3-val 'When I worked, I had a desire to eat' If structural considerations are the only relevant factor in choosing the controller, and if the level at which control is determined is S-structure or LF, experiences have to be analyzed as subjects according to (110)a and ( l l l ) a , since they are PRO controllers. According to the (b) sentences, however, experiencers are non-subjects because they are not PRO controllers. 22 The data from control structures then lead to an apparent contradiction in the analysis of experiencers. A possible solution to this problem is to assume that control can be determined at more than one level. As suggested in 4.2 and 4.3, experien-

126

Syntactic

Modularity

cers will have to be analyzed as objects in one component and as subjects in another. If control can be determined at more than one level, control can be determined at the stage when experiencers are not subjects, explaining the data in (110)b and (11 l)b. In a different derivation, however, control can be determined at a level at which the experiencers are subjects, explaining (110)a and ( l l l ) a . I shall next examine which levels might be involved. As discussed in 6.2 below, lexical experiencers are not analyzed as subjects, except at LF, the level at which the ECP holds. Therefore, to explain the control facts in (110)a and ( l l l ) a , control will have to be checked at LF, the only level at which both lexicals and desideratives are subjects. What is the other level involved? This must be a level where both lexical NPs and desiderative NPs are nonsubjects. This could presumably be the level of D-structure, S-structure, or the PF component. Since an exact answer to the question involves determining an analysis for experiencers in Imbabura, I will defer choosing between levels until Chapter 6, where the analysis is presented. My main conclusion is that control phenomena with experiencers imposes a requirement that control for PRO be determined either at LF (in one derivation) or at a previous level (in another derivation). It is the modular nature of the theory which enables us to make this statement. In a single level theory or a theory which limits all control facts to a single level the variability exemplified here cannot be captured. Let me next turn to the question of whether the restriction on PRO controllers needs, in fact, to be stated independently, as suggested above. As discussed above, in the framework of Chomsky (1980) and (1981), the restriction on controllers of PRO is a separate stipulation, not related to any of the other sub-theories of the grammar, since control facts are taken care of in a separate sub-theory of control. In Manzini (1983), however, PRO is considered to be a "pure" anaphor, just like lexical anaphors and NP-trace, which is subject only to principle (A) of the binding theory. Since control facts in general are handled in Manzini by extending the binding principles to include the distribution of PRO, it could be asked whether there is any way to further extend Manzini's theory of binding to handle the restrictions on antecedents of PRO in Imbabura Quechua. Since in Imbabura Quechua the restriction on PRO antecedents is a structural restriction (as opposed to English in which the restriction seems to be semantic in nature), it is conceivable that a theory of binding which already handles structural restrictions on the distribution of PRO can be extended to account also for structural restrictions on the choice of antecedents of PRO. I will argue that although it would appear attractive to handle the subject restriction on PRO antecedents in Imbabura as part of binding theory, such a move leads to an internal con-

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

ill

tradiction with regard to the level of application of the binding principles. I will, therefore, conclude that restrictions on antecedents of anaphors (such as PRO) need to be stated independently of the theory of binding. Let me first review the arguments in favor of including the subject restriction on PRO antecedents as part of the theory of binding. Subsequently, I will present the arguments against such an inclusion. It seems at first that there are strong reasons in Imbabura Quechua for including the restriction that antecedents of PRO be subjects as part of the revised binding theory proposed in Manzini (1983). In Imbabura Quechua, in addition to stating that controllers of PRO are subjects, one must also restrict antecedents of lexical anaphors to be subjects. This is illustrated below. (112) shows that an NP in subject position can be the antecedent for the reflexive anaphor. (113) illustrates that a nonsubject cannot be an antecedent for the reflexive anaphor. As discussed in 4.3, in Imbabura Quechua the reflexive anaphor is an empty category, coindexed with the reflexive clitic -ri on the verb : (112) Maria-ka kwintu-ta yupa - ri - rka Maria-nom-top story-acc recount-refl-past 3 'Maria told herself a story' (113) *Maria-manda villa-ri-rka - ni Maria-about tell-refl-past-1 ('I told Maria about herself) It seems, then, that in Imbabura Quechua all antecedents of anaphors have to be NPs in subject position. 23 Moreover, Imbabura Quechua is not the only example of a language in which such a restriction is necessary. Similar restrictions have been described for Kannada (Sridhar, 1976 and 1979), Telugu (Jackson, 1982) and for Nepali in forthcoming work by W. Wallace. In all these languages it appears that antecedents of both lexical anaphors and PRO (which is an empty anaphor in Manzini's framework) are restricted to subjects. It seems reasonable, then, to attempt to include the restriction on antecedents of anaphors as part of the binding theory for these languages, since, according to Manzini, principle (A) of the binding theory affects the distribution of all anaphors, including PRO. One possible way of including the restriction on antecedents as part of binding theory would be to claim that, in the languages in which only subjects can be antecedents, the definition of what constitutes a binding configuration for anaphors involves direct reference to the subject position. In general, the definition of bound does not refer to subjects. Thus, for a language like Imbabura Quechua, the following change has to be introduced in principle (A) of the binding theory:

128

Syntactic Modularity

(A)

An anaphor is bound by an NP in subject position in its governing category and domain-governing category.24

In a language like English, principle (A) does not have the restriction that only subjects can be binders, while languages like Imbabura Quechua, Kannada, Telugu and Nepali have this restriction. A similar revision of the definition of binding was suggested for Nepali in forthcoming work by W. Wallace and is motivated for Nepali in great detail in that work. Under this proposal, languages can differ with respect to whether they allow any NP in argument position to be an antecedent for anaphors (as in English) or only NPs in subject position. It is important to emphasize that the restriction on antecedents of anaphors cannot be introduced into binding theory by changing the general definition of bound for languages such as Imbabura Quechua and must be introduced as a change in principle (A) only. If one were to change the definition of binding in these languages by restricting binding configurations to elements bound by NPs in subject position, this change would affect all principles of the binding theory. This is an undesirable result since pronouns in Imbabura Quechua (and presumably also in the other languages mentioned in this section) cannot be bound in their governing category by any NP (whether subject or nonsubject). Clearly then, any NP in argument position "counts" as a binder for pronouns, and it is only binding for anaphors which needs to be restricted to subject antecedents. This in itself is a problem for the approach in which these restrictions are considered to be part of the theory of binding since this approach, in effect, claims that principle (A) of the theory involves a different notion of binding from principle (B). The alternative approach adopted in this section, which considers the subject restrictions on antecedents as holding in a separate component from the binding theory and as being independent from binding theory, does not encounter these problems. Note that the prediction is that if the binding theory, as claimed in Manzini, treats PRO as a pure anaphor subject to principle (A) of the binding theory, the change introduced in the definition of binding will affect all anaphors: i.e., PRO, NP-trace and lexical anaphors. This prediction seems to be true: in all the languages in which there is a restriction on antecedents of PRO, an identical restriction seems to hold for antecedents of overt anaphors, as exemplified for Imbabura Quechua in (112)(113). This, then, lends support to a theory such as Manzini's in which PRO is treated like an anaphor and obeys part (A) of the binding theory, just like overt anaphors and NP-trace. In what follows I will argue that, although it is indeed the fact that in some languages a general restriction is necessary on antecedents of all anaphors, the locus of this restriction

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura Quecha

129

cannot be in the binding theory, as suggested above. The restriction needs to be stated in a separate component and is to be viewed as independent from restrictions on the anaphor itself. The argument has to do with the behavior of lexical experiencer NPs as antecedents of PRO in Imbabura Quechua. As mentioned above, lexical experiencer NPs can be antecedents for PRO in Imbabura Quechua, which indicates that these NPs are subject at the level at which the restriction on antecedents applies. It was suggested above that this restriction has to be checked in two separate modules to account for the range of data presented in (105)—(111). It was argued in 4.6 that lexical experiences are not subjects at the level at which binding theory applies, since PRO and NP-trace cannot appear in the position in which a lexical experiencer normally appears. The limitation on PRO and NP-trace appearing in subject position is part of binding theory, as discussed in 4.1. If the restriction on antecedents of PRO is made to be part of binding theory, by changing principle (A) of the theory for languages like Imbabura Quechua, a contradiction results since lexical experiencers can be PRO antecedents (indicating that they are subjects) while they cannot be anaphors (PRO or NP-trace), indicating that they are not subjects at the level at which binding applies. If, however, the restriction on PRO antecedents is not part of binding theory and holds in a separate component (such as in LF, as suggested above), no contradiction results. Lexical NPs can, then, be analyzed as nonsubjects in the component in which binding is checked and be subjects in LF (due to reanalysis, as suggested in 6.2) at the stage at which the stipulation about antecedents of anaphors is checked. The data from Imbabura Quechua, then, argues against a theory which includes the restriction that antecedents of anaphors be subjects as part of the binding theory. The data do not, however, argue against the general approach which tries to derive control theory from binding theory. The facts only show that the restriction on antecedents should be stated in a different component from the one at which binding theory is checked and, thus, cannot be part of binding theory itself. The residue of control theory in these languages, then, is extended to make predictions for all antecedents, including PRO and lexical anaphors.

NOTES 1. Both -y and -na are used in infinitival clauses; with -na being used more frequently than -y. In Quechua I languages, like Ancash, only -y can be used in nonfinite complements, -na is also used as a future tense nominalizer in both Ancash and Imbabura. 2. The claim that clauses are arbitrarily marked [tproximate] is ad hoc since the

130

Syntactic

Modularity

fact that the same or different subject marker is chosen does not follow from any general principles of the theory (like the binding principles) in such an account. 3. Finite subject complements are not discussed in this section. It should be noted, however, that finite subject complements do not allow NP-trace (as shown in (18)). Possibly this is due to the fact that the predicates subcategorized for finite subject complements are not S-deleting and, hence, raising cannot take place. This was discussed in 4.2. Relaxing the non-minimality requirement for government suggested later in this section, thus, has no effect on fimte subject complements since the matrix predicate in these instances does not allow S -deletion. 4. The disjoint reference reading is, in fact, preferred in example (28). Note that Imbabura Quechua allows null pronouns (pro) in both embedded subject and object positions, as discussed in Cole (1984b). pro in these instances is not determined by AGR from its own clause but is coindexed to an NP which appears in the matrix clause, or alternatively pro can be discourse determined. Since Imbabura Quechua allows pro as the subject of the complement in (28), the Avoid Pronoun principle, as discussed in 4.5, predicts that if pro is available, an overt pronoun should be avoided. The Avoid Pronoun principle in (28) does not cause ungrammatically but only marks a preference for an empty category in the non-disjoint reference reading. 5. (30)b is, however, acceptable if the NP Maria-ta is a main clause constituent, marked with the postposition-ta 'about' (as distinct from the accusative Case marker -to). This sentence has the following structure: (i)

nuka-ka Maria-ta "g"[pro chayamu-chun] I-nom-top Maria-about arrive-finite(subj) 'I am happy about Maria, that she arrived'

cushi-mi happy-val

The embedded subject in (i) is a zero pronoun. On the use of-fa for oblique complements, see Cole (1982a), 1.2.2.2. 6. For justification of the claim that Imbabura does not have an overt complementizer, see 5.3.2 below. 7. Abandoning the minimality requirement for c-command in Imbabura is necessary in order to account for cases where the matrix verb after S-deletion governs the subject of an embedded finite clause. Note, however, that this causes some problems in cases where a postposition must govern and Case mark an NP in the postpositional phrase, as in (i): (i)

S NP

VP PP

Juan-ga Juan-top NP I ñuka me

parlan speaks wan with

As claimed in 3.3 evidence from object cliticization indicates that in a structure like (i) it is the postposition and not the verb which governs nuka. Thus, the ability of non-minimal governors to govern an NP in Imbabura has to be limited to government into embedded finite clauses: i.e., it is only AGR which does not count as a governor

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura

Quecha

131

when a "higher" governor is available. Postpositions, however, are always governors of the NPs in the postpositional phrase. 8. It is not entirely clear to me what the restrictions are on using an overt anaphor instead of a null anaphor. In general, a null anaphor is preferred unless the use of a lexical anaphor adds non-redundant information, such as the emphatic suffix -lla 'only' in (40), which shows up on the lexical anaphor. It is possible that the distribution of null versus overt anaphors is determined by the Avoid Pronoun principle, as formulated in 4.5 below. This principle would predict the preference for a null pronoun (anaphoric or nonanaphoric) over a lexical pronoun. 9. I leave open the question of the exact determination of the empty reflexive anaphors. One possible suggestion is that the empty anaphor is, in effect, NP-trace. This claim, however, implies a movement analysis for the reflexive clitic. Such an analysis is unlikely in light of sentences like (40), in which an emphatic reflexive can appear as an overt anaphor. (40) can only be accounted for if-n is a base generated clitic. Clitics in Imbabura Quechua do not absorb Case, as discussed in 3.3. Hence, clitic doubling is possible if the NP coindexed with the clitic carries non-redundant information, as discussed in footnote 8 above. 10. In Cole and Hermon (1981), the NIC was reformulated as a Case Marked Subject Condition. 11. It is possible, of course, to assume that Case marking into COMP can disregard the S node, assuming that government can hold over one S-type node at a time but not over two S-like nodes. In such a system, S-deletion need not be assumed for Case marking into COMP but is still necessary for Case marking the complement subject directly. 12. Group 1 speakers, however, accept sentences similar to (56)a and b, in which thej^'raised" NP is in the matrix COMP. I assume that these NPs are base generated in an S (topic) position, with A-movement of a matching null NP taking place. (i)_is, then, not an example of raising and Co-Case Marking but of topicalization and Amovement of a null element: (i)

|[chay wagra-taj " s t ^ p i ^ i g[nukatayta kri - n this cow - acc my father believe-pr 3 -g[nuka Utavalu-pi t j randi-shka-ta]]]] I-nom Otavalo-in buy - Nom-acc 'This cow, my father believes that I bought in Otavalo'

13. It is interesting, however, that although for most Imbabura Quechua speakers raising from complement clauses as shown in (56) above is ungrammatical, other phenomena which Lefebvre and Muysken also attribute to raising are acceptable to these speakers. For example, all Imbabura Quechua speakers have extraposition from relative clauses, which results in the Case of the whole clause being copied onto the extraposed element. (i)

Extraposed relative clause kwitsa-ta juya-ni Juan-wan tushu-shka ka-shka-ta girl -acc love-pr 1 Juan-with dance-asp be-Nom-acc 'I love the girl who had danced with Juan*

In a grammar without Co-Case Marking, the fact that the extraposed relative clause and its head are both Case marked will have to be explained independently, possibly by positing a Case copying rule for extraposed clauses. Similar case copying rules will

132

Syntactic

Modularity

have to be posited for Ancash, a language in which raising of nonsubjects out of finite complements is not possible (as shown in (59)), yet extraposed relative clauses are Case marked with the Case of their heads. 14. -ngapaj and -shpa are glossed as "coref", and -chun and -jpi as "noncoref". This does not fully reflect the analysis presented here, -ngapaj is a nonfinite subjunctive marker; -shpa is a nonfinite adverbial marker; -chun is a finite subjunctive marker; while -jpi is a finite adverbial marker. This is suggested by the [±AGR] distinction argued for in this section. In the sections not discussing restrictions on coreference, -ngapaj and -shpa are glossed as "inf" while -chun and -jpi are glossed as "finite". 15. Note, incidentally, that the normal order of adverbial and main clause is NP[Adv CI] VP, where the adverbial clause follows the main clause subject and precedes the main clause VP (as in (6 2) a). Other orders, however, are acceptable. For example, the whole adverbial clause can precede the main clause (as in (62)b) or in some cases follow it. Note that the topic marker -ka on the subject nuka 'I' in (62)a shows that this is the subject of the main clause: -ka like other enclitics can only attach to main clause constituents. (See Cole, 1982a, 2.18, on this issue.) 16. See also Picallo (1984) where subjunctive clauses in Catalan are shown to be unmarked for tense. In Catalan, however, all subjunctive clauses are nonfinite, while in Imbabura Quechua subjunctives can be either finite or nonfinite, depending on whether the clause has an AGR governor or not. 17. In Huanuco Quechua (a Quechua I Central Peruvian language) coreferential adverbial clauses marked by -shpa are claimed by Weber (1976) to take obligatory agreement suffixes. The coreferential marker -r, also used in adverbial clauses, does not allow agreement in the subordinate clause. The fact that -shpa co-occurs with (subject) agreement markers is an obvious counterexample to the correlation observed in this section, between lack of agreement and coreferential Switch Reference markers. 18. The evidence from other Quechua languages, however, does not directly support the analysis of Imbabura suggested in this section. According to this analysis, in subjunctive and other adverbial clauses the [±AGR] distinction is entirely abstract. 19. In Cole and Jake (1978) and Cole and Hermon (1981) it was claimed that lexical experiencer NPs can be deleted under "Equi" and also can appear in -shpa and -ngapaj adverbial clauses. These claims were found to be inaccurate in subsequent informant work. 20. LF is, in effect, reduced to a stage in the derivation of PF in thevanRiemsdijkand Williams model. Since this is not a crucial feature of the model, I will not discuss it here any further. As shown in Chapter 5, however, experiencer NPs have to be subjects at LF but objects in PF. This would argue against the view that LF is not a separate component from PF. 21. Sentences (108-109) also indicate that we cannot state the restriction on controllers in Imbabura as a semantic restriction. Thus, we cannot claim that only agents are controllers since passive subjects (patients) also qualify as controllers. 22. It was argued in 4.5 that a sentence like ( l l l ) a is a control-structure, while ( l l l ) b is not. It was also shown in 4.5 that in Imbabura, a control structure with PRO must be used whenever possible as dictated by the Elsewhere principle. The fact that in (110)b and ( l l l ) b a non-control structure can be used indicates that the experiencers in these sentences cannot be in subject position. Otherwise, due to the restriction that a control structure must be used whenever possible, only (110)a and ( l l l ) a should be grammatical. 23. Note that in most cases the fact that nonsubjects cannot be antecedents of

Binding Theory and Control Theory in Imbabura

Quecha

133

reflexives is also a result of the fact that only direct objects (marked by -ta) and indirect objects (marked by -man) can be reflexivized. As discussed in 4.3, this latter fact follows from the restriction that the empty anaphor be governed by the reflexive clitic -77 which appears on the verb. In most cases this restriction on anaphors also has the result of restricting the antecedent to being in subject position. The generalization that only subjects can be antecedents for anaphors does however hold without exception in Imbabura Quechua. Note in this respect that antecedents of NPtraces are also restricted to subjects. This, however, is a result of the fact that Amovement can only occur into subject position since this is the only argument position which potentially can lack a 0-role, allowing movement from a 0-position into this non-0-marked position. In fact, then, all anaphors have antecedents in subject position in Imbabura Quechua and in other languages mentioned in this section. In contrast, in English no such restriction is possible since both lexical anaphors and PRO can have nonsubject antecedents, while the restriction on antecedents for NPtrace falls out from 0-theory. 24. Subject can be defined as the NP governed by [+AGR], or the NP which is the only sister to VP in clauses which are [-AGR]

Chapter 5

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua

5.1 Introduction In this chapter I shall discuss the difference in the distribution of traces in subject and object position, as predicted by the Empty Category Principle (Chomsky, 1981, 4.4; Chomsky, 1982, Chapters 2, 3, and 5; and Aoun, Homstein and Sportiche, 1981). In 5.2 I will examine the interaction of inversion and pro-drop with the ECP. In 5.3 I will propose that the ECP holds in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua, predicting a significant subjectnonsubject asymmetry. A discussion of an alternative analysis for Quechua is presented in 5.3.3. In 5.4 a revision of the pro- drop parameter is suggested in light of the data from Imbabura and Ancash Quechua. In 5.5 I will show that in Imbabura Quechua both desiderative and lexical experiencers must be subjects at LF, at the stage at which the ECP applies. Let me next turn to a summary of the ECP as presented in Chomsky (1981), incorporating the changes in the typology of empty categories argued for in Chomsky (1982). Since the ECP is not discussed in great detail in Chomsky (1982), much of what follows is my own interpretation of how Chomsky's theory of the functional determination of empty categories (as presented in Chomsky, 1982, chapters 3 and 5) changes the account of the ECP given in Chomsky (1981). The ECP in the earlier framework, and its interaction with the data in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua, were discusssed in Hermon (1981b). 5.1.1 A Brief History of the ECP In Chomsky (1981), 4.1-4.2, it was noted that the fact that variables are exempt from binding principles (A) and (B) (from which the NIC and SSC effects of the On Binding framework are derivable) creates a serious problem. The problem is due to the fact that in one respect Wh-traces and other variables do seem to obey the NIC. More specifically the structure in (1) is excluded if ... is non-null, where t is the variable bound by a, and a is a Wh-phrase or its trace in COMP. (1)

* -g[a —g[t INFL VP]]

13 6

Syn tac tic Modularity

t is nominative in this case, since AGR assigns nominative Case to the subject it governs. In the On Binding framework, the ungrammatically of (1) can be explained as an NIC violation, and there is no need to posit an additional [*that-trace] filter. Examples of (1) include so-called thattrace effects and the superiority condition: (2)

* whOj do you t h i n k ^ [ t j that s [ t - s a w Bill]]

(3)

* it is unclear"g [whatj g[who saw t j ]

In (2) t' is bound by the t in the COMP position and the complementizer is the non-null element of (1), which accounts for the ungrammatically of (2). In (3) it is assumed that a movement rule applies in the LF component (Wh-raising) adjoining who to the COMP. The following, then, is the LF representation of (3): (3')

LF of (3) it is unclear

[ C O M p w h 0 i [ C OMpwhatj]]

s[tj

saw ft]]

The lines mark the relevant extraction paths. Again, this is a construction of the type ruled out by (1). These examples seem to indicate that variables are indeed subject to the NIC. In fact, a number of researchers have attempted to derive the full range of complementizer-trace phenomena from the NIC. (See the works by Pesetsky, 1978, Taraldsen, 1978, and Kayne, 1980.) In Cole and Hermon (1981) it was assumed that in Imbabura Quechua complementizertrace effects were derived from a similar condition (the Case Marked Subject Island Condition). In the Government and Binding framework, however, it is impossible to derive complementizer-trace phenomena from the binding conditions, since variables are excluded from binding effects (A) and (B) in general. Moreover, variables do not seem to obey the SSC, which also is derived from binding principle (A). Also, if the binding principles hold at Sstructure, how do we explain that in (3) a variable created by movement in LF seems to obey the NIC? Since there does not seem to be a connection between complementizertrace phenomena and the binding theory, it is proposed in Chomsky (1981), 4.4, that the ungrammatically of structures like (3) above follows from a different principle, which holds at logical form. This principle states that all traces (empty categories) are governed (in fact, properly governed) at LF:

The ECP in Imbabura andAncash Quechua (4)

137

The Empty Category Principle (ECP) [ e] must be properly governed. Where properly governed is defined as follows: a properly governs 0 if and only if a governs (3 and (i) a is a lexical governor, or (ii) a is coindexed with (3

Proper government can, then, be of two types. 1. Lexical government. The choice of which lexical categories count as proper governors may vary from language to language. Verbs are universally proper governors. Nouns and prepositions may or may not be proper governors. (See Borer, 1981.) AGR is never (or seldom, cf. Huang, 1982) a proper governor. COMP cannot lexically govern the embedded subject, since it is not a lexical category. 2. A second type of configuration involving proper government is one where j3 is locally controlled by a (local control). Local control is possible if a governs j3 and a and (3 are coindexed. Thus, a trace in COMP can properly govern a coindexed subject trace inside the embedded clause, if there is no material in COMP, as in (5a) below: (5)

a. whoj do you b e l i e v e g [ t j will arrive]] b. *whOj do you believe -g[tj that g[tj will arrive] ]

In (5b) the trace in S is not properly governed. This is because the complementizer that intervenes between the trace in COMP and the subject trace, blocking the c-command relationship needed for government. Assuming Wh-movement to be adjunction to COMP, we get the following structure after Wh-movement to COMP: (6)

[COMP1 [ c O M P t h a t U

If that is present the trace in COMP cannot c-command the subject trace, and hence cannot govern it, and the ECP is violated. When the complementizer is not present, the trace in COMP c-commands (and governs) the subject trace and the ECP is not violated. Note that the class of governors cannot be restricted to elements of the form X° in the X-bar system (i.e., [±N,±V]), but has to be extended to include a coindexed NP in COMP, basically by adding the stipulation that a governor (a) either is an element of the form X° or is coindexed with the element it governs. (See Chomsky, 1981,4.4, (9) on this definition of the notion governor.) Another approach explaining the difference between sentences like (5a) and (5b) above is the one argued for in Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche (1981). Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche claim that the trace in COMP can

13 8

Syn tac tic Modularity

never properly govern the embedded subject position. COMP is considered to be a maximal projection, so that nothing from inside it can ever ccommand anything which is not inside the COMP. The only element which can c-command the subject position is the COMP node itself. The COMP node can under certain conditions assume the index of the element(s) inside the COMP. It is only when the COMP node is coindexed with the subject that the ECP can be satisfied, since in these cases COMP properly governs the subject position. What then is the mechanism which enables the COMP node to assume the index of the element(s) inside it? Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche suggest the following optional percolation rule for COMP-indexing: (?)

[C0MPX'V-]

[COMP-

X

"i

-I

iff COMP dominates only

i-indexed elements In (5a) COMP contains only one element, the trace coindexed with the trace in subject position. According to rule (7) this index can be passed up to the COMP node, which as a result properly governs the trace in subject position since it now locally controls it. In (5b), however, there are two elements in COMP: the trace and the complementizer. The index of the trace cannot be passed on to the entire COMP node since COMP contains two elements which do not bear identical indices. As a result, the subject trace is not properly governed. The COMP-indexing approach makes similar predictions to the approach taken in Chomsky (1981), as far as the that-trace facts in English are concerned. Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche claim that the COMP-indexing rule must apply at S-structure. This accounts for the "superiority" facts mentioned above, in the following fashion: if the subject undergoes Wh-movement in the syntactic component (and there is no additional material in COMP), COMP assumes the index of the trace in COMP and hence locally controls the trace in subject position. This is true for both S-structure and LF. In LF, additional material (such as an additional Wh-phrase) can be moved into COMP, but this does not affect proper government of the embedded subject since COMP-indexing has taken place at S-structure. This is exemplified in (8)a and (8)b below, where (8)a represents the S-structure, and (8)b is the LF configuration: (8)

a. it is unclear [whoj [tj saw what] ] b. it is unclear [whatj whoj [tj saw tj]]

If, however, syntactic Wh-movement of a nonsubject takes place, the subject cannot undergo LF Wh-movement, since this will result in an LF

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua

139

structure in which the subject trace is not properly governed. This is due to the fact that COMP-indexing can only apply at S-structure. At Sstructure, however, the COMP does not contain any material which bears an index identical to the subject. The COMP node, therefore, does not locally control the subject, resulting in an ECP violation. This is exemplified in (9)a and b below, where (9)a is the S-structure and (9)b represents the structure at LF: (9)

a. it is unclear [whatj [who saw tj]] b. it is unclear [whoj whatj [tj saw t j ]

The i/zai-trace and superiority facts then directly follow from the ECP and from Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche's COMP-indexing rule, and from the assumption that COMP-indexing applies at S-structure. In Chomsky (1981) the superiority facts can be accounted for if one assumes that COMP is not a maximal projection, allowing certain elements in COMP to govern the subject position. Note, however, that Chomsky has to assume that an element can govern from inside a branching COMP node in order to account for the grammaticality of (8)b. At the same time, (9)b, which has the same structure as (8)b, with a different order of elements results in an ECP violation. There are certain implicit assumptions here about how Wh-elements are structured in COMP, which are not very well motivated. The Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche approach does not run into these problems. In what follows I will adopt the COMP-indexing approach. In section 5.3, evidence in favor of this approach is presented from Ancash Quechua. In this section, I have shown how the ECP and Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche's COMP-indexing rule account for an array of data previously accounted for by arbitrary filters, such as the [*that-trace] filter, and by arbitrary principles, such as the superiority condition. Next I will discuss further complications regarding the ECP and its application in languages like Italian, Imbabura and Ancash Quechua. 5.2 Complementizer-trace Phenomena in Pro-drop Languages Perlmutter (1971) was the first to note the fact that certain languages did not obey the [*that-trace] filter. He suggested that these were languages which allowed free pronoun-drop in subject position (pro-drop languages). This observation was incorporated in Chomsky and Lasnik (1977), who suggested that pro-drop languages have the option of freely deleting the subject-trace, thus voiding the [*f/za/-trace] filter. In Italian and Spanish, both languages in which subject pronouns can be freely deleted, there is

140

Syn tac tic Modularity

no complementizer-trace phenomenon: i.e., subjects are always extractable, as in (10). (10)

chi pensi che who do (you) think that

verrà? will come

In the Government and Binding framework (Chomsky, 1981,4.5), Chomsky proposes an explanation for these facts, incorporating work by Rizzi on Italian (Rizzi, 1980).1 According to Rizzi, pro-drop languages have a cluster of properties. Among others we find: (11)

a. missing subjects b. free inversion in simple sentences c. apparent violations of the [*f/wi-trace] filter

Chomsky suggests that only properties a and b characterize pro-drop languages, and that pro-drop languages observe the [*that-imct] filter (which is derived from the ECP in the Government and Binding theory). Examples to the contrary are only apparent counterexamples. In fact, in these cases Wh-movement is not out of subject position but from a postverbal position into which subjects are moved by virtue of (1 l)b. In other words, all apparent Wh-movement cases from subject position in these languages are actually movement from a post-verbal position, where the Wh-trace is properly governed by the verb. Thus in Italian, (10) is not an ECP violation, because the structure from which Wh-movement occurred is (12) and not (13): (12)

pensi

[che g[a verrà chi]]

(13)

pensi-g[che g[chi verrà]]

In (12) chi is in a post-verbal position due to free inversion. In this position chi is properly governed by the verb verrà and extraction from this position does not violate the ECP. Thus, in effect, pro-drop languages obey the ECP just as non pro-drop languages do. At what level does the ECP hold? Note that in explaining the ungrammatically of (3) above, it was assumed that a variable created by an LF movement rule violated the ECP. If LF variables obey the ECP, this constraint must hold at LF. Moreover, Chomsky (1981), based on Kayne (1979), Rizzi (1980), and Jaeggli (1981), points out that variables formed in the LF component in Italian and Spanish also seem to obey the ECP. (See Chomsky, 1981, 4.2 (17).) In conclusion, we must assume that the ECP holds at LF, as both traces left by syntactic Move-a and variables created by LF movement obey the ECP.

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua

141

The next issue to address is the nature of the connection between properties (1 l)a and (1 l)b of pro-drop languages and the question of why only languages with missing subjects allow inversion. Chomsky suggests that pro-drop languages differ from non pro-drop languages in allowing PRO instead of pronoun in subject position. According to the Avoid Pronoun principle (see 4.5.2 above), PRO should be used instead of a full pronoun wherever possible. In a language like English, however, in which the subject position is governed by AGR (in finite clauses), PRO cannot be used, since PRO has to be ungoverned. Pro-drop languages, therefore, must have some property allowing them to use PRO in this position. Clearly, if PRO only appears in ungoverned positions, in pro-drop languages the subject position in finite clauses must be ungoverned (under certain conditions), hence accepting PRO. It is a well-known observation that languages which allow missing subjects usually have a "rich" agreement system on the verb. Chomsky suggests that in pro-drop languages AGR is actually moved in the syntactic component onto the verbal element on which agreement is morphologically manifested. Hence, AGR does not govern the subject position in S-structure, where the binding principles hold. Technically, this effect is achieved by allowing AGR to affix to the verbal element of VP (Chomsky's rule-/?). (See Chomsky, 1981, 4.5.) Rule-/? is an optional rule in the syntax of pro-drop languages. In non-pro-drop languages it is a morphological rule in the PF component and thus does not affect S-structure or LF. If rule-/? applies in the syntax, the subject is in an ungoverned position, and thus can be filled by PRO. Moreover, once rule-/? applies in the syntax, the subject position must be PRO. If it is filled by a lexical NP, this NP cannot receive nominative Case, since it is not governed by AGR in S-structure (or PF), where Case is checked. Thus, in Spanish a sentence like comiste *you ate' has the following derivation: (14)

D-structure: PRO1 AGR'

(15)

Vp

[com-]

S-structure (after rule-/? has applied): PRO1

Vp

[com- AGR1]

In S-structure PRO is ungoverned, and the binding principles are satisfied. How is the characteristic of having rule-/? in the syntax related to inversion? Note that if rule-/? applies and the subject is a lexical NP (and not base-generated PRO), this NP cannot receive Case. After the application of rule-/?, AGR does not govern the subject anymore. As a result, in a sentence like (15), a lexical NP instead of PRO would be ruled out by the

142

Syntactic Modularity

Case filter. In languages which allow free inversion there is a way to "save" such a derivation by inverting the subject NP and adjoining it to the right of the VP. This will produce the following S-structure: (16)

tj 1 yptyptcom- AGR1] Juan/]

Chomsky suggests in 4.4.5 that PRO is inserted to cover up the trace position in (17): (17)

PRO/

V p[vp[com-

AGR*] Juan/]

The PRO is now coindexed with the post-verbal NP and also co-superscripted with AGR and the post-verbal NP. Juan is co-superscripted with and governed by AGR and receives nominative Case from AGR. (See Chomsky, 1981,4.4.5, on details of assigned Case to post-verbal NPs.) The connection between missing subjects (i.e., PRO as a subject of a finite clause), inversion, and the option of having rule-i? in the syntax is clear then: inversion and PRO insertion cannot take place unless rule-/? applies in the syntax leaving the subject position ungoverned. Apparent ECP violations exist only in languages where rule-/? applies in the syntax (accompanied by inversion and subject PRO insertion). These apparent violations are actually extractions of NPs from a post-verbal position where the trace is always properly governed by the verbal element. A different approach is presented in Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding (Chomsky, 1982). According to the typology of empty categories developed in this work, the empty category in subject position in languages like Italian cannot be PRO. There are several reasons for this. Hie empty category in these languages functions as an empty pronominal, not a pronominal anaphor. For example, in (18) below the empty category has a definite reference just like its overt counterpart in English, while in (19) the empty category is a pleonastic element like English there and is used nonreferentially: (18)

e hablo 'I speak'

(19)

e llego un tren 'There arrived a train'

Chomsky concludes that the missing subject is therefore neither PRO nor trace, but pro which has the features [-anaphor, +pronominal]. As a pronominal nonanaphor, this empty category (unlike PRO) has to be governed, and has to satisfy only principle (B) of the binding theory. The empty

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua

143

category must be pro, by the following reasoning: this empty category is free and, hence, receives the feature [+pronominal]. Moreover, it cannot be [+anaphor] since this feature can only be selected in an ungoverned position, otherwise binding theory would be violated. Hence, the empty category must be [+pronominal, -anaphor]: i.e., pro. A number of things follow from the assumption that the missing pronoun in languages like Italian is pro. First of all, two types of pro can be established: if pro is part of a chain containing a distinct argument, it is pleonastic (as in (19) above); otherwise it is an argument (but cf. 3.2). In both cases there is a requirement that pro be "locally determined". All empty categories must be somehow determined. For example, the content of traces is determined by their antecedents; the content of PRO is also determined by an antecedent, or is fixed with an arbitrary variablelike interpretation if there is no antecedent. Chomsky claims that pro must be locally determined by AGR. In order for AGR to be able to locally determine the empty category, AGR must be "rich enough": i.e., it must be specified enough for number, gender and person to determine the grammatical features of the missing subject. This is a variation of the suggestion made in Taraldsen (1978). It predicts that in a language like English AGR cannot locally determine an empty category in subject position since AGR is not "rich enough". In Italian, however, AGR can determine the empty category and hence Italian allows pro in subject position. Note that there are various technical ways to characterize what would constitute rich enough AGR, but I will not address this question here. See Chomsky, (1982), p. 86, and also Borer (1981) on this issue. What then is the connection between missing subjects, inversion and extraction from subject position in the Concepts and Consequences system? Clearly, demanding that the empty category (pro) be locally determined predicts that languages which have a rich enough agreement system to determine pro in subject position will also allow pro in this position with an inverted subject in post-verbal position. In the latter case, pro is the member of a chain, with a distinct argument (the post-verbal subject). Hence,pro is pleonastic, as in (20) below: (20)

pro 1 AGR1 [[ypcom-] Juan1] past eat Juan 'Juan ate'

In (20) AGR and pro are co-superscripted, and pro is also co-superscripted with the subject in post-verbal position. I will assume that Case assignment will be via the chain to the post-verbal subject and not directly by AGR (which, according to Chomsky (1981), attaches to the verb in the syntax of some languages). Case is then assigned in the following fashion: the

144

Syntactic

Modularity

subject NP is adjoined to VP by inversion. This leaves behind an empty category in subject position, which is coindexed with the moved NP. The empty category is then contextually determined: it must be [+pronominal] since it is free (the subject NP which is adjoined to VPdoesnot c-command it and does not bind it), and also must be [-anaphor] since it appears in a governed position. Therefore, it must be pro. pro must be locally determined by AGR, and it also receives nominative Case since it is coindexed with and governed by AGR. Since it is co-superscripted with the post-verbal NP, this NP and pro are members of the same chain. This is further discussed in 6.6. Note that the assumption that the post-verbal NP gets its Case via Case inheritance or Case assignment to a chain makes it possible to dispense with rule-./? in the syntax of pro-drop languages. In Chomsky (1981), as discussed above, rule-./? lowering AGR onto the verb has to apply in the syntax of languages like Italian, in order to ensure that the subject position is ungoverned. This was necessary, since it was assumed that the empty category in this position was PRO, which can only occur in an ungoverned position. Only if rule-/? applied in the syntax leaving the subject position ungoverned could inversion take place. This correlation is not possible in the current framework. Since by contextual determination the empty category is pro, it is assumed that this is a governed position. Inversion is possible now due to the fact that if the language has a rich enough AGR to determine pro in subject position, it can also allow pro in this position after inversion. Rule-./? is not needed to make inversion an option in these languages, nor does its application in the syntax make inversion obligatory. Moreover, note that if rule-./? were to apply in the syntax component, pro would be in an ungoverned position: i.e., pro would not be possible after the application of rule-./? which lowers AGR onto the verb. Another way of governing the subject position would then have to be found for the instances where rule-/? has applied. This is a serious problem and is discussed briefly in Chomsky (1982), Chapter 5. Chomsky suggests, following Torrego (1981), that the verb be allowed to move into COMP in some cases to govern the empty category (pro) in subject position. I will not discuss the nature of the evidence for such a move, but let me note that verb raising does not seem to be an option in all languages which allow missing subjects. Instead I will assume that rule-/? always applies in PF in all languages. Since inversion can apply independently of rule-/?, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence for positing rule-/? in the syntax, especially since this leads to complications, as mentioned above. Since it is possible to explain the appearance of nominative Case on the post-verbal NP by Case assignment to a chain without referring to rule-/?, there is no necessity to posit rule-/? in the syntax. Let me summarize, then, what the connection is between missing sub-

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua

145

jects, inversion and apparent ECP violations in the framework of Chomsky (1982): inversion can only take place if the language has a rich enough AGR to locally determine pro in subject position. Hence, only languages which allow missing subjects also allow inversion. Apparent ECP violations in these languages are due to extraction from a post-verbal position, where the trace is properly governed by the verb. The properties of missing subjects, inversion and apparent ECP violations, then, seem to cluster together in this system just as they did in Chomsky (1981). The connections among these properties will be further discussed in the next section (5.3), and a refinement of the definition of pro-drop language will be proposed. 5.3 The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua 5.3.1 Introduction In order to use the ECP as a test for subjecthood in Imbabura Quechua, we must establish two things: (a) that the ECP indeed holds in Imbabura Quechua, and (b) that Imbabura Quechua does not allow free inversion and lexical government of the subject by the verb in an adjoined position. If Imbabura Quechua were like Italian, the fact that an NP is extractable would not be evidence that it is a nonsubject. This is so since, in languages which have inversion, subjects are extractable from the post-verbal position (properly governed by V) to which they are moved due to inversion. 5.3.2 The ECP, Local Control and COMP-indexing in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua Let us turn to the Imbabura Quechua data now. As mentioned in Cole and Hermon (1981), embedded subjects are never extractable by Wh-movement in Imbabura Quechua:2 (21)

a. *pi - tajj Maria - ka ^[tj chayamu-shka-ta]] who-nom-wh qu Maria-nom-top arrive -Nom -acc kri - n ? believe-pr 3 ('Who does Maria believe (that) has arrived?') b. *pi - tajj Maria - ka "g[tj g[tj aycha-ta who-nom-wh qu Maria-nom-top meat-acc miku - chun ] ] muna - n ? eat-finite (subj) want-pr 3 ('Who does Maria want (that) eat the meat?')

146

Syntactic

Modularity

Objects, however, are freely extractable : (22)

a. ima -ta-tajj Maria - ka [t- g[Juzi what-acc-wh qu Maria-nom-top José-nom t j miku-shka-ta]] kri - n ? eat-Nom-acc believe-pr 3 'What does Maria believe (that) José ate?' ^[tjgfJuan b. pi- ta-tajj Maria - ka who-acc-wh qu Maria-nom-top Juan-nom t j riku-shka-ta ]] ya - n ? see-Nom-acc think-pr 3 'Who(m) does Maria think (that) Juan saw?'

The question is whether the subject-object asymmetry observed in (21)(22) falls out from the ECP as formulated above. At first glance, it does not seem to follow from the ECP. I shall assume that in Imbabura Quechua there is a COMP position to the left of the S. I make this assumption because Wh-movement in Imbabura is to the beginning of the sentence. Also, notice that there is no overt complementizer in Imbabura Quechua which could prevent COMP-indexing from applying. Thus, consider again the structure for (21)a repeated below: (21)

a. *pi-tajj Maria-ka-g[tj g[tj yp[chayamu-shka-ta] kri-n]]

In (21)a COMP is able to acquire an index (i) due to the application of the COMP-indexing rule. COMP then locally controls the subject trace and the ECP should be satisfied and (21)a should be grammatical (just like its English counterpart.) But, in fact, (21)a is ungrammatical. In what follows I will discuss a possible solution to the facts noted here. The solution is, however, rejected since it makes incorrect predictions for Imbabura Quechua. A different solution, based on a refinement of the control from COMP parameter, will be suggested. An obvious £ut ultimate untenable proposal would be to claim that in Imbabura Quechua the COMP node in embedded clauses is always filled by a complementizer. This predicts that in sentences like (21)-(22) above there is a complementizer in COMP, blocking the COMP-indexing rule and preventing proper government. Since object traces are always governed by the verb, this predicts that subjects are never extractable by Wh-movement in Imbabura Quechua, while objects are. The assumption is, then, that at S-structure Imbabura Quechua has a complementizer which prevents COMP from being coindexed with the trace in embedded subject position. What account is there for the fact that in surface structure Imbabura Quechua seems to lack a complementizer? There are at least two possible

The ECP in Imbabura andAncash

147

Quechua

accounts for this fact: (a) the complementizer could undergo deletion in the PF component, or (b) the complementizer can be moved out of COMP (in PF) and show up in a different location in the sentence in surface structure. Note that all embedded clauses have either a nominalizer (finite or nonfinite) or a subjunctive marker (finite or nonfinite). These clause-type markers are attached to the right-hand side of the embedded clause in surface structure, and always appear as suffixes attached to the embedded verb (which is the final element of the embedded clause). It could be claimed that in D-structure these markers appear on the left side, in the COMP position. It is not unreasonable to analyze these markers as complementizers: they mark types of clauses and they are mutually exclusive. It is reasonable, then, to generate them in the COMP position. This was, in fact, suggested by Lefebvre and Muysken (1979). They suggested that these markers be generated in a right-hand side COMP position for Cuzco Quechua. The analysis suggested here differs from theirs in that it would appear that the complementizers are in a left-hand side COMP in Dstructure, S-structure and LF. The complementizer is then attached to the right of the verb in the PF component by a rule which lowers the complementizer onto the verb. If one were to adopt this analysis, the following base rules would be necessary in Imbabura Quechua: (23)

COMP [±Wh] The [-Wh] complementizers are: -shka -na -j -y/-na -chun -ngapaj

if INFL is [+past] if INFL is [+future] if INFL is [+present] for [-tense, -AGR] indicative clauses for [-tense, +AGR] subjunctive clauses for [-tense, -AGR] subjunctive clauses

A sentence like (21)a would have the following D-structure under this analysis:3 (24)

Maria-ka "g [shka s [pi-taj INFL (past) chayamu-]]

kri-n

After Wh-movement (24) has the following structure: (25)

pi-taj| Maria-ka

[tj shka g[tj INFL (past) chayamu-]] kri-n

In (25) COMP contains two nonidentical elements. COMP-indexing cannot apply, and the ECP rules the sentence out. Subsequently, in the PF component, the complementizer is lowerd onto the embedded verb. Imbabura

148

Syntactic

Modularity

Quechua, then, differs from English in its base component: while English has (26)a for expanding COMP, Imbabura Quechua has (26)b: (26)

a. S b. S

(COMP) S COMP S

On the basis of (26)a subject extraction is allowed by the ECP in English in those cases in which COMP is not expanded. In Imbabura Quechua the option of not expanding COMP is not available. Hence the ECP always blocks extraction from subject position. Although the assumption that Imbabura Quechua always has a complementizer present (at S-structure and LF) may seem to solve certain problems, this analysis must be rejected since it rules out some grammatical sentences in Imbabura Quechua. More specifically, assuming (26)b to be the base rule for expanding COMP in Imbabura Quechua incorrectly predicts that no traces can ever be left in subject position in Imbabura Quechua, not even NP-traces, since the ECP holds of all empty categories. This contradicts the analysis of Imbabura Quechua complementation presented in 4.3. In that section it was proposed that certain verbs could S-delete and exceptionally govern and Case mark the embedded subject position. This explained the accusative Case for embedded subjects under verbs like munana 'to want', krina 'to believe', and yarn 'to think'. Under the assumption that the COMP node is always filled, the following structure must be assumed for embedded clauses under these verbs at D-structure: (27)

"g[Maria-ka -g[shka g[Juan-da INFLmiku-]] kri - n ] Maria-nom-top compl Juan-acc eatbelieve-pr 3

Note that S-deletion has to be able to apply in (27) resulting in (28). In (28) krina can Case mark and govern the embedded subject position, as discussed in 4.3 above. (28)

"g[Maria-ka shka g[Juan-da INFLmiku-] kri - n ] Maria-nom-top compl Juan-acc eatbelieve-pr 3

It seems highly unlikely, however, that S-deletion should be able to apply when the COMP node has lexical material in it. This would involve deleting a branching node which contains lexical material. Thus, on the assumption that the COMP node is always filled in Imbabura Quechua, blocking Sdeletion of a branching S-node, grammatical sentences such as (29) below should be ungrammatical:

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua (29)

149

Juan-ga Maria-ta chayamu-shka-ta kri - n Juan-nom Maria-acc arrive -Nom-acc believe-pr 3 'Juan believes Maria to have arrived'

(29) has the following structure if S-deletion does not apply: (30)

Juan-ga ^[shka g[Maria-ta INFLchayamu ]] kri-n

In (30) Maria cannot be governed by the matrix verb krina 'to believe', since S-deletion cannot apply. There is, hence, no source for the accusative Case on the embedded subject, and (29) should be ungrammatical. This, however, is a grammatical sentence in Imbabura Quechua, as discussed in 4.3 above. Note that there is no non-ad hoc way to eliminate the complementizer in COMP just in the cases in which S-deletion should apply. One could presumably posit a syntactic rule affixing the complementizer to the right of the embedded verb in the syntax (rather than PF), a rule similar to Chomsky's rule-/? attaching AGR to the verb. There is no way, however, to ensure this option in only exercised in case S-deletion also applies. In contrast, if the complementizer affixing rule in the syntax is allowed to apply freely, (31) is generated after the rule has applied. (31) is a structure in which the trace is the only element in COMP and the COMP node properly governs the subject trace. This is the same structure in which it was necessary to prevent proper government of the subject trace from taking place. (Cf. (21) above.) (31)

*pi - tajj Juan ^[tj s[tj who-nom-whqu Juan-nom chayamu-shka-ta]] kri - n? arrive-Nom-acc believe-pr 3 ('Who did Juan believe has arrived?')

In conclusion, the hypothesis that there always is a complementizer in COMP in Imbabura Quechua must be abandoned. What, then, could explain the difference between English, a language in which Wh-movement of a subject in a structure like (31) is grammatical and Imbabura Quechua, a language in which subject extraction is always ungrammatical? Note that the English equivalent of (31) (given as (32) below) does not violate the ECP, because of the fact that after the application of COMP-indexing, the COMP node properly governs the embedded subject trace: (32)

whOj did John believe -g[tj [tj has arrived]]?

150

Syntactic

Modularity

I would like to suggest that the Imbabura Quechua facts can be explained if a parameter for control from COMP is posited. This parameter is a refined version of the control from COMP parameter proposed in Koopman and Sportiche (1981). Although the Koopman and Sportiche parameter in its original form cannot account for the data in Imbabura Quechua, a refinement of this parameter makes the correct predictions. Koopman and Sportiche propose that some languages allow control from COMP, while others do not. Languages which allow control from COMP have the Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche COMP-indexing rule, while languages not allowing control from COMP lack this rule. They suggest that such a parameter is needed to account for the data in languages like Vata, in which subject extraction is always prohibited if a resumptive pronoun is not left behind. This is true for extraction from both main clauses and embedded clauses: (33)

a. alo who he

mli

\k

left

wh

'^h0left?' . b. yi fi gugu na

(*0) j , j

bli

what you think that it fell 'What do you think happened?'

la wh

Koopman and Sportiche claim that languages like Vata are marked [-] for the control from COMP parameter, therefore never allowing control from COMP. Koopman and Sportiche also suggest that this is the unmarked option. This predicts that if a language has any other means of properly governing subjects (such as by an inversion rule), it will not allow control from COMP; that is, control from COMP is an option only in languages in which there is no other way of properly governing the subject position. Vata has the option of a resumptive pronoun for Wh-movement, thus avoiding the ECP altogether. A language like English, however, in which neither inversion nor resumptive pronouns are possible, allows control from COMP. Can the control from COMP parameter be extended to explain the facts of Imbabura and Ancash Quechua? Given the data from Imbabura Quechua considered up to this stage, it would seem that Imbabura Quechua is simply a language which is marked [-] for the parameter, thereby prohibiting extraction from subject position, even though the COMP node contains only a single element (trace) which is coindexed with the trace in subject position. Imbabura Quechua would appear to be exactly like Vata, except for the fact that Imbabura Quechua does not have resumptive pronouns in the Wh-extraction site.

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua

151

Under closer analysis, it becomes clear, however, that it cannot be claimed that Imbabura Quechua simply does not allow control from COMP. In what follows I will present evidence that the control from COMP parameter needs to be refined in light of the data from Imbabura Quechua and Ancash Quechua. It will be shown that Imbabura and Ancash Quechua allow control from COMP only if there is a lexical Wh-element in COMP, and do not allow control from COMP if there is a trace in COMP. To phrase the generalization differently, it seems that traces cannot pass on their index via the COMP-indexing rule, but lexical Wh-elements can. The distinction between Vata, Imbabura and Ancash Quechua, and English is, then, as follows: Vata allows no COMP-indexing rule, Imbabura and Ancash Quechua allow it under limited circumstances and English always allows it. In what follows I will present further evidence for this analysis of Imbabura and Ancash Quechua. The data from Ancash Quechua will also constitute evidence in favor of adopting the Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche approach of COMP-indexing. In the next section (5.3.3) I will propose and reject a number of other possible analyses for this data. Turning now to the data, it is immediately obvious that Imbabura Quechua is unlike Vata in that it allows extraction of subjects from main clauses:4 (34)

[pi-tajj [tj shamu-rka] ] who-nom-wh qu leave-past 3 'Who left?'

Therefore, control from COMP must be allowed in Imbabura Quechua under some conditions. It was suggested above that control is allowed if there is a Wh-phrase in COMP: i.e., Wh-phrases but not traces can pass on their indices to the COMP node. This is the case in (34) above. Since in simple sentences the Wh-phrase is always in COMP locally controlling the subject position, extraction is possible. Note, however, that this is not the only piece of evidence for the proposal that there is a distinction in Imbabura Quechua between traces and Wh-phrases, as far as control from COMP is concerned. There exists in Imbabura Quechua another construction in which the embedded subject position is locally controlled by a Wh-phrase. As predicted by the system described above, just in these instances, where a Wh-phrase shows up in the COMP immediately preceding the embedded subject trace, extraction is allowed. I will next describe the evidence from Imbabura Quechua. Imbabura Quechua has a strategy for questioning out of embedded clauses which involves pied-piping of the entire embedded clause into the matrix COMP. This is illustrated in (35) below for object extraction:

152

Syntactic

Modularity

(35)

COMP tcOMP [^ ma "t a i S t w a w a t i miku-chun-taj]]]j what-acc child-nom eat-finite-wh qu Maria tj muna-n Maria-nom want-pr 3 'What does Maria want (that) the child eat?'

In (35) the entire embedded clause has been pied piped into the matrix COMP. The Wh-phrase imata is in the COMP of its own clause, and not in situ. As discussed in 2.4, Imbabura Quechua does not allow in situ Whquestions. Pied-piping itself does not violate the ECP since the pied-piped clause (which is a nominalized complement), leaves a trace which is lexically governed by the verb of the matrix clause. Surprisingly, subjects of embedded clauses are extractable by the piedpiping strategy: i.e., there is no subject-nonsubject asymmetry. Compare (35), in which an object is extracted, to (36), in which an embedded subject is extracted, using the pied-piping strategy: (36)

Pied-piping and extraction of subjects in Imbabura Quechua a

- [pij [tj aycha-ta miku-chun-taj]]j Maria tj muna-n who-nom meat-acc eat-finite-wh qu Maria want-pr 3 'Whom does Maria want to eat the meat?' b- [pij [tj chayamu-shka-ta-taj]]j Maria tj kri-n who-nom arrive -Nom-acc-wh qu Maria believe-3 pr 'Who does Maria believe has arrived?' The grammaticality of (36)a and b is explained by the fact that at Sstructure, in the pied-piped questions there is a Wh-phrase in COMP. This Wh-phrase can pass on its index to the COMP node. Hence, the embedded subject trace is properly governed, and no ECP violation results. This construction, then, provides an "escape hatch" for Wh-movement from subject position. The fact that subjects are extractable in this construction also provides independent evidence for the claim that Imbabara Quechua allows COMP-indexing only if COMP contains a Wh-phrase coindexed with the embedded subject. Ancash Quechua is even more interesting in this respect. In Ancash Quechua Wh-in situ is an option (albeit a somewhat less frequently used option): (37)

In situ Wh-questions in Ancash Quechua Rosa pi- wan- taq parla-n Rosa-nom who-with-wh qu speak-pr 3 'Who is Rosa speaking with?'

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua

153

As already mentioned, Ancash Quechua like Imbabura Quechua does not allow subject extraction from nonpied-piped embedded clauses. The following, however, is an example of what seems to be an in situ Whquestion of an embedded subject : (38)

pensa-nki pi Lima-ta aywa-na- n-ta think-pr 2 who-nom Lima-to go-Nom-3-acc 'Who do you think will go to lima?'

If we assume that pi in (38) is in situ at S-structure, this should not be a grammatical sentence since the ECP is violated at LF: (38')

LF of (38) pij [pensa-nki whoj think-pr 2

"g[t^ [tj Lima-ta aywa-na- n-ta]]] 5 Lima-to go - Nom-3-acc

I would like to claim that (38), in fact, has a different S-structure; a structure in which there is a Wh-phrase in COMP, which is coindexed with the subject trace. Note that in addition to Wh-in situ, Ancash Quechua also allows movement into COMP, and it allows Wh-words in the intermediate COMPs in surface-structure, as exemplified below: (39)

Movement to non-initial COMP in Ancash Quechua a. Wh-word in COMP of S3 -g [krei - nki -g [Maria muna-nqa-n-ta * believe-pr 2 ^ Maria-nom want-Nom-3-acc -g [ima-taj g[José t j ranti-na-n-ta]]]] ^ what-whqu José-nom buy- Nom-3-acc 'What do you believe Maria wants José to buy?' b. Wh-word in COMP of S 2 •g [krei - nki -g [ima-taj g[Maria 1 believe-pr 2 ^ what-wh qu Maria-nom muna-nqa-n-ta -g [tj [José t j ranti-na-n-ta] ] ] ] ] want-Nom-3-acc ^ José-nom buy-Nom-3-acc 'What do you believe Maria wants José to buy?'

I will claim, then, that in situ Wh-subjects in embedded clauses are ruled out by the ECP, and sentence (38) above is an example of a Wh-phrase in non-matrix COMP, an option always available in Ancash Quechua. At Sstructure (38) has the following configuration:

154

Syntactic

(40)

S-structure of (38) pensa-nki think-pr 2

Modularity

cqmP ^ who

L™ 3 "^ aywa-na -n-ta] ] Lima-to go -Nom-3-acc

The COMP-indexing rule applies since there is a Wh-word in COMP at Sstructure. (40) is not an embedded question. Hence,pi^ in the lower COMP must be raised to the matrix COMP by Wh-raising in LF. This results in the LF configuration (40'): (40')

LF of (40) [pij [pensa-nki [tj [tj Lima-ta aywa-na-n-ta] ] ] ] think-pr 2 Lima-to go-Nom-3-acc

It is irrelevant that at LF, as exemplified in (40'), there is a trace and not a Wh-phrase in COMP. Since the indexing rule applies at S-structure and not in LF, the sentence obeys the ECP at LF. I consider this to be independent evidence for the Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche approach. Note the approach taken in Chomsky (1981), which assumes that the trace in COMP (and not the COMP node) properly governs the subject trace, cannot account for the grammaticality of (40). In (40) at LF, after LF movement, there is only a trace in COMP, and traces cannot be proper governors in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua, as discussed above. I will conclude, then, that the complex array of data involving Whmovement in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua can only be explained if the Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche approach of COMP-indexing is adopted and if a control from COMP parameter is assumed, which ensures that Whelements but not traces can pass on their indices to COMP in these languages. Before concluding the discussion of Wh-movement in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua, I would like to discuss an additional strategy for questioning embedded subjects in Imbabura Quechua. As shown above, embedded subjects can never be extracted by Wh-movement directly (i.e., without pied-piping of the entire embedded clause). The explanation provided for this was based on the claim that Imbabura Quechua does not allow control from COMP, unless COMP contains a lexical element (a Whphrase) coindexed with the embedded subject. Note that the parameter only refers to control from COMP. If the subject is properly governed by some other means (such as lexical government), extraction should be grammatical. Under what circumstances can embedded subjects in Imbabura Quechua be lexically governed? As discussed in 5.4 below, Imbabura Quechua does not allow inversion in embedded clauses; hence, the subject cannot be

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua

155

moved to a post-verbal position where it can be governed by the verb. There exists, however, another configuration in which embedded subjects can be lexically governed. In embedded clauses under S-deleting verbs, after S-deletion has applied, the embedded subject is lexically governed by the S-deleting verb. This verb assigns Case to the embedded subject and, in effect, properly governs it. The prediction is, then, that under such verbs, if S-deletion has applied, subjects would be extractable. For example, if the S-deleting option is exercised under a verb such as krina t o believe', and the embedded subject is Case marked with accusative Case by the matrix verb, the subject should be extractable. This is, in fact, the case in Imbabura Quechua, as shown in the following examples: (41)

S-deletion and extraction from subject position a. pi -ta-tajj kri - ngi g[tj who-acc-wh qu believe-pr 2 'Who do you believe died?' b. pi - ta-tajj muna-ngi g[tj who-acc-wh qu want-pr 2 'Who do you want to come?'

wanu-shka-ta] ? die-Nom-acc shamu - chun]? come-finite

The Wh-word pitataj appears with accusative Case in the examples in (41). This is due to the fact that after S-deletion, the trace is Case marked by the matrix verb. Since in an A-chain Case marking is passed on to the head from the A-position, the Wh-word appears with accusative Case. Note that if S-deletion has not taken place, extraction of the nominative subject from the embedded clause is blocked by the ECP, as shown in (21) above, repeated here for convenience: (21)

*pi - tajj Maria - ka -g[tj g[tj chayamu-shka-ta]] who-nom-wh qu Maria-nom-top arrive-Nom-acc kri - n ? believe-pr 3 ('Who does Maria believe (that) has arrived?')

Similarly, if a verb does not allow S-deletion, extraction of the subject will always be blocked by the ECP. Nonsubject extraction, as expected, is grammatical in all these cases. This is examplified below, with the verb nina, which does not allow S-deletion: (42)

a. Extraction from subject position *pi - tajj ni-wa-rka-ngi ^ [ t j [tj wanu-shka-ta]]? who-nom-wh qu say-1 OM-past-2 die -Nom -acc ('Who did you say to me had died?')

156

Syntactic

Modularity

b. Extraction from nonsubject position ima-ta-tajj ni-wa-rka-ngi "g [tj [Maria t j randi-shka-ta] ] what-acc-wh qu say-1 OM-past 2 Maria-nom buy- Nom-acc 'What did you say to me Maria bought?' In this section I have demonstrated that the subject-nonsubject asymmetry found in Imbabura Quechua syntactic movement is due to the ECP. Imbabura Quechua seems at first glance to be the type of language where the ECP does not predict a subject-object asymmetry, since Imbabura Quechua lacks a complementizer, predicting that local control from COMP should always act as an "escape hatch" for subject extraction. It was shown, however, that Imbabura Quechua does not allow control from COMP if COMP contains an empty category (i.e., trace). Control from COMP is possible, however, if COMP contains a lexical Wh-element. A refinement of the Koopman and Sportiche control from COMP parameter was suggested in light of the Imbabura and Ancash Quechua data. I shall next turn to some alternative analyses for the facts presented in this section. These analyses will be shown to be inadequate and will be rejected. 5.3.3 An Alternative Analysis: Co-Case Marking This section is a digression, in that it considers and rejects an alternative analysis for the facts presented in 5.3.2. I will return to the discussion of Imbabura Quechua and Ancash Quechua as pro-drop languages in the next section. A different explanation for the Imbabura data can be given if one were to adopt the framework suggested in Muysken and Lefebvre (1982). Muysken and Lefebvre propose that in Cuzco Quechua a rule of Co-Case Marking exists, which marks the element in COMP with the Case assigned to the clause from which the element is extracted. Muysken and Lefebvre's suggestion is worked out in great detail for Cuzco. Let us then examine whether the Muysken and Lefebvre analysis can account for the Imbabura Quechua data, as far as that-trace phenomena are concerned. Note that in the Co-Case Marking approach, no special assumptions need to be made concerning a control from COMP parameter. I will show in what follows that the Co-Case Marking analysis makes the wrong prediction for the Imbabura Quechua facts, and thus cannot be maintained. 6 See also the discussion in 4.4, where Co-Case Marking (or raising as Move Case) is rejected on different grounds. The Co-Case Marking approach predicts that if a verb assigns Case to its complement, extraction of the subject will be possible as long as the extracted element agrees in Case with the Case of the whole complement.

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua

157

Although the details of the analysis are far more complicated for extraction of embedded nonsubjects, as far as embedded subjects are concerned the prediction is pretty straightforward: the extracted subject will receive accusative Case if the complement it is extracted out of bears accusative Case, and nominative Case if the complement it is extracted from is a subject complement. In the case of subject complements, the whole complement receives nominative Case since it is either in subject position or extraposed. In the latter case, it is coindexed with the subject and inherits nominative Case from the main clause subject. There are three groups of counterexamples for this claim in Imbabura Quechua. The first group involves verbs like nina 'to say' and villana 'to tell', which do not allow extraction of subjects, although they Case mark their complements with accusative Case and allow nonsubject extraction. In the framework I have adopted, these are simply not S-deleting verbs. In the Muysken and Lefebvre framework, these verbs should either allow extraction with accusative Case from all complement positions, or not allow extraction at all (if these verbs are not Cas" ssigners for some reason). 7 As shown above in (42), subject extraction under these verbs is prohibited, while nonsubject extraction is grammatical: (43)

a. Extraction from subject position *pi - tajj ni-wa-rka-ngi "g [tj [tj wanu-shka-ta] ] ? who-nom-wh qu say-1 OM-past-2 die- Nom -acc 'Who did you say to me had died?' b. Extraction from nonsubject position imata-tajj ni-wa -rka-ngi "g [tj [Maria tj randi-shka-ta] ] what-acc-wh qu say-1 OM-past-2 Maria-nom buy- Nom-acc 'What did you say to me Maria bought?'

A different type of problem for the Co-Case Marking analysis is presented by complements of predicative adjectives such as cushi 'happy'. Since adjectives are not Case assigners, Muysken and Lefebvre would have to claim that there can be no extraction out of complements of predicative adjectives. Hence, no subject-object asymmetry is predicted. However, non pied-piped extraction from these complements is possible for nonsubjects, but prohibited for subjects. This follows from the ECP and the control from COMP parameter, but not from Co-Case Marking:

15 8

Syn tactic Modularity

(44)

a. Wh-extraction of nonsubject from complement of predicate adjective ima - ta - taj- Francisco cushi cushi "g [Maria t j what-acc -wh qu Francisco happy happy randi - chun] buy - finite 'What is Francisco very happy that Maria will buy?' b. Wh-extraction of subject from complement of predicate adjective Francisco cushi cushi [tj carru-ta *pi - tajj who-nom-wh qu Francisco happy happy car- acc randi-chun] buy- Nom ('Who(m) is Francisco very happy that will buy a car?')

A third type of problem is encountered when subject complements are considered. Imbabura Quechua has finite subject complements, with matrix predicative adjectives like ali 'good'. The subject complement appears with nominative Case and following the Co-Case Marking approach the embedded subject should be extractable with nominative Case. Note, however, that subjects of finite subject complements are never extractable, while objects are: (45)

[Juan wajcha-man kulki - ta kara-shka-ka] Juan orphan-to silver-acc give-Nom -top 'That Juan gave money to the orphan is good'

ali-mi good-val

(46)

Wh-extraction of subject from subject complement *pi - tajj ali [tj [tj wajcha-man kulki - ta kara-shka -ka] ] who- wh qu good orphan-to silver-acc give- Nom - top ('Who is it good gave money to the orphan?')

(47)

Wh-extraction of object from subject complement ima - ta - tajj ali [tj [Juan wajcha-man t j kara-shka-ka]] what-acc-wh qu good Juan orphan-to give-Nom -top 'What is it good that Juan gave to the orphan?'

This is predicted under the analysis in 5.3.2. The subject trace in (46) is not properly governed, since COMP-indexing cannot apply when there is a trace in COMP. Under the Co-Case Marking approach, extraction should be possible with nominative Case for embedded subjects.

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua

159

In this section, I have considered an alternative analysis for the thattrace facts in Imbabura. This analysis (the Lefebvre and Muysken raising as Move Case approach) does not involve the assumption that Imbabura Quechua differs from other languages in not allowing traces in COMP to locally control the embedded subject position. I have shown that this analysis cannot account for the data in Imbabura Quechua and, hence, cannot be maintained for Imbabura Quechua. 5.4 The Pro-drop Parameter Revisited I shall next turn to the question of what constitutes the pro-drop parameter in Universal Grammar. In Chomsky (1981), chapter 4, it was suggested that certain properties tend to occur in clusters in languages. More specifically, Chomsky lists the following properties as candidates for clustering together: 1. missing subjects 2. free inversion 3. apparent violations of the "i/wrf-trace" filter. In Italian we find all three properties, while in English we do not. Together, these properties constitute the pro-drop parameter. Note that in effect it is the occurrence of free inversion which predicts that the language has an effective "escape hatch" from the ECP. If a language has free inversion, subjects can be extracted by first inverting the subject into a postverbal position which is governed by the verb. Extraction then occurs from this post-verbal position which is properly governed, thus satisfying the ECP, as discussed in 5.2 above for Italian. Next, one should ask why the properties listed above cluster together. To phrase the matter differently, what is it in Universal Grammar that predicts the clustering of these properties? In Chomsky (1981) properties 1 and 2 follow from the assumption that a language can optionally have rule-i? in its syntactic component, rather than in PF. Once rule-./? has applied, the subject position is ungoverned and, hence, PRO can occur in this position, allowing for missing subjects and for inversion. Property 3 then follows from property 2, as discussed in 5.2. In Chomsky (1982), the connection between 1, 2 and 3 does not depend on the application of rule-7? in the syntactic component. Since both missing subjects and inversion involve pro in subject position, if the language can locally determine pro, it will exhibit missing subjects and also inversion of subjects. Property 3, again, is crucially dependent on property 2 in this system. Note that although property 2 predicts 3, the occurrence of apparent

160

Syntactic

Modularity

that-tia.ce violations in a certain language does not imply that the language also has properties 2 and 1. This is so because of the fact that a language can have some other "escape hatch" for subject extraction unrelated to inversion. For example, in West-Flemish, subjects are extractable, although West-Flemish does not allow missing subjects or inversion. (See Bennis and Haegeman, 1983.) In West-Flemish, according to Bennis and Haegeman, AGR occurs in the COMP position. Hence, complementizers in West-Flemish are coindexed (via co-superscripting) with the subject position and they properly govern the subject, thus satisfying the ECP and making subject extraction possible. As a result, in West-Flemish (and also in Dutch, Icelandic, and perhaps in all verb-second languages), the occurrence of 3 does not predict the occurrence of properties 1 or 2. In what follows I will show that a further refinement of the prodrop parameter is necessary. More specifically, Imbabura Quechua and Ancash Quechua are examples of languages which seem to have properties 1 and 2, but not property 3. I would like to claim that the fact that these languages do not allow apparent that-trace violations does not constitute a counterexample to the pro-drop parameter, but follows from the interaction of the parameter with language specific constraints. Imbabura Quechua, at first glance, is an example of a language which has property 1 (missing subjects), and, hence, must be assumed to allow determination of pro, just like Spanish and Italian. This is illustrated in (48) below: (48)

a. miku-rka-ni eat-past-1 'I ate' b. miku - ju - n eat-prog-pr 3 'He is eating'

Note the overt agreement on the verb, agreement in number and person. This suggests that the examples in (48) have the following S-structure (48'): (48')

pro 1 AGR1 [+1, +sing.] verb

In (48') pro is determined by AGR. The prediction from the pro-drop parameter is that free inversion should be allowed, since pro is always possible. This prediction is borne out in Imbabura Quechua: (49)

prOj

Maria-ta riku-rka Maria-acc see- past 'Juan saw Maria'

Juan - gaj Juan-nom-top

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua

161

In (49) inversion has applied, moving the subject into a post-verbal position. 8 Since Imbabura Quechua allows Inversion, one would expect Imbabura Quechua to also have property 3. As shown above, however, Imbabura Quechua does not allow extraction of subjects from embedded clauses (except when the conditions for local control from COMP are satisfied). This seems then to be a direct counterexample to the pro-drop parameter, since Imbabura Quechua has properties 1 and 2, but not property 3. The solution to this apparent contradiction involves a sharpening of the definition of properties 1 and 2. I will claim that properties 1 and 2 must be construction specific instead of being considered as general properties of the whole language. Imbabura Quechua, for example, allows missing subjects and Inversion in main clauses, but does not allow missing subjects and Inversion in embedded clauses. This is due to the fact that Imbabura Quechua lost the proto-Quechua morphology necessary for expression of agreement inside embedded clauses. As a result, pro cannot be determined in embedded clauses, and, hence, missing subjects are ungrammatical in embedded clauses, as illustrated below: 9 (50)

Maria-ka

[j

j

llugshi-shka-ta]

Maria-nom-top you-nom leave- Nom-acc 'Maria said that you left'

ni- rka say-past 3

The situation in Imbabura Quechua forces us to realize that it is meaningless to speak of a certain language as allowing missing subjects in general if the language in fact only allows missing subjects in main clauses. Technically speaking, these facts show that the determination of pro can be construction specific, and languages like Imbabura Quechua can have "rich" agreement in main clauses but not in embedded clauses. Ancash Quechua poses a different problem for the pro-drop parameter. Ancash Quechua allows missing subjects in both main and embedded clauses, as illustrated in (51) and (52): (51)

p ro miku-rqa-a eat-past-1 'I ate'

(52)

[pro miku-na-yki-taj musya-a-mi eat-Nom- 2-acc know-pr 1-val 'I know that you will eat'

162

Syntactic

Modularity

Yet Ancash Quechua permits inversion in main clauses only: (53)

Inversion in main clauses in Ancash Quechua autu-ta ranti-rqo- n car- acc buy- past-3 'Maria bought a car'

(54)

Maria Maria

Inversion in embedded clauses in Ancash Quechua * [proj autu-ta ranti-na -n-ta Maríaj] ni - ma - rqo- n car-acc buy- Nom-3-acc Maria say-1 OM - past-3 ('He said to me that Maria will buy a car')

Does Ancash Quechua constitute a counterexample to the claim that properties 1 and 2 will always correlate? I would like to claim that the pro-drop parameter has to be interpreted to allow for independent, language specific constraints blocking inversion, even though the environment is one in which pro can be determined locally. Ancash Quechua is an example of a language in which inversion in embedded clauses is blocked since it would violate the requirement that all embedded clauses be verb final.10 Such a constraint can be independently motivated for Ancash Quechua since, in Ancash Quechua (as in Imbabura Quechua), the verb in embedded clauses has to be in clause final position. (55)

a. [Fuan Juan-nom b.*[Fuan Juan-nom 'You know

aytsa-ta miku-nqa-n-ta] musya-nki meat-acc eat- Nom-3-acc know- pr 2 miku-nqa-n - ta aytsa-ta] musya-nki eat- Nom- 3 -acc meat- acc know- pr 2 that Juan ate the meat'

Since inversion is blocked in embedded clauses, subject extraction is also ungrammatical from embedded clauses in Ancash Quechua. Under a verb like musya-, 'know', which in Ancash does not allow S-deletion and exceptional Case marking, the embedded subject cannot be extracted to the matrix COMP, while nonsubjects can be extracted: (56)

j *pi ta^taq-j who |

musya-nki [tj [tj shamu-nqa- n-ta]]

| -wh qu know- pr 2

(Who do you know has come?')

come- Nom -3-acc

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua (57)

163

ima-ta-taqj musya -nki [tj [Fuan t j randi-nqa-n-ta]] what-acc-wh qu know- pr 2 Juan buy- Nom-3-acc 'What do you know Juan bought?'

In conclusion, the data from Imbabura Quechua and Ancash Quechua forces a reinterpretation of the pro-drop parameter. It was shown that apparent that-trace violations can occur only if free inversion can apply in embedded clauses. Furthermore, it has become clear that the properties of missing subjects and inversion only cluster together if there are no language specific restrictions blocking inversion. Thus, although properties 1, 2 and 3 cluster together in general, particular languages may seem to contradict this generalization, due to the interaction of language specific rules with principles of Universal Grammar. 5.5 The ECP and Experiencer Constructions I have established in 5.3 above that the ECP holds in Imbabura Quechua. The existence of the ECP predicts a significant subject-nonsubject asymmetry. More specifically, since COMP-indexing does not apply if there is a trace in COMP, embedded subjects are never extractable unless the matrix verb governs this position after S-deletion or pied-piping has occurred. Objects, however, are always extractable by Wh-movement. I shall now examine the status of experiencers with regard to the ECP, and show that both desideratives and lexicals must be subjects at the level where the ECP applies. This is illustrated in (58)-(59) below: (58)

Wh-movement of desiderative experiencer *pi-ta- tajj Juan -g [tj g[tj punu - naya-shka-ta] ] who-acc-wh qu Juan-nom sleep-desid-Nom-acc villa-wa - rka? tell-1 OM-past 3 ('Who did Juan tell me desires to sleep?')

(59)

Wh-movement of lexical experiencer *pi -ta-tajj Juan -g [tj who-acc-wh qu Juan-nom villa-wa - rka? tell-1 OM-past 3 ('Who did Juan tell me is hungry?')

[tj yarja - j - taj] hunger-Nom-acc

The ungrammatically of (58)-(59) indicates that the experiencer NPs must be in subject position when the ECP applies. Note that the non-

164

Syntactic

Modularity

experiencer object is always extractable. In (60) a Wh-word is extracted from object position. (60)

a. ima - ta-taj-g[tj g[wawa - ta y p f t j miku-naya-shka-ta]]] what-acc-wh qu child-acc eat-desid-Nom-acc villa-wa-rka-ngi? tell-1 OM-past-2 'What did you tell me the child wanted to eat?' b. pi - ta-tajj -g[tj [Juan-da y p [ t j maka-naya-shka-ta]]] who-acc-whqu Juan-acc hit-desid-Nom-acc villa-wa - rka-ngi? tell-1 OM-past 2 'Whom did you tell me Juan desired to hit?'

The contrast between (58)-(59) and (60) above can only be found under non-S-deleting verbs, such as nina t o say' and villana t o tell'. If the higher verb allows S-deletion, extraction is possible, since the higher verb properly governs the embedded subject position. This was illustrated in (41) above. It was claimed that in the relevant examples the accusative Case marking on the Wh-element is a clear indication that S-deletion and exceptional Case marking have applied. Note, however, that in the instances in which the embedded subject is an experiencer, Case marking is accusative even without exceptional Case marking, since experiencers always have accusative Case. Since Case marking in this instance is not an indication of the application of exceptional Case marking, I will assume that in examples like (61) below, extraction of the experiencer is possible due to the fact that S-deletion has applied, causing the embedded subject position to be properly governed by the higher verb: (61)

pi- ta-taj^ Maria - ka [tj yarja- j - ta] krei- n who-acc-wh qu Maria-nom-top hunger-Nom-acc believe-pr 3 'Who does Maria believe is hungry?'

What is crucial, then, is the contrast between (58)-(59), where extraction is impossible since the higher verb does not allow S-deletion, and (61), an example in which extraction is possible due to S-deletion. Since most verbs which take object complements allow S-deletion in Imbabura Quechua, there are only a few examples in which extraction of experiencers is ungrammatical. In subject complements, however, it can be shown that experiencers, just like nominative subjects, are never extractable:

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua (62)

165

Nominative subjects are not extractable *pi - tajj ali [tj wajcha-man kulki - ta kara-shka-ka] who-nom wh qu good orphan-dat silver-acc give-Nom- top ('Who is it good gave money to the orphan?')

(63)

Experiencer NPs are not extractable a. *pi-ta- tajj ali [tj punu - naya-shka-ka] who-acc-wh qu good sleep-desid-Nom-top ('Who is it good desires to sleep?') b. *pi-ta-tajj ali [tj yarja- shka-ka] who-acc-wh qu good hunger-Nom- top ('Who is it good was hungry?')

In contrast, objects are always freely extractable from subject complements. This was discussed in 5.3.3, and is repeated here for convenience: (64)

Questioning a direct object by extraction ima - ta - tajj ali [Juan wajcha-man tj kara-shka-ka] what-acc-wh qu good Juan orphan-to give-Nom-top 'What is it good that Juan gave to the orphan?'

The sentences in (63) above show that experiencers must be in subject position when the ECP applies, accounting for the ungrammaticality of these examples. Next one should ask at which level the ECP applies. I claimed that there is evidence in languages like Italian, English and Spanish that the ECP holds at LF, since in these languages movement rules at LF create variables which obey the ECP.11 The question then is whether there are LF movement rules in Imbabura Quechua which seem to exhibit ECP effects. I will show that multiple Wh-movement in Imbabura Quechua does obey the ECP, and that some quantifier-scope facts in Ancash Quechua follow from the ECP. Ancash Quechua is used in the latter case as an example, since I have not been able to check similar facts in Imbabura Quechua. Note that, as far as the ECP is concerned. Imbabura and Ancash Quechua behave in the same manner. Ancash Quechua has not been widely used in this section because Ancash Quechua does not have experiencer constructions which behave like the constructions in Imbabura Quechua. In all other respects, however, Imbabura and Ancash Quechua are very similar as far as the ECP is concerned. I will next turn to the evidence that the ECP applies at LF in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua. In Imbabura Quechua multiple Wh-questions are possible and exhibit

166

Syntactic

Modularity

a contrast similar to the one found in English. This contrast was discussed in 5.1.1 above for English. It is assumed that in English the contrast is due to the application of the ECP at LF. (65)

pi - taj ima- ta -taj riku-rka who-wh qu what-acc-wh qu see-past 3 'Who saw what in Otavalo?'

Utavalu-pi-ka Otavalo-in-top

(66)

*ima -ta -taj pi - taj riku-rka what-acc-wh qu who-nom-wh qu see-past 3 ('What did who see in Otavalo?')

Utavalu-pi-ka Otavalo-in-top

These sentences show that the superiority facts hold in Imbabura Quechua, forcing us to assume that LF variables are subject to the ECP. In Ancash Quechua, multiple Wh-questions work in a similar fashion. Moreover, in Ancash Quechua quantifiers in embedded subject position cannot receive wide-scope interpretation, while quantifiers in object position can. Assuming that this is due to the ECP holding at LF, the following sentences present crucial evidence: (67)

kima maestru-kuna muna-ya-n [José chusku alumnu- kuna-ta three teacher-pl want -pl-3 José four student-pl -acc yanapa-na-n-ta] help- Nom-3-acc "Three teachers want José to help four students'

In the above sentence 'four students' can optionally have higher scope than that of 'three teachers'. If, however, 'four students' is in embedded subject position, only lower scope interpretation is possible: (68)

kima maestru-kuna-m muna-ya-n [chusku alumnu- kuna three teacher- pl-val want-pl-3 four student-pl-nom yanapa-ya-na- n-ta] help- pl-Nom-3-acc 'Three teachers want four students to help'

Assuming that quantifier raising in LF is not successively cyclic (following Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche, 1981), the ECP at LF predicts that objects can receive wide scope since the verb always properly governs the object position. Embedded subjects, however, are not properly governed, and thus only can have a lower scope interpretation since quantifier raising in LF would violate the ECP. I have claimed in this section that there is evidence that the ECP in

The ECP in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua

167

Imbabura and Ancash Quechua holds at LF. It was also shown that experiences are treated as subjects by the ECP. Given the analysis presented in this section, lexical and desiderative experiences must be LF subjects.

NOTES 1. Rizzi (1980) was published in a revised form in Rizzi (1982). 2. A similar subject-nonsubject asymmetry is found in Ancash Quechua. As illustrated in (i), embedded subjects cannot be extracted, (ii) illustrates that nonsubjects can be extracted. See also the discussion in 5.4 below. (i)

*pi - taqj José muna-n who-nom-wh qu José-nom want-pr 3 ('Who does José want to go?')

(ii)

may-man-taqj José muna-n where-to-wh qu José-nom want-pr 3 'Where does José want Maria to go?'

g-[ tj ay wa-na-n-ta] go- Nom-3-acc

[Man'a t j ay wa-na-n-ta] Man'a-nom go- Nom-3-acc

3. In this chapter I use INFL in the embedded clause to indicate that the clause is finite. As discussed in Chapter 2, INFL contains tense and AGR. In Imbabura, it is AGR and not tense which governs the subject position and finiteness is correlated with AGR rather than with tense. 4. In this section I will present mainly data from Imbabura Quechua. Similar examples can be found in Ancash Quechua. Ancash Quechua behaves exactly like Imbabura Quechua in this respect, except where differences are noted in this section. 5. (38') has a trace in COMP if it is assumed that Wh-raising is cyclic. If, however, Wh-raising is assumed to be noncyclic, the LF of (38) would still violate the ECP since the embedded subject position is again not properly governed. 6. Similar data from Ancash Quechua are available. 7. Muysken and Lefebvre claim that in Cuzco nina is not an embedding verb at all but has special status, subcategorizing for a direct quote non-embedded complement. Their analysis cannot be extended to Imbabura Quechua, since in Imbabura Quechua nina, in addition to allowing direct quotes, is also a regular embedding verb which Case marks its object complement clause with accusative Case. In Imbabura Quechua nonsubjects can freely be extracted from a complement under nina, as shown in (42) in the text. 8. Imbabura and Ancash Quechua have both SOV and SVO word order in main clauses. It is clear that in SVO languages inversion moves the subject into a postverbal position and adjoins the subject to VP. We can assume that this is how inversion works in SVO clauses in Quechua. It is unclear, however, what the effects of Inversion are when the clause is SOV. The claim could be made that in SOV clauses inversion would adjoin the subject to the left of the VP (since objects and other complements also appear to the left of the verb). The results of inversion would not be visible as far as word order is concerned. In (49), however, we have SOV order with inversion to the right of the VP. This seems to indicate that inversion in an SOV structure has similar effects as inversion in an SVO structure. In what follows I will assume that inversion always adjoins the subject to the right of the VP, regardless of whether the clause is SVO or SOV. This assumption is crucial for the

168

Syntactic Modularity

analysis of embedded clauses. It will be claimed that in Ancash Quechua, for example, inversion does not apply in embedded clauses due to a language specific verb-final constraint. Clearly this constraint is irrelevant if inversion moves the subject to the left of the VP, into a pre-verbal, rather than into a post-verbal, position. It will be claimed that since Ancash Quechua does not allow extraction of subjects from embedded clauses, it necessarily does not allow inversion in embedded clauses. This fact follows from the analysis of inversion as movement to a post-verbal position, but would remain unexplained if inversion were analyzed as movement to a pre-verbal position, since in the latter case Ancash Quechua should have inversion in embedded clauses, and there would be no explanation for why Ancash Quechua cannot allow apparent violations of the that-trace filter. 9. As discusses in 4.5, pro can also appear in embedded clauses if it is contextually determined. Thus, (5) is acceptable with pro in subject position if the referent of pro appears in the immediate discourse. Inversion, however, is never acceptable in embedded clauses, probably due to the verb-final constraint. 10. As noted in footnote 8, under the assumption that inversion in an SOV structure attaches the subject to the left of the VP, Ancash Quechua should have inversion in embedded clauses and freely allow subject extraction from these clauses. There would be no explanation, then, for the fact that Ancash Quechua (just like Imbabura Quechua) does not allow subject extraction from embedded clauses. 11. Huang (1982) claims, however, that the ECP must hold at all levels.

Chapter 6

A Modular Approach A Modular Approach to the Analysis of Experiencer Constructions in Imbabura Quechua, Huanca Quechua and other Languages

6.1 Introduction In this chapter I propose an analysis for experiences in the Government and Binding framework. In 6.2 I discuss an analysis for lexical experiencers and in 6.3 I discuss two analyses for Imbabura Quechua desiderative experiencers. In analysis A I propose that desiderative experiencers are Dstructure, S-structure and LF subjects and are reanalyzed as objects by Move-a in the PF component. In analysis B I propose that experiencers are generated as D-structure objects and are reanalyzed as subjects subsequent to S-structure on the righthand side of the grammar. In 6.3.3 I evaluate these analyses and argue that analysis B is preferable to analysis A. In 6.4 I present certain apparent counterexamples for the analysis of experiencers in Imbabura and suggest a solution. Finally, in 6.5 I propose an analysis for experiencer constructions in other languages in which the distribution of experiencer differs considerably from that found in Imbabura Quechua. 6.6 is a general discussion of Case marking and verb agreement using the notion of chains. Before turning to the analysis of experiencers in Imbabura, let me summarize the results of the investigation presented in Chapters 3-5. According to the facts presented in these chapters, Imbabura Quechua experiencers have the characteristics summarized in (1) below. For each experiencer construction it is indicated whether, according to the process or principle mentioned in the vertical column, it is analyzed as being in the structural position of subject or object:

(1)

Subject Verb Agreement Object Cliticization Case Marking Binding Principles ECP Residues of Control Theory

Desiderative

Lexical

Experiencers

Experiencers

Object Object Object Subject Subject

Object Object Object Object Subject

Subject/Object

Subject/Object

170

Syntactic

Modularity

As far as the question of levels of application is concerned it was argued that agreement, cliticization and Case marking take place either at Sstructure or in the PF component. The binding principles were shown to apply at S-structure or possibly at either S-structure or LF. This assumption is modified in 6.3.3. The ECP was presumed to hold at LF, since movement in LF obeys the ECP. As far as the stipulation on PRO control is concerned, it was suggested in 4.8 that control of PRO in Imbabura Quechua is determined at more than one level. The relevant levels were assumed to be LF and some level prior to LF (either S-structure or PF). Taking into account the various levels at which the processes and conditions in (1) must apply, I will next consider what kind of analysis for experiencers can account for the distribution of properties observed above. Obviously an analysis which claims that experiencers are objects in all the components of the grammar (or alternatively that experiencers are subjects in all components) cannot account for the facts in (1). An analysis is needed in which experiencers are objects in certain components (or modules) and subjects in others. This involves positing a rule which reanalyzes experiencers from objects to subjects (or vice versa) in one of the components. The nature of this rule is further discussed in Chapter 7. Positing a process of reanalysis, together with the assumption that this rule can be restricted to apply in certain modules but not others, enables us to treat experiencers as subjects in some components and as objects in others. Crucially, desideratives behave differently from lexicals as far as binding theory is concerned. Therefore a different analysis will have to be suggested for the two constructions. I will next present the various analyses. 6.2 Lexical Experiencer NPs as D-structure Objects Lexical experiencers are treated as being in object position in all components except in LF, where the ECP analyzes lexicals as subjects. The following D-structure can be posited for lexicals: (2)

NP[e]

vp[NP'

V]

NP' is a lexical experiencer. Lexical experiencer verbs then are generated with an empty subject position, and an object complement (the experiencer NP). In the LF component, the object NP is moved into the empty subject position. The reanalysis of the experiencer structure can be viewed as part of the general process of Move-a, which applies in the LF component or possibly as a local rule, as discussed in Chapter 7. Note that the empty subject position cannot be assigned an independent 0-role by the VP. Otherwise reanalysis would violate the 0-criterion since the experiencer NP would be assigned two 0-roles. The first 0-role would be

A Modular

Approach

171

assigned by the verb (to the trace left by reanalysis in object position), and a second 0-role would be assigned to the moved NP by the VP, after reanalysis. Thus, it must be assumed that a VP containing a lexical experiencer is always subcategorized for an empty subject position (to which no 0-role is assigned).1 In summary, the suggested reanalysis for lexical experiencers is not structure building and does not violate the projection principle or the 6criterion. Let us consider a sample derivation for a sentence containing a lexical experiencer and observe how reanalysis can account for the facts summarized in (1). (3)

a. D-structure - Co-superscripting of AGR with element it governs: Npte] 1 AGR1 yp[nuka-ta chiri-wa] me-acc cold-1 OM b. S-structure: Same structure c. PF- Cliticization, agreement and Case marking checked: pro 1 AGR 1 yp[nuka-ta chiri-wa] d. LF Reanalysis: nuka-taj AGR 1 y p [ t j chiri-wa]

At D-structure AGR is co-superscripted with jsjp[e] the element it governs. The binding principles apply at S-structure. At this stage the lexical experiencer is in object position, hence the array of facts presented in 4.6. In the PF component agreement is spelled out (or checked) and again the lexical is in object position. Agreement is therefore realized as third person singular, since AGR is co-superscripted with j^p[e] which is contextually determined as pro. As discussed in 3.2, dummy pro, which is not part of a chain and is non-referential, is always marked as third person singular. Case is also checked at this level. The lexical must be Case marked [+obj] since it is governed by the verb. Cliticization is also checked at this stage: the lexical can be associated with the clitic -wa, since it is an NP governed by the verb. This explains the array of facts presented in 3.2-3.4 above. Next, at LF, after reanalysis has applied, the experiencer is in subject position. This explains the ECP violations for experiencers noted in Chapter 5. The control facts are more problematic. As observed in 4.8 we have to assume that control (or rather the restriction on antecedent of anaphors) can be

17 2

Syn tac tic Modularity

determined at two levels: at LF, to explain why lexical NPs can be controllers of PRO, and at a level prior to reanalysis (possibly S-structure) to explain the cases in which lexical NPs are not controllers. 6.3 Desiderative Experiencer NPs: Two Possible Analyses Desiderative NPs exhibit a more complex pattern than lexical experience NPs, since they are treated as subjects not only by the ECP but also by the binding principles. Two possible analyses can account for these facts: (A) Desiderative NPs are generated as D-structure subjects, and remain subjects at S-structure and LF. In the PF component, however, the experiencer NP is reanalyzed as an object, which accounts for the agreement, cliticization and Case marking facts. (B) Desiderative NPs are generated as D-structure objects, and are objects at both S-structure and in the PF component. They are reanalyzed as subjects subsequent to S-structure, on the right-hand side of the grammar. This will necessitate a revision of the claim that binding theory applies at S-structure, since as shown in 4.6 desiderative NPs are analyzed as subjects by the binding principles. I will present both analyses below and claim that analysis B is to be preferred over analysis A. 6.3.1 Desiderative NPs as D-structure Subjects (Analysis A ) If it is assumed, following Chomsky (1981), that the binding principles hold at S-structure, desideratives must be S-structure subjects (see 4.6 above). Note that this forces us to assume that subject agreement, Case marking and object cliticization cannot apply at S-structure, since desideratives are invariably analyzed as objects by these processes. It was claimed in 3.2-3.4 that these processes actually do not apply at S-structure, but are PF phenomena. The facts summarized in (1) can then be explained if desideratives are subjects in all components except in the PF component, where the desideratives are reanalyzed as objects. As distinct from lexicals, for which reanalysis from object to subject (which takes place in the LF component) was assumed, an entirely different process of reanalysis from subject to object, this time in the PF component, has to be posited for desideratives. Let us now consider the implications of this proposal in greater detail. Under this proposal, desiderative NPs are base generated in subject position and have the following D-structure: (4)

NP'

w

[ V ]

NP' is the experiencer. Moreover, desiderative verbs can also be transitive as in (5):

A Modular Approach (5)

173

D-structure for transitive desiderative verbs (after co-superscripting of AGR and element it governs) nuka-ta1 AGR1 yp[aycha-ta miku-naya-] me-acc meat-acc eat-desid

NP' is in subject position in (5) at S-structure and LF. In the PF component, however, (5) is reanalyzed as (6): (6)

pro 1 AGR1 y p [nuka-ta ay cha-ta miku-naya-]

The verb now has two objects: the experiencer (NP ), and its original object. After reanalysis to object, there is an empty category in subject position. This empty category can be determined to be pro by contextual determination. Object cliticization in the PF component will then allow coindexing of the experiencer with a clitic on the verb, since the experiencer NP is now governed by the verb. The question then arises of how the Case marking and verb agreement facts are explained. In a structure like (6), it is always the dummy (pro) which determines verb agreement: i.e., agreement on the verb is always spelled out as third person singular, regardless of the person and number features of the experiencer NP. Case marking of the experiencer NP is by the verb, as discussed in 3.4. It is crucial, then, that in PF representation (6) no chain is formed between pro and the experiencer NP, which in PF appears in a position governed by the verb. If a chain were formed due to the movement of the NP, the experiencer NP would get nominative Case via the chain, since the chain is governed by AGR which assigns it nominative Case. The experiencer NP then is assigned Case twice: once by the verb, which assigns it objective Case, and once via the chain, which assigns it nominative Case. The derivation is then ruled out, since the experiencer NP is doubly Case marked, and Case conflict arises. See also the discussion in the last section of this chapter. How can one prevent the experiencer NP from being part of a chain with pro as its other member? Move-a in the syntactic component always creates a chain, since a trace bearing the index of the NP moved by Move-a is always left behind. If no movement occurs, as in the case with NPs base generated as the objects of ergatives, a chain is created via co-superscripting of the NP with pro. In order to explain Case marking and verb agreement in the experiencer construction, one has to prevent coindexing and co-superscripting from applying in the PF component in a structure like (6) above. How can this be accomplished? A possible solution is to claim that PF movement differs from move-

174

Syntactic

Modularity

ment in the other components in that no trace is left behind. As a result, no chain is created via coindexing. Co-superscripting, however, would still create a chain. In D-structure, AGR is co-superscripted with the element it governs, which as shown in (5) is the experiencer NP, since we assume these NPs to be D-structure subjects. At PF, the NP moves into the VP. A chain is then created, since the NP is co-superscripted with AGR (and also pro). The prediction is that due to case conflict, this derivation is blocked, with the result that reanalysis is in effect impossible from subject to object position. In order to make this derivation possible, a stipulation needs to be added to the grammar of Imbabura to ensure that movement in the PF component never creates chains, not even via co-superscripting. Technically, this could be achieved by requiring the NP to leave its index behind: i.e., by not allowing the NP to take its co-superscript with it. The result is the structure in (6) above in which no chain is established instead of the possible structures in (7)a-b. (7)

a. pro- AGR 1 yp[nuka-taj aycha-ta miku-naya-] me-acc meat-acc eat-desid b. pro- AGR1 yp[nukaj aycha-ta miku-naya-] I-nom meat-acc eat-desid

(7a) violates the filter requiring the NP to bear nominative Case if governed by AGR (directly or via a chain), while (7b) violates the filter requiring accusative Case on objects of verbs. To summarize, if the assumption is made that desiderative experiencer NPs are D-structure subjects, reanalyzed as objects in the PF component a special stipulation needs to be added to the grammar of Imbabura to ensure that no chains are created in the PF by PF movement. If PF movement were to create chains, the reanalyzed NP would get doubly Case marked and Case conflict would arise. There are some additional theoretical problems with this analysis. First of all, a reanalysis of this kind is non-structure preserving. PF reanalysis from subject to object violates the projection principle since this type of rule builds structure: it adds a second object to the verb. In order for reanalysis to be structure preserving, obeying the projection principle, the Dstructure for desideratives must be (8) rather than (4): (8)

NP' INFL

yp[A V]

In (8) the experiencer verb is subcategorized for an empty NP object position into which the experiencer can move in the PF component. Note, however, that this structure violates the 0-criterion. Verbs obligatorily assign d-roles to all their complements. (See Chomsky, 1981, 2.2.) There-

A Modular Approach

175

fore, we have to assume that the empty NP is in a 0-marked position. The 0-criterion is then violated, since in the LF component the empty position is still unfilled: i.e., there is an argument position with a 0-role but no argument associated with the 0-role. As discussed in Chapter 5, the desiderative experiencers must be in subject position in LF, at the stage at which the ECP holds, leaving the empty position under VP unfilled. A possible solution to these problems is to abandon the assumption that verbs are obligatorily subcategorized for 0-marked positions only. Thus, if an empty object position could be generated for desiderative experiencer verbs which is not a 0-position, the reanalysis of subject to object in the PF component will be structure preserving and the 0-criterion is not violated at any level. However, the assumption that there is a non0-position under VP for the experiencer NP to move into, involves abandoning a significant claim that verbs always assign a 0-role to the NPs for which they subcategorize. Thus, Chomsky opposes a putative rule of Subject-to-Object Raising on similar grounds, since an empty position needs to be posited in the VP for such a rule to be structure preserving and for the rule not to violate the 0-criterion (see Chomsky, 1981, 2.2, on this issue). 6.3.2 Desiderative NPs as D-structure Objects (Analysis Bj Given the assumption that binding principles hold at S-structure, desideratives had to be analyzed as subjects at S-structure, and also at D-structure, which differs from S-structure only by abstracting the effects of Move-a.2 Thus the lexicals were analyzed as D-structure objects, and the desideratives as D-structure subjects. In 6.3.1 some problems related to this analysis were discussed. Note that analysis A is the only plausible analysis for desideratives if we accept Chomsky's arguments for having binding theory hold at S-structure rather than at LF. As discussed in 4.7 the reasons for this assumption had to do with the fact that LF movement rules did not obey the binding principles. An alternative to claiming that binding theory applies at S-structure is to have binding hold in the LF component prior to LF-movement rules. This in effect claims that there are two sub-components in LF: 3 (a)

a subcomponent at the output of which binding is checked. Let us call this level "B-structure", and the subcomponent the "B-component".

(b)

a subcomponent where LF movement rules apply. The output of this subcomponent is LF.

The ECP applies to the output of (b) since LF movement rules are constrained by the ECP.

176

Syn tactic Modularity

In most cases the assumption that binding theory holds at LF prior to LF movement is indistinguishable from the claim that binding theory holds at S-structure. This is because in the unmarked case S-structure is the direct input to the LF component. My claim, however, is that it is exactly in a situation in which reanalysis of the sort suggested here occurs that the two assumptions are distinguishable. I will claim that for desideratives reanalysis needs to take place from object to subject, applying after S-structure on the right-hand side of the grammar but before binding theory applies (i.e., before B-structure). For lexicals a similar reanalysis needs to be assumed (see 6.2) with the exception that with lexicals reanalysis applies after the binding principles (but before the ECP), presumably at the same stage when other LF movement rules apply. In this manner both lexicals and desideratives are generated as D-structure objects. They are both objects in the syntactic component, at S-structure, and PF. Thus, it is predicted that verb-agreement, cliticization and Case marking treat both types of experiencer NPs as objects. Reanalysis then occurs in the following subcomponents: (9)

D-structure S-structure

LF Reanalysis is from object to subject in both cases. This directly avoids the problems created by a subject-to-object reanalysis, like the one suggested in analysis A above. The desideratives are generated as D-structure objects (just like the lexicals). They are objects at S-structure and in the PF component, for purposes of verb-agreement, object cliticization and Case marking. The problem with agreement and Case marking noted in 6.3.1 never arises, since desideratives are D-structure objects and thus cannot be co-superscripted with AGR at this level. Reanalysis then occurs subsequent to S-structure, but prior to the level at which the binding principles hold (B-structure).

A Modular Approach

177

Let us now consider a sample derivation for desideratives under this analysis. Consider the case in which a desiderative is embedded under a subject raising verb likeyarina 'to seem': (10)

D-structure Np[e]

AGR

[s[NP[e]

vp[kan

punu - naya - y]]] yariyou-nom sleep-desid-inf seem

j^p[e] must be assumed to be a non-0 position: i.e., the claim is that experiencer verbs (just like raising verbs) do not 0-mark their subject position. This assumption is much less controversial than the assumption that certain verbs subcategorize for objects without a 0-role, an assumption required if desiderative NPs were to be generated as D-structure subjects. It is assumed then that neither yari- 'seem' nor the experiencer verb are subcategorized for a 0-marked subject position, hence the empty NP in these positions. (11)

Co-superscripting and S-deletion Npfe] 1 AGR1 s [ N p [ e ] yp[kan punu-naya-y]] yari-

(12)

Move- a - applies freely to either NP in the embedded clause to generate the following S-structure: kan'j AGR1 g t ^ f e ] y p f t j punu-naya-y]] yari-

(13)

PF: Verb agreement is checked. AGR is co-superscripted with a second person subject and is spelled out as -ngi (for present tense). The Case checking filter admits nominative Case on kan, since it is governed by and co-superscripted with AGR. After the morphological rule of agreement lowering we get the following surface structure: kan punu - naya - y you-nom sleep-desid-inf 'You seem to desire to sleep'

yari - ngi seem-pr 2

Note that if the experiencer were base-generated with accusative rather than nominative Case, the Case filter which prohibits [+obj] Case if the NP is governed by AGR would rule out this derivation. Also, it is assumed that NP-movement does not leave a Case marked trace behind (see Jaeggli (1978) on motivating this assumption). Therefore, the trace left by Movea in (12) is uncasemarked and does not contradict any of the Case checking filters. Since the trace has no phonetic matrix, the general Case filter,

17 8

Syn tac tic

Modularity

which states that [*[N], if N has no Case and has a phonetic matrix], does not apply. If binding theory were to apply at S-structure the derivation would block since the trace in (12) is not bound in its governing category. Reanalysis applies, however, turning (12) into (14): (14)

Reanaly sis for desiderati»es (in the Binding Component) kan'j AGR1 you-nom

y p [ t j punu - naya - y] ] yarisleep-desid-inf seem

In (14) the desiderative experiencer (a trace in this instance) undergoes reanalysis. A. trace is left behind by the reanalysis, and kan is assigned a 0-role by the embedded experiencer verb via its trace. It will be remembered that the assumption is that VPs containing a raising verb do not assign 0-roles to their subjects and neither do VPs containing experiencer verbs. The experiencer verb, however, assigns a 0-role to its object (a trace in this case).4 Binding theory applies at this level, t' is now governed by the verb yari- and is bound in its governing category (the matrix S). t is governed by the embedded verb, and bound (by a trace-antecedent t') in its governing category. (15)

LF: The ECP is satisfied since t' is properly governed (by the matrix verb) and so is t (by the embedded verb)

In the next subsection I will present additional data from the desiderative experiencer construction to justify choosing the analysis presented here over analysis A. 6.3.3 Evaluation of the Two Analyses As discussed in 6.3.1 there are certain problems with an analysis which has to assume subject-to-object reanalysis while an approach which has objectto-subject reanalysis does not encounter such problems. There are theoretical reasons, then, to prefer analysis B over analysis A. In this section I will present additional data from Imbabura Quechua which makes the analysis of desiderative experiencers as D-structure subjects less attractive than the analysis of these NPs as D-structure objects. The data involve additional facts about desiderative experiencers from the so-called Switch Reference constructions. For an analysis of Switch Reference in Imbabura see 4.5. As mentioned in 4.5, in both subjunctive and non-subjunctive Switch Reference constructions a PRO can appear in the position of a desiderative experiencer. This is exemplified in (16)a and b:

A Modular Approach (16)

179

a. nuka-kaj g[PROj punu-naya-ngapaj] pastilla-ta I-nom-top sleep-desid-coref pill - acc ufya-rka-ni drink-past-1 'In order to desire to sleep, I took a pill' b. nuka-kaj g[PROj miku-naya-shpa] aycha-ta randi-rka-ni I-nom-top eat-desid-coref meat-acc buy-past-1 'When I desired to eat, I bought some meat'

In the above sentences the fact that a PRO can appear in the position of the desiderative led me to conclude that the desiderative must be the subject of the nonfinite -ngapaj and -shpa clauses; otherwise the binding principles (more specifically, the theorem that PRO must be ungoverned) would rule out these sentences. Note, however, that as mentioned in 4.5 most speakers also have a second variant for the sentences in (16), presented in (17) below, in which the finite suffixes -chun and -jpi are used: (17)

a. [nuka-ta punu-naya-chun] pastilla-ta ufya-rka-ni me-acc sleep-desid-noncoref pill - acc drink-past-1 'When I desired to sleep, I took a pill' b. [nuka-ta miku-naya-jpi] aycha-ta randi-rka-ni me-acc eat-desid-noncoref meat-acc buy-past-1 'When I desired to eat, I bought some meat'

In (17) the suffixes in the adverbial clauses indicate that the subject of the subordinate clause must be different from the subject of the main clause. Stated in the Government and Binding framework, the use of the option without PRO in (17) indicates that the subject of the subordinate clause must be different from the subject of the main clause. Otherwise PRO would have been chosen, following the Elsewhere principle as discussed in 4.5.2. Assuming that the choice of an anaphor (PRO) versus pronoun is relevant at the same level at which the binding principles apply, according to (17) desideratives must be non-subjects at that level; otherwise only the option with PRO would be possible. Note that for verbs taking nominative subjects, only the non-finite variant with the coreferential suffixes -shpa and -ngapaj (and a PRO in subject position) is acceptable: (18)

Kitu-pi

ka-

| COref

Maria-ta riku-rka-ni \

! - > Maria-acc see-past-1 *noncoref) 'When I was in Quito, I saw Maria'

180

Syntactic

(19)

mikueat

Modularity j

trabaja-rka-ni

-

rl work-past-1 ( *noncoref ) 'In order to eat, I worked'

There seems to be a straightforward contradiction between the facts presented in (16) which demand an analysis of desiderative NPs as subjects and the facts in (17) which seem to indicate that desideratives are nonsubjects. I will next show that this contradiction can be resolved much more readily if it is assumed that desiderative NPs are D-structure objects (analysis B). If it is assumed, however, that desideratives are Dstructure subjects (analysis A) this contradiction is much harder to resolve. Let us next review the solution, first according to analysis A and then according to analysis B. By the assumptions made in analysis A the desiderative is a subject at all levels except in the PF component. In order to account for the facts presented in (17), the assumption will have to be made that speakers also have a second derivation for desideratives. In this derivation the experiencer verb is subcategorized for an empty subject position and a desiderative experiencer in object position. In D-structure the desiderative is then an object, and it remains an object at S-structure and at B-structure (for the binding principles). In this derivation desideratives are reanalyzed as subjects in the LF-component since the ECP still treats desideratives as subjects. Note that this will explain the data in sentences like (17) in which desideratives act as non-subjects for binding. It will also predict that NP-trace is prohibited in the position of the desiderative in this derivation (by binding principle (A)). Note, however, that the claim is that speakers have two possible derivations for desideratives: one in which desideratives are generated as subjects and are reanalyzed as objects in the PF component, and a second derivation in which desideratives are objects (except at LF). To summarize, in order for analysis A to accommodate the facts presented here, desiderative experiencer verbs must be subcategorized in two different ways: with an experiencer subject or with the experiencer in object position. Thus a verb like pununayana 'to desire to sleep' will have two different subcategorization frames, although the meaning of the verb is the same in both cases. As I will show, analysis B can handle the Switch Reference facts without having to make the assumption that there is double subcategorization for all desiderative experiencer verbs, an assumption not supported on independent grounds. According to analysis B all experiences (both desideratives andlexicals) are D-structure objects. Desideratives are reanalyzed in the B-component

A Modular Approach

181

before the level at which binding is checked (resulting in the facts exemplified in (16)); lexicals are reanalyzed after the binding theory applies, but before the ECP applies. For desideratives, however, a second derivation is possible, in which reanalysis applies after, rather than before, the stage where the binding principles are checked. In this derivation desiderative NPs behave exactly like lexical experiencer NPs. Desideratives are then either subjects for binding theory (giving the range of facts mentioned in (16)) or objects (with reanalysis occurring later), just like the lexicals, giving the range of facts in (17). Analysis B seems then to better capture the variability exhibited by desideratives than analysis A, since there is no need to assume that experiencer verbs are subcategorized for two different frames. The modular nature of the theory which allows for reanalysis to apply in different subcomponents gives an account for the variability exhibited in (16)-(17). 6.4 Residual Problems and Their Solution As discussed in 4.3 S-deletion affects both the binding theory and the PF phenomena of cliticization, validation and word order constraints. It was shown that desiderative experiencers behave like subjects with respect to the binding theory, and the combined effects of S-deletion and the binding theory, while lexical experiencers are treated as nonsubjects by both the binding theory and S-deletion. It was also mentioned, however, that as far as certain PF phenomena are concerned, S-deletion seems to treat both types of experiencer NPs as subjects rather than objects, leading to a contradiction, since as shown in 3.2-3.4 PF phenomena in general treat experiencers as objects. The facts discussed in 4.3 were connected to validation, cliticization and word-order restrictions under S-deleting verbs; and are repeated here for convenience. After presenting these facts in 6.4.1, an alternative analysis which does not involve S-deletion, is proposed in 6.4.2. The alternative analysis does allow for both desiderative and lexical experiencer NPs to be analyzed as S-structure and PF objects, thus avoiding the problem caused by assuming that S-deletion affects experiencer NPs. Let me next turn to a presentation of the data. 6.4.1 Problematic Facts (a) Validators As discussed in Chapter 2 and 4.3, validation in IQ is limited to elements governed in the matrix S. Thus validators are barred inside the embedded clause. (20)

a. *Juan-ga -g[g[wawa-/m miku-shka-ta] ] kri - n Juan-nom-top child-nom-va/ eat-Nom-acc believe-pr 3 ('Juan believes that the child has eaten')

18 2

Syn tac tic Modularity b. *Juan-ga -g[g[Maria AGR Juzi-ta-mz Juan-nom-top Maria-nom José-acc-vai riku-shka-ta] ] kri - n see-Nom-acc believe-pr 3 ('Juan believes that Maria has seen José')

In (20)a-b the validated NP is governed in the embedded S, since its governor is the AGR of the finite complement clause. In (21), however, after S-deletion has applied, a validator is acceptable on the complement subject. (21)

Juan-ga g[wawa-ta-m/ AGR miku-shka-ta] kri - n Juan-nom-top child-acc-va/ eat-Nom-acc believe-pr 3 'Juan believes the child to have eaten'

In (21) it is assumed that S-deletion has applied, allowing the matrix verb to govern the embedded subject position. The complement subject is now governed in the root S, and the condition on validator distribution is satisfied. Note, again, that the embedded object position is still governed in the lower S, since objects are always governed by their verbs. Thus, Sdeletion does not affect the object position, and validators are still barred in this position, as shown in (22): (22)

* Juan-ga g[Maria-ta AGR ay cha-ta- mi miku-shka-ta] meat-acc-vai eat-Nom-acc Juan-nom-top Maria-acc kri - n believe-pr 3 ('Juan believes Maria to have eaten the meat')

To summarize, examples (20)-(22) show that validator placement in Imbabura Quechua is limited to the domain of the root S, and is therefore affected by S-deletion. The level at which validator placement is checked must then follow S-deletion which applies in the syntactic component. Let us assume, then, that validator placement is checked at S-structure or later in the PF component (as claimed in the next section). What predictions does this make about the validation possibilities for experiencers? If validation is checked at S-structure, or in the PF component, neither desideratives nor lexicals which appear in embedded complement clauses should be validatable under an S-deleting verb like krirn 'to believe' oxyana t o think'. Both experiencer types areobjectsat S-structure (according to analysis B), and thus they are not affected by S-deletion. The situation is the same if validator placement is checked in PF since experiencers are objects in this component too. The examples in (23)

A Modular Approach

183

show, however, that these predictions are not borne out. As mentioned in 4.3, both desideratives and lexicals can be validated under S-deleting verbs: (23)

a. g[wawa-ta-mi punu-naya - j - ta] ya - ni child-acc-vai sleep-desid-Nom-acc think-pr 1 'I think that the child is sleeping' b. g[wawa-ta-ffzi nana-j-ta] ya - ni child-acc-va/ hurt-Nom-acc think-pr 1 'I think that the child hurts'

As seen in (23) both desideratives and lexicals can be validated under an S-deleting verb like yana 'to think'. Because validation is strictly a main clause phenomenon (since only NPs governed in the root S can be validated), (23) seems to show that experiencers have to be subjects at the stage at which validator placement is checked. Assuming this level to be PF, the validation data seem to contradict the data presented in 3.2-3.4 which showed that all experiencers are objects at S-structure and PF. Thus the data in (23) present an apparent counter-example to the analysis of experiencers as S-structure and PF objects. (b) Object clitics In 3.3 it was shown that the clitic -wa is always associated with a first person singular NP, governed by the verb the clitic is attached to. There are certain cases, however, where clitics show up on the matrix verb, but are associated with an embedded subject: (24)

Juan-ga g [nuka-ta1 trabaja - chun ] muna-wa1 - rka Juan-nom-top me-acc work-finite(subj) want-1 OM-past 3 'Juan wants me to work'

As discussed in 4.3, S-deletion has applied in (24). As a result the matrix verb munana 'to want' governs the embedded subject position. Hence this position can be associated with the clitic -wa. Under a verb which does not allow S-deletion, this kind of clitic-embedded subject association is prohibited. (25)

*Juan-ga Juzi-man ^[^[nuka 1 Juan-nom-top José-dat I-nom villa-wa1 - rka tell-1 OM-past 3 ('Juan told José that I had arrived')

shamu-shka-ta]] arrive-Nom-acc

184

Syntactic

Modularity

Again, S-deletion and government by the matrix verb affect only the embedded subject position. Thus embedded objects, under an S-deleting verb like munana 'to want' cannot be associated with a clitic on the matrix verb. This is illustrated in (26): (26)

*Juan-ga g[Juzi-ta ypfnuka-ta 1 maka - chun ] Juan-nom-top José-acc me-acc hit-finite(subj) muna-wa1 - rka want-1 OM-past 3 ('Juan wanted José to hit me')

In 3.3 it was claimed that the distribution of clitics is checked at S-structure or in the PF component. I will claim in 6.4.2 that there is independent evidence from infinitival complements that clitic distribution must be checked in the PF component. Let us assume, then, that this is a PF phenomenon. It was also shown in 3.3 that experiencers must be analyzed as objects at PF, since they can be associated with a clitic which appears on the verb governing the experiencer. This predicts then that experiencers should not be able to be associated with a clitic attached to the verb of the matrix clause (as in (24)), since experiencers are objects in PF and thus are not affected by exceptional government under an S-deleting verb. This prediction is not borne out. Both desideratives and lexicals, under an S-deleting verb like munana 'to want' can be associated with the clitic -wa which appears on the matrix verb. This is exemplified for desideratives in (27)a and for lexicals in (27)b : (27)

a. bruja-ka ^[nuka-ta1 punu - naya - chun ] witch-nom-top me-acc sleep-desid-finite(subj) muna-wa1 - rka want-1 OM-past 3 'The witch wanted me to desire to sleep' b. bruja-ka ^[nuka-ta 1 nana - chun ] witch-nom-top me-acc hurt-finite(subj) muna-wa1 - rka want-1 OM-past 3 The witch wanted me to hurt'

The data in (27), again, lead to an apparent contradiction in the analysis of experiencers. According to (27) experiencers are PF subjects, since they seem to be affected by S-deletion and exceptional government which make it possible for an embedded subject to be associated with a clitic on the main clause verb. According to the analysis presented in 6.2-6.3, however, experiencers are S-structure and PF objects, and therefore should not be affected by S-deletion.

A Modular Approach

185

(c) Word order possibilities As discussed in Chapter 2, word order in Imbabura is relatively free. However, elements of main clauses and embedded clauses cannot be intermixed: i.e., nominative subjects of embedded clauses move around inside the embedded clause but cannot be moved into the main clause: (28)

a. Juan-ga villa-wa - rka "g [aycha-ta wawa Juan-nom-top tell-1 OM-past 3 meat-acc child miku-shka-ta] eat-Nom-acc 'Juan told me that the child ate meat' b.* Juan-ga wawa villa-wa - rka "g [aycha-ta Juan-nom-top child-nom tell-1 OM-past 3 meat-acc miku-shka-ta] eat-Nom-acc ('Juan told me that the child ate meat')

The restriction on scrambling in Imbabura can be stated in the Government and Binding framework in the following way: elements can be scrambled in the domain of their own governing category. As shown in 6.4.2 this constraint on scrambling must be enforced in the PF component. It is reasonable to assume that the word order changes due to scrambling take place in the stylistic component, which is part of the PF component. Note, however, that when S-deletion occurs in the syntactic component, the embedded subject is governed and Case marked in the matrix S. Hence, the embedded subject, after S-deletion, can appear inside the main clause, since its governing category is the higher S.s (29)

mama-ka wawa-ta muna - n mother-nom-top child-acc want-pr 3 'The mother wants the child to eat'

g[miku - chun ] eat-finite(subj)

S-deletion affects only the subject of the embedded clause. The embedded object is still governed in the lower S by the embedded verb. Assuming that the word-order possibilities are checked in the PF component, experiencers should not be able to appear in the main clause, since experiencers are objects in PF. The examples in (30) indicate, however, that both desideratives and lexicals can move into the main clause under Sdeleting verbs. In (30) the experiencer nukata appears inside the main clause, afters-deletion under munana 'to want' has applied.

186

Syntactic Modularity

(30)

a. bruja-ka nuka-ta m u n a - n g[punu -naya -chun ] witch-nom-top me-acc want-pr 3 sleep-desid-finite(subj) 'The witch wants (that) I desire to sleep' b. bruja-ka nuka-tamuna - n g[nana - chun ] witch-nom-top me-acc want-pr 3 hurt-finite(subj) 'The witch wants (that) I hurt'

According to the data in (30), experiencers must be subjects in the PF component. This, again, leads to a contradiction in the analysis of experiencers, since experiencers were analyzed as S-structure and PF objects in 6.2-6.3. In the next section, I will suggest that the facts presented here do not indicate that experiencers are S-structure and PF subjects, since these facts fall out from a separate process of PF restructuring which affects both subjects and objects. 6.4.2 PF Restructuring: A Possible Solution One way to solve the problem raised by the data presented in the previous section is to claim that the phenomena discussed above are not connected to S-deletion in all cases. Thus note that there is another construction in which similar validation, cliticization and word-order facts exist, but in which S-deletion cannot be the explanation for these facts. These facts are connected to reanalysis with infinitival complements of verbs like kallarina 'to begin' and ushana t o be able to'. In the Government and Binding framework these are obligatory control structures with a PRO as the subject of an infinitival complement: (31)

Juan-gaj -g [PROj yanu-y-ta] Juan-nom-top cook-inf-acc 'Juan is able to cook'

usha-n able-pr 3

In (31) S-deletion cannot apply, since at S-structure (or rather at Bstructure), at the stage where the binding principles apply, PRO has to be ungoverned. If S-deletion were to apply, PRO would be governed by the matrix verb. It is therefore assumed that control verbs never S-delete: i.e., S-deletion is a marked property of certain non-control verbs like believe or seem. In control structures the validation, cliticization and word-order possibilities are similar to those under S-deleting verbs: (32)

Validation in control structures nuka-kaj -g[PROj awtu-ta-m? I-nom-top car-acc-va/ 'I was able to buy a car'

randi-y-ta] usha-rka-ni buy-inf-acc able-past-1

A Modular Approach (33)

187

Cliticization in control structures nuka taytaj -gfPROjmaka-y -ta ] kallari-wa-rka my father-nom hit-inf-acc begin-1 OM-past 3 'My father began to hit me'

(34)

Scrambling from embedded into main clause Juan-gaj shuj libru-ta kallari-rka "g [PROj riza-y-ta ] Juan-nom-top one book-acc begin-past 3 read-inf-acc 'Juan began to read a book'

Clearly S-deletion cannot explain the data in (32)-(34) above. First of all, S-deletion cannot apply in control structures, as discussed above. Secondly, in (32)-(34) it is the embedded object position and not the embedded subject (a PRO in this case) which can be validated, cliticized and scrambled as if it were governed by the matrix verb. Thus, the control structures indicate that a different explanation must be sought for the data in (32)-(34), an explanation not directly connected to S-deletion and exceptional government. I propose that the data in (32)-(34) are the result of a process of pruning non-branching S and S nodes in the PF component, a process of restructuring which in effect reanalyzes Equi clauses as simple clauses. As a result of this process of pruning or restructuring, all elements which had the embedded S as their governing category after restructuring have the matrix S (the only S after pruning) as their governing category.6 After restructuring applies, (32)-(34) have the following structure: (35)

g[NP-nom NP-acc V-inf V]

In (35) the accusative NP can be validated and associated with a clitic on the matrix verb, since this NP is governed in the matrix S and behaves like a matrix clause constituent in all respects. It is important to note for the discussion that follows that restructuring can apply in control structures even if the complement verb is not adjacent to the verb of the main clause. In other words, restructuring is not sensitive to string-adjacency of the two verbs in Imbabura. In (36) restructuring has applied, with the result that the object of the embedded clause (libru-ta) can be validated since it is governed in the matrix S after restructuring. (36)

Juan-ga kallari-rka shuj libru-ta-mi riza - y - ta Juan-nom-top begin-past one book-acc-val read-inf-acc 'Juan began to read a book'

18 8

Syn tac tic Modularity

As far as the question of levels is concerned, restructuring must apply in PF. If it were to apply at S-structure, PRO would end up in a governed position, in violation of both principles (A) and (B) of the binding theory of Chomsky (1981). 7 Similar data is discussed in Rizzi (1982) for Italian and in Aissen and Perlmutter (1983) for Spanish and a number of other languages. Aissen and Perlmutter argue for a clause union analysis in the framework of Relational Grammar. Cole (1984a) describes similar data from Ancash Quechua in a relational framework. Pruning (or restructuring) then serves to explain the basic insight that in certain cases elements of the embedded clause behave like elements of the main clause. What all accounts, including Rizzi's account and the relational accounts, have in common is that restructuring seems to apply only with infinitival structures (control structures and raising structures). 8 Next, I shall consider how the pruning analysis can be extended to account for the data presented in the previous section. First, note that it cannot be assumed that restructuring, in general, applies in the complements of verbs like munana 'to want' and krina 'to believe'. In the previous section it was shown that with these verbs only the embedded subject position is accessible to validation, cliticization and scrambling. If Spruning were to apply, the embedded object position should be accessible to these processes just as the embedded subject position is. Thus, 55deletion is the only possible analysis for complement clauses in noncontrol structures. Moreover, note that these sentences involve finite complement clauses. Restructuring, however, only seems to apply to nonfinite clauses which have an empty category (PRO or NP-trace) in subject position. It is reasonable to claim, then, that restructuring could not apply with finite complements, since if restructuring somehow involves pruning of the complement S node, pruning is prevented in finite clauses sirice the S node branches lexically: i.e., it contains two branches with lexical material. In control and raising structures, however, in the PF component, the complement S does not branch since the complement subject is PRO or NP-trace. These empty elements have no Case features and are "invisible" in the PF component. In conclusion, it seems that validation, cliticization and other PF phenomena are affected by two separate processes, independently motivated in Imbabura: (a) S-deletion, which affects only the complement subject position, by changing the governing category for complement subjects; and (b) Restructuring, which affects both subjects and nonsubjects of complement clauses by deleting the complement S node and by making all arguments of the complement clause arguments of the main clause. S-deletion is lexically governed by certain verbs and applies to finite complements, while restructuring seems to apply to complements

A Modular Approach

189

which in PF have an empty subject position (infinitival complements). In what follows, I will claim that the instances in which S-deletion seems to apply in experiencer clauses (causing the complications noted in 4.3 and in this section) are actually instances of S-piuning due to restructuring. Since restructuring affects the entire complement clause, and not just the complement subject, the fact that restructuring applies with experiencer NPs does not force us to analyze these NPs as complement subjects. Hence, if a restructuring analysis can be extended from infinitivals to complements involving experiencer verbs, there is no longer any contradiction between the fact on the one hand experiencer NPs are PF objects and on the other hand they can be cliticized and validated and moved around like elements of the matrix clause. Next, I will address the problem of the analysis of desiderative and lexical experiences and propose restructuring as a possible solution. As already mentioned, it was shown in 6.4.1 that under S-deleting verbs experiencers behave just like nominative subjects as far as validation, cliticization and word-order restrictions are concerned. This posed a problem for the analysis of experiencers as objects at S-structure and PF. Consider the structure of a typical desiderative or lexical experiencer at PF, under an S-deleting verb. (37)

a. bruja-ka g[pro yp[nuka-ta punu - naya - chun ] witch-nom-top me-acc sleep-desid-finite(subj) muna - n want-pr 3 "The witch wants (that) I desire to sleep' b. bruja-ka § [ p r 0 yp[nuka-ta nana - c h u n ] witch-nom-top me-acc hurt-finite(subj) muna - n want-pr 3 'The witch wants (that) I hurt'

The experiencer nukata in (37) can be validated, scrambled into the main clause, and it can be associated with a clitic on the main verb. S-deletion cannot provide an explanation for these facts since it does not affect the embedded experiencer object. Note, however, that an alternative explanation involving pruning (which is independently motivated for control structures) is available. In (37) the subject of the embedded clause is an empty category, pro. As discussed in 3.2 pro in these sentences is not referential pro with independent definite reference. Nor is this category pleonastic pro coindexed with another NP: i.e., this pro is not part of a chain. It was suggested that pro in these sentences is a "pure" dummy, carrying no referential index. S-pruning, then, can be restricted to apply

190

Syntactic

Modularity

with finite clauses just in the instances in which the complement subject is a pure dummy. This predicts that although restructuring never applies with finite clauses which have referential pro or pro which is part of a chain as their subject, restructuring can apply with experiencer verbs in the complement clause, since these verbs invariably have a dummy pro as their subject. Restructuring in finite clauses, then, deletes the S node under certain verbs (which also happen to be S-deleting verbs) when the complement subject is a pure dummy in the sense discussed above. After restructuring, (37) has the following structure in PF: (38)

-g[bruja-ka yp[yp[nuka-tanana - chun witch-nom-top me-acc hurt-finite(subj) muna - n]] want-pr 3

]

In (38) the governing category for the experiencer is the root S, since the embedded S node has been pruned. The experiencer can therefore be validated and is free to move around in the root S. It can also be associated with a clitic on the main verb, which after S-pruning governs the experiencer object. There is an interesting fact connected to object clitics which follows from the S-pruning analysis, but received no explanation if S-deletion alone were responsible for the data in this section. In sentences in which it is assumed that S-pruning had applied, an object clitic can appear either on the embedded verb, as in (39) below, or on the matrix verb (as shown in (27)). In sentences in which only S-deletion applies, the clitic can only appear on the matrix verb, as in (24), but not on the embedded verb (as in (40)). (39)

bruja-ka y p [nuka-ta1 nana - wa1 - chun muna-rka] witch-nom-top me-acc hurt-1 OM-finite(subj) want-pr 3 'The witch wanted (that) I hurt'

(40

*Juan-ga g [nuka-ta1 trabaja-wa1 - chun] m u n a - r k a Juan-nom-top me-acc work-1 OM-finite(subj) want-pr 3 ('Juan wanted (that) I work')

According to the analysis presented above, in (39) S-pruning has applied. After S-pruning, the experiencer object nuka-ta is governed by a clitic which appears on either the embedded or the matrix verb.9 Thus it can be associated with a clitic on either verb. Sentence (40), however, is not an experiencer structure. It has a lexical embedded subject nuka-ta, which prevents S-pruning from applying. The embedded subject is now governed

A Modular

Approach

191

by the matrix verb munana 'to want'. At no stage in the derivation is the embedded subject governed by the embedded verb. As a result, it cannot be associated with a clitic on the embedded verb. Similar facts are found with regard to clitics in control structures in which pruning applies in the PF component. (33) above illustrates that the embedded object can be associated with a matrix clitic. (41) illustrates that the object can also be associated with a clitic on the embedded verb. (41)

nuka tayta (nuka-ta) 1 maka-wa'-y-ta my father-nom (me-acc) hit-1 OM-inf-acc 'My father began to hit me'

kallari-rka begin-past 3

Again, it can be assumed that after pruning the clitic -wa can attach to either the embedded or the main clause verb, since in either position the clitic governs the NP it is coindexed with. The fact that clitics can appear on either the embedded or the matrix verb in sentences like (39) indicates that (39) patterns with_restructuring in infinitivals (as in (41)) rather than with examples of S-deletion in finite clauses (as in (40)). Thus an S-deletion analysis cannot account for the clitic distribution facts for complements with experiencer predicates, while an account involving restructuring (which is compatible with an analysis of experiencer NPs as PF objects) can account for the clitic distribution facts. In conclusion, I have shown in this subsection that the data relating to experiencers presented in 6.4.1 are a result of pruning in PF and not a result of S-deletion. Thus a major problem for my analysis of experiencers as objects in the PF component has been resolved, since it is no longer necessary to claim that experiencers are S-structure and PF-subjects which are affected by S-deletion and exceptional government. The major question remains whether a restructuring analysis can indeed be maintained for clauses with experiencer predicates. As mentioned in this section, although these clauses seem to pattern like infinitival clauses involving restructuring in some respect (see (39) and (41) above), they also are very different from typical clauses in which restructuring applies. More specifically, typically restructuring applies with infinitival clauses with PRO subjects. In order to account for the data in 6.1, I have extended restructuring to finite clauses with dummy pro subjects (under Sdeleting verbs). 10 6.5 The Analysis of Other Languages In this section I present data from languages in which experiencer constructions exhibit a different behavior pattern from the one observed in

192

Syntactic Modularity

Imbabura Quechua. Various analyses which are possible in the Government and Binding framework are discussed. I conclude that in all the languages discussed in this chapter, experience« can be analyzed as Dstructure objects. Reanalysis (Move-a) for the experiencer has to be posited in different components in different languages, in order to account for the fact that experiencers behave differently in the various languages. This result will be further evaluated in Chapter 7. 6.5.1 Huanca Experiencer Constructions Huanca is a Quechua I language spoken in Central Peru in the Department of Junin. For a general description see the work of R. Cerrón-Palomino, "Gramática Quechua Junín-Huanca", one of the six grammars of Peruvian Quechua, published in 1976 by the Peruvian Ministry of Education.11 In Huanca, as in Imbabura, two types of experiencers exist: desideratives and lexicals. The desiderative morpheme is -naa (shortened to -na in a closed syllable), -naa in Huanca has two functions: (a) as the desiderative marker, (b) as an inceptive marker, usually translated as 'be about to do something', 'be at the point of doing something'. It was found that with human experiencers the desiderative meaning is usually the more common interpretation for sentences with -naa. With non-human (especially [-animate] ) NPs, it is usually the second meaning which was given as the only interpretation for the sentence. This is exemplified below:12 (42)

yaqa-kta mika-naa- ma - n me - acc eat-desid-1 OM-pr 3 'I desire to eat'

(43)

tamya-na- ykaa -mu-n-fia iain-inceptive-prog -translocative-pr 3-already 'It already is at the point of raining' ("The rain is about to start')

I will only be concerned with desiderative -naa here. Lexical experiencers include such predicates as alalaa- 'be cold' akachaa- 'be hot', and nana'hurt', Next let us examine how the experiencers in Huanca behave with regard to the various processes and constraints discussed in Chapters 3-5. It will be shown that Huanca experiencers are analyzed as objects by all the principles, except by the ECP. Subsequently, an analysis will be suggested in the Government and Binding framework. Experiencers will be analyzed as D-structure objects, with reanalysis to subject occuring in the LF component, before the ECP applies. The analysis of Huanca

A Modular Approach

193

presented here will not be as complete as the one presented for Imbabura. In Chapters 3-5 it was necessary to give a fragment of the grammar of Imbabura since the general structure of the language is relevant to the analysis of experiencers. The analysis here lacks the depth and details of the analysis for Imbabura and hence is much more tentative. It is interesting, however, to observe how experiencer constructions can differ from one Quechua language to another. 6.5.1.1 Verb Agreement, Object Cliticization and Case Marking I show in this section that experiencers in Huanca must be analyzed as objects by verb agreement, cliticization and Case marking. Desideratives and lexicals do not trigger agreement on the verbs. They can, however, be associated with an object clitic. Huanca, unlike Imbabura, has object clitic markers for both first and second persons. I will not give a full list of object clitics here, since object clitics frequently are combined with subject agreement markers to form portmanteau morphemes (called "transitions" by Quechua grammarians). For a full description, see CerrónPalomino (1976), 6.11.21-23. All of the examples given in this section involve the first person object clitic -maa (shortened to -ma in closed syllables) and the second person object clitic -nki (which is only used with the third person subject marker -shu). The Case marker for experiencers is the accusative marker -kta (realized as -ta in certain phonological environments). This is shown below in (44)(45): (44)

yaqa-kta tushu - na - ykaa - ma - n me-acc dance-desid-prog -1 OM-pr 3 'I desire to dance'

(45)

yaqa-kta alalaa-ma-n me-acc cold-1 OM-pr 3 'I am cold'

In (44) the desiderative is Case marked accusative and is associated with the first person object clitic -maa on the verb. The experiencer NP does not trigger verb agreement; the verb is invariably third person singular. The same holds for the lexical experiencer in (45). Two remarks on the difference between Huanca and Imbabura are in order here. In Huanca the object clitics are obligatory rather than optional and the pronouns associated with the clitics are not usually present in the sentence. Thus, (44)-(45) above are judged to be highly unnatural, unless heavy emphasis is put on the pronoun. Second, it can be shown that in Huanca the experiencer is actually an

194

Syntactic

Modularity

indirect object. Huanca uses -kta to mark both direct and indirect objects. -man (the Imbabura marker for indirect object) is used in Huanca as an allative directional marker. (See Cerrón-Palomino, 5.2.4.3.) In Huanca, both direct and indirect objects can be associated with an object clitic. Note, however, that when both the direct and indirect objects are present in a sentence, it is always the indirect object which is associated with the object clitic: (46)

Hwan qam-ta qu - ma - lqa Juan-nom you-acc give-1 OM-past 3 'Juan gave you to me'

(47)

Hwan yaqa-kta qu- s/zu-lqa- nki Juan-nom me - acc give-3-past-2 OM 'Juan gave me to you'

In (46)-(47) it is always the indirect object which is associated with the clitic on the verb. Thus, (46) cannot be expressed any other way: i.e., we cannot choose to have a pro in the direct object position instead, interpreting the clitic as referring to the direct object. Turning to desiderative experiencers it can be shown that desideratives are indirect objects rather than direct objects. Thus, with a bi-transitive desiderative verb, which takes two accusative NPs, it is always the experiencer which is associated with the object clitic, rather than the second accusative: (48)

pro1 qam-ta lika-na - ykaa -ma'-n you-acc see-desid-prog-1 OM-pr 3 'I desire to see you'

Example (48) above cannot mean 'You want to see me'. This would have to be expressed as (49), in which it is the experiencer 'you' (pro in this case) which now triggers a second person object clitic: (49)

pro 1 yaqa-kta lika- na -ykaa- shu-nki1 me - acc see-desid-prog - 3 - 2 OM 'You desire to see me'

In (49) the experiencer is associated with a second person object clitic. The subject marker is again a third person since the experiencer does not trigger subject agreement. Thus, in Huanca, experiencers are indirect objects. Transitive verbs, then, must be able to assign structural Case to the direct object, and the V assigns structural Case to all indirect objects (including experiencers). The Case marker is -kta in both instances:

A Modular Approach

195

(50)

VP NP-kta (experiencer) NP-kta

Alternatively, it could be claimed that the verb assigns structural Case to its direct object and is also subcategorized for an indirect object (marked with the inherent Case -kta). It so happens that the two cases are homophonous in Huanca (and many other Quechua languages). Thus, given the data presented here, experiencers must be analyzed as objects in the PF component and in D-structure since experiencers are never coindexed with AGR and, hence, never trigger verb agreement. This suggests the following D-structure for a transitive experiencer predicate: (51)

NP-kta (experiencer) (NP-kta) In Huanca, as discussed above, there is independent evidence that experiencers are indirect objects, governed by V. The experiencer is always Case marked (inherently) with objective Case. The experiencer verb assigns structural objective Case to the non-experiencer object (the NP adjacent to V in (51)). The subject is an empty NP (pro at S-structure), which explains the third person verb agreement. Let us next examine how the binding principles, the ECP and control theory interact with experiencer constructions.

6.5.1.2 Binding Theory In Huanca, as distinct from Imbabura, neither desideratives nor lexical NPs seem to be analyzed as subjects by the binding principles. Thus, for example, in control structures we cannot get PRO with verbs which normally take an experiencer NP: (52)

*yaqaj muna - a - chu [PROj mika-na -y-ta] I-nom want-pr 1-neg eat-desid-inf-acc 'I don't want to desire to eat'

196

Syntactic

Modularity

(53)

*mana-m [PRO alala -y-ta ] muna - a - chu neg-val cold-inf-acc want-pr 1-neg 'I don't want to be cold'

Moreover, a PRO cannot appear in the position normally occupied by the experiencer in the Switch Reference constructions in adverbial clauses (see 4.5 above). Only a finite clause can be used with experiencers in Huanca. This is shown in (54) for desideratives, and in (55) for lexicals: (54)

a. [kasara-na - laa - ma- pti - n] alii wamla-kta marry-desid-stative-1 OM-finite-3 good girl-acc ashi - 11a - a look for-affective-pr 1 'When I desire to marry, I look for a good girl' b.* [PRO kasara-na - la - 1 ], alii wamla-kta marry-desid-stative-inf good girl-acc ashi - 11a - a look for-affective-pr 1 ('When I desire to marry, I look for a good girl')

(55)

a. [alala-ykaa-ma - pti - n] wasi-i - man cold- prog-1 OM-finite-3 house-poss-to li- ku- lqa- a go-refl-past-1 'When I was cold, I went to my house' b.*[PRO alala-yka-1 ], wasi - i - man li-ku - lqa-a cold-prog-inf house-poss-to go-refl-past-1 ('When I was cold, I went to my house')

In Huanca 4 is the nonfinite adverbial marker (cognate to Ancash -r and used where Imbabura uses -shpa). -pti is the finite marker (equivalent in function to Imbabura -jpi). Note that -pti always takes subject agreement markers; -/ never does. As discussed in 4.5, this is direct evidence in Huanca for a finite-nonfinite distinction. Experiencer NPs can never appear as PRO in the nonfinite adverbial clauses. Therefore, it must be concluded that experiencers are not treated as subjects by the binding principles. This differs from the situation in Imbabura, where desiderative, but not lexical, experiencer NPs can appear as PRO in both adverbial clauses and Equi control structures. 6.5.1.3 The ECP It was shown in Chapter 5 above that in Imbabura Quechua no escape hatch (via free inversion) from the ECP exists in embedded clauses. The

A Modular

Approach

197

ECP, thus, always prevents extraction of embedded subjects by Wh-movement. Both desideratives and lexicals were shown to be subjects as far as the ECP was concerned. A similar situation exists in Huanca. Although Huanca allows prodrop in both matrix and embedded clauses (since there is always obligatory agreement marked on the verb), free inversion is blocked in embedded clauses, due to a strict verb final order constraint (see 5.4 for a discussion of similar data in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua). Thus the following is ungrammatical in Huanca: (56)

* [Maria-kta libru-kaq-ta qu - na - n - ta Maria-acc book-def-acc give-Nom-pr 3-acc muna - a want-pr 1 ('I want that he give the book to Maria')

pay ] he-nom

In (56) the nominalized verb qu- 'give' is not in the final position in the embedded clause. Instead, the subject pay 'he' appears in the final position of the clause. 13 Since no inversion is possible in Huanca embedded clauses, the extraction of a subject by Wh-movement always causes an ECP violation. In contrast, objects can be freely extracted, just as in Imbabura. 14 This is exemplified below: (57)

*mayqan-taqj Rosa ni-ma-lqa who-nom-wh qu Rosa-nom say-1 OM-past 3 •g[tj[tj karu-kta lanti-na-n-ta] ] car-acc buy-Nom-3-acc ('Who did Rosa say to me (that) will buy a car?')

(58)

ima-kta-taqj Rosa ni-ma-lqa what-acc-wh qu Rosa-nom say-1 OM-past 3 "g[tj[Hwan t j lanti-na-n-ta]] Juan-nom buy-Nom-3-acc 'What did Rosa tell that Juan will buy?'

Example (59) shows that desideratiVe experiencers are never extractable in Huanca. Example (60) shows this for lexicals. (59)

*mayqan-ta-taqj Rosa ni-shu-lqa-nki who-acc-wh qu Rosa-nom say-3-past-2 OM -g [tj g[tj karu-kta lanti-naa-na-n-ta] car-acc buy-desid-Nom-3-acc ('Who did Rosa tell you (that) will want to buy a car?')

198

Syntactic

Modularity

(60)

*mayqan-ta-taqj Rosa ni-shu-lqa-nki who-acc-whqu Rosa-nom say-3-past-2 OM •g [tj g [ t j alalaa-na-n-ta] cold-Nom-3-acc ('Who did Rosa tell you (that) will be cold?')

To summarize, it seems that experiencers are subjects at LF, at the stage at which the ECP applies. 6.5.1.4 Control Theory In 4.8 it was shown that in Imbabura only subjects can be controllers of PRO in Equi and adverbial clauses. The same restriction holds in Huanca. In (54)a and (55)a above a subject is the controller for PRO in the subordinate clause. (61) illustrates that an object cannot be a controller. (61)

*[PRO Limaq-ta tra-1], amigu-u bisita - qla - ma-n-mi i s Lima-to arrive-inf friend-1 visit - asp - 1 OM-pr 3-val ('When I arrive to Lima, my friend immediately visits me')

In (61) a matrix object controls the embedded PRO. In order to express the latter, one cannot use a control structure. Only a finite adverbial clause can be used. (62)

[Limaq-ta tra-pti-i], amigu-u bisita-qla - ma-n-mi Lima-acc arrive-finite-1 friend-1 visit- asp - 1 OM-pr 3-val 'When I arrive to Lima, my friend immediately visits me'

Experiencers, however, can never function as controllers of PRO in Huanca. This contrasts with the situation in Imbabura, in which all experiencers can optionally be PRO controllers. The failure to function as a PRO controller is shown in (63) for desideratives and in (64) for lexicals. (63)

* [PRO trakla-kaq-traw trabaja-yka-1], mika-na - ykaa-ma-n field-def-in work-prog-inf eat-desid-prog-1 OM-3 ('When working in the field, I desire to eat')

(64)

*[PRO trakla-kaq-traw trabaja-yka-1], alalaa-ma-n field-def-in work-prog-inf cold-1 OM-pr 3 ('When working in the field, I am cold')

The above examples are ungrammatical because the experiencer, which controls PRO, is not a subject at the level when control is determined.

A Modular Approach

199

6.5.1.5 Summary and Analysis of Huanca Experiencers Huanca Quechua experiencer constructions seem to differ from similar constructions in Imbabura. In Imbabura desideratives were shown to be subjects for the binding principles, the ECP and control. Lexicals differed from desideratives in that they were not subjects for binding purposes. In Huanca, no difference exists between desideratives and lexicals: in both constructions experiencers are nonsubjects at all levels except at the stage at which the ECP applies. The data presented in this section can be accounted for by a analysis which claims that experiencers are objects at all levels except at LF, where the ECP applies. (65)-(66) is a sample derivation for a desiderative experiencer in Huanca. (65)

D-structure, S-structure and PF

NP yaqa-kta me-acc NP irmanu-u-ta brother-l-acc lika-na - ykaa-ma -n see-desid-prog-1 OM-pr 3 'I desire to see my brother' In the LF component, the experiencer is moved into the empty subject position by Move-a (reanalysis): (66)

g[yaqa-ktaj y p [ t j y[irmanu-u-ta me-acc brother-l-acc

y[lika-naa-ykaa-ma-n]]] see-desid-prog-1 OM-pr 3

This explains why experiencers are analyzed as objects by processes and principles which apply, or hold, prior to LF. Note that this indicates that the stipulation that only subjects can be controllers of PRO in Huanca holds prior to LF, at a stage when the experiencer is still an object. After LF reanalysis, the ECP blocks Wh-extraction of embedded experiencers since such an extraction leaves behind a trace in subject position, which is not a properly governed position. The Government and Binding framework accommodates the Huanca facts by positing reanalysis in a different place in the grammar from reanalysis in Imbabura. Also, Huanca will have

200

Syntactic

Modularity

to differ from Imbabura with respect to the level at which control is determined. In Imbabura, it was claimed that control can be determined at two levels: LF and a previous level (possibly S-structure). In Huanca, control must be determined prior to LF to account for the fact that experiencers are not controllers. The data from Huanca and Imbabura show that in order to account for the facts presented in Chapters 3-5 and this section, the grammar must be able to allow reanalysis of experiencers to occur at different levels in different languages. This result will be further evaluated in chapter 7. 6.5.2 Kannada Experiencer Constructions The analysis presented here is based mainly on data provided by Sridhar (1975, 1976, 1979 and personal communication). 16 In Sridhar (1976) and (1979) a relational account is provided for the experiencer construction in Kannada, a Dravidian language spoken in Southern India. For a detailed description of experiencers in this language the reader is referred to the works cited above. In this section, my goal is to provide an account in the Government and Binding framework for the range of data noted by Sridhar, data which differ considerably from the facts found in Imbabura and Huanca. As mentioned in 1.2, in Kannada the experiencer construction encompasses a wide range of predicates. A typical sentence with an experiencer is given below: (67)

ava-lige aru makkalu she-dat six children-pl-(nom) 'She has six children'

iddare be-3 pi

The dative NP in (67) does not trigger verb agreement. Agreement is triggered by the nominative NP. There are, however, experiencer verbs which do not exhibit obligatory agreement with the nominative NP. 17 One of these verbs is gott- 'know' or 'learn'. As shown below, in (68)a agreement in this instance can be with the nominative NP, or alternatively agreement is third person neuter as in (68)b : (68)

a. Asha-lige nävu Asha- dat us-nom 'Asha knew us' b. Asha-jige nävu Asha-dat us-nom 'Asha knew us'

gottu - divi know-past 3 pi gott - ittu know-past 3 sg neuter

Dative Case is usually associated with indirect objects in Kannada, while

A Modular

Approach

201

nominative is the normal Case for subjects. Therefore, the experiencer must be an object at the stage at which verb agreement and Case are determined, presumably in the PF component. Moreover, the nominative must be either a subject at this stage, or some different principle must account for the Case marking and verb agreement facts. As noted in 1.2 the dative experiencer is a subject with regard to certain syntactic phenomena. This was described in a relational framework in Sridhar (1979). I will try to interpret the data in the Government and Binding framework. It will be shown that experiencers in Kannada must be analyzed as D-structure, S-structure and PF objects, but as Bstructure and LF subjects. First, as far as binding principles are concerned, PRO can appear in the position normally occupied by a dative experiencer in certain participial constructions. (69) and (70) below show that the PRO in these participial constructions can only appear in subject position, a fact predicted by the theorem that PRO must be ungoverned. 18 (69)

[PRO markettige hogi] Shyamala tarakari tandalu market-to having gone, Shyamala vegetables brought 'Shyamala went to the market and brought vegetables'

(70)

* [Ramanu [PROj karedu] Shyamanuj hattira bandanu Rama-nom having called Shyam-nom near came ('Rame having called (him), Shyam came near')

In (70) the matrix subject Shyam controls an embedded object. PRO cannot appear in the embedded object position, a governed position. Note, however, that PRO can appear in the position of the dative experiencer in participial clauses: (71)

[PROj hendatiya jnapaka bandu] Rama^ vihvalanadanu wife's remembrance having come Rama went beserk 'Remembering his wife, Rama went beserk'

In (71) the embedded verb is subcategorized for a dative experiencer. Thus, at the stage when the binding principles apply, Kannada experiencers must be subjects. In contrast, PRO cannot replace the nominative in the experiencer construction. Examples like (72) show that the nominative must be a nonsubject at the stage when binding is checked: (72)

* [nanage PROj ishta agi ] avaluj nannannu me-dat liking having become she-nom me-acc cennagi matadisidalu nicely talked to ('Having liked her, she talked to me nicely')

202

Syntactic

Modularity

There also exists an obligatory control structure in Kannada where PRO must show up in the embedded subject position under so-called Equi verbs of wanting, trying, consenting, etc. As (73) shows, a lexical NP is not permitted in this position: (73 )

khaidiyuj -g [ PROj/ *Ramanu/ *avanuj/ *tanUj prisoner^ -g[PROj/*Rama /*hej /*himself tappisikollalu] prayatnisidanu to escape attempted 'The prisoner attempted to escape'

If the dative experiencer NP appears in the embedded clause, it is the dative and not the nominative NP which can be replaced by PRO in this control structure: 1 9 (74)

avanuj [PROj Koppakke vargavagalu] ishtapaduvudilla hej Koppa-to be-transferred wish not 'He doesn't wish to be transferred to Koppa'

As Sridhar (1979) notes, despite the English rendering, no passive is involved in the derivation of (74). Note that the verb 'become transferred' is subcategorized for a dative experiencer: (75)

avanige Koppakke varga ayitu he-dat Koppa-to transfer happened 'He was transferred to Koppa'

The nominative NP, however, cannot be replaced by PRO in the control structure : (76)

*Ramaj [PROj avajige ishta agalu] she-dat liking become ('Rama tried to be liked by her')

prayatnisida tried

Thus, at the stage at which the binding principles apply, it is the dative NP and not the nominative which must appear in subject position. There are two more facts related to restrictions on antecedents of anaphors which are relevant to the discussion. In sentences such as (69) above it is also required that the controller (antecedent) of PRO be a subject in Kannada. Note that this is very similar to Imbabura and Huanca Switch Reference constructions; in which both the PRO and the controller had to be subjects. Thus in (69) the controller is a subject. Sentence (77) is ungrammatical, however, since the controller is not a main clause subject.

A Modular (77)

Approach

203

*[PROj manege bandu] tayi avanigej uta badisidalu home-to having come mother him-to meal served ('Having come home, mother served him (his) meal')

Main clause dative experiencers (in contrast to the indirect object in (77) above) can be PRO controllers: (78)

[PROj bisilinalli tirugi] Sureshanigej bayarike ayitu sun-in having wandered Suresha-dat thirst happened 'Having wandered in the sun, Suresha became thirsty'

In contrast, the nominative NP in the experiencer construction cannot be a PRO controller, as exemplified in (79): (79)

*[PROj nannannu cennägi mätädisi] nanage avaluj me-acc nicely talked-to me-dat she-nom ishta adaju liking became ('Having talked to me nicely, I liked her')

Thus, as far as the restriction on controllers of PRO is concerned, the nominative NP is not a subject, while the dative behaves as a subject. Similarly, antecedents of the reflexive anaphor tanu 'self must also be subjects. An NP in object position cannot be an antecedent for the reflexive anaphor, only a pronoun can be used in this case. This is illustrated in (80)-(81). (80)

Subject as antecedent of a reflexive anaphor Jan- Merige- tanna^ jägavannu bittukottanu John Mary-aat self's place-acc gave-up 'John gave up his own place for Mary'

(81)

Object as antecedent of a reflexive anaphor Janj Merigej John Mary-dat

I JYjjQ I [* t a n r ^ a .J jägavannu ^

^^place-acc

bittukottanu gave-up

'John gave her place (back) to Mary' The restriction on antecedents of anaphors in Kannada parallels the restriction on antecedents in Imbabura Quechua. In 4.8 it was claimed that such a restriction must be stated independently of binding theory in

204

Syntactic

Modularity

a separate component even if one were to assume the theory of control argued for in Manzini (1983). In the experiencer construction, a dative experiencer can be the antecedent of a reflexive anaphor, while a nominative NP cannot. (82)

Dative experiencer as antecedent Somanige tanu tumba ishta Soma-dat self-nom much liking 'Soma is very fond of himself

(83)

Nominative as antecedent Somanu tumba ishta *tanage self-dat Soma-nom much liking ('Soma is very fond of himself)

(82) and (83) show that experiencer NPs in Kannada are subjects at the level at which the subject restriction for antecedents is checked. Note that, given the data cited in this section, it is impossible to determine what the exact module is in which this restriction applies. Since dative experiencers in Kannada are subjects as far as the binding principles are concerned, the restriction could hold, at the same level at which binding theory is specified, or at a later level. To summarize the facts from Kannada, it seems that dative experiencers are objects as far as Case marking and verb agreement are concerned. The nominative NP, in contrast, may trigger verb agreement and always receives nominative Case. For all the other principles discussed here it is always the dative experiencer which is the subject. The nominative NP invariably fails to be analyzed as a subject by the binding principles and the various control phenomena. In effect, except for verb agreement and Case marking, the dative experiencer always behaves as a subject, in contrast to the nominative NP. Just as for Imbabura desideratives, two analyses are conceivable for Kannada experiences: (a) the experiencer could be a D-structure, Sstructure and LF subject. The nominative will have to be a nonsubject in all these components. In the PF component, however, the experiencer is reanalyzed as an indirect object. The nominative NP, which is an object at S-structure, would be reanalyzed as a subject at this stage. Note, however, that this is not a possible analysis in the Government and Binding framework since it violates the 0-criterion. If the experiencer is base generated in subject position, this position must be a 0-position. Thus, not only does the experiencer move from one 0-position to another if it is reanalyzed from subject to object, but the second NP is also moved

A Modular

Approach

205

from an (object) 0-position into the subject 0-position vacated by the experiencer. Such movement is ruled out in the Government and Binding framework since only movement from a 0-marked to a non- 0-marked position is allowed. I rejected analysis A for desideratives in Imbabura (see 6.3 above) for similar reasons. (b) There is a second analysis possible for experiencers, similar to analysis B for desideratives in Imbabura Quechua. According to this analysis, experiencer NPs are generated as D-structure objects. Just like Imbabura desiderative experiencers, these NPs are also S-structure and PFobjects, accounting for the Case marking and verb agreement facts. Assuming that binding is relevant at B-structure (the post S-structure and pre-LF level) and control phenomena (i.e., the stipulation that antecedents of reflexive anaphors be subjects) hold in the LF component, the experiencer must be reanalyzed as subject before the binding principles apply. Kannada experiencers, then, are exactly like Imbabura desideratives, except for the fact that they receive dative (and not accusative) Case. Note, however, that there is a major difference between Imbabura and Kannada. In Imbabura there is a second accusative NP, which never triggers verb agreement. In Kannada experiencer verbs, as shown in (67), invariably take a nominative NP, which seems to be a PF subject since it is assigned nominative Case and triggers subject agreement on the verb (with some verbs but not others). Let us next turn to an explanation of these facts. The first question to be asked is whether the nominative NP could possibly be generated as a D-structure subject. Under this analysis, a typical sentence with an experiencer predicate would have the following D-Structure: (84)

aru makkalu 1 AGR1 six children-nom 'She has six children'

yp[ava-lige iddare] she-dat be-3 pi

The nominative NP is co-superscripted with the AGR node at D-structure. In the PF component Case checking will allow nominative Case on this NP since it is governed by AGR. The nominative will also determine verb agreement. Note, however, that at the stage at which the binding principles and control apply it is the dative and not the nominative which is in subject position. This was explained by reanalyzing the dative as a subject before B-structure. Such reanalysis is impossible, however, in a derivation in which the nominative is a D-structure and S-structure subject, since movement in the Government and Binding framework is only allowed into an empty NP position (as a result of the 0-criterion).

206

Syntactic

Modularity

Alternatively the following D-structure for experiencers can be proposed : (85)

j^pfe] 1 AGR 1 yp[ava-lige y [ a r u makkalu [iddare]] she-dat six children-nom be-3 pi 'She has six children'

In (85) Np[e] is a non- 0-position which is governed by and co-superscripted with AGR in D-structure. After S-structure, in the binding component, the dative is reanalyzed as subject by being moved into the empty subject position, explaining the range of facts discussed in this section. At B-structure, after reanalysis (85) would have the structure in (86): (86)

ava-jige-1 AGR 1 y p [ t j y f a r u makkalu [iddare]]] she-dat six children-nom be-3 pi 'She has six children'

In (86) the dative experiencer avalige is in subject position at the stage at which the binding principles apply and at the stage at which the stipulation about antecedents of PRO and other anaphors is enforced. This explains the fact that it is always the experiencer NP which is analyzed as a subject by the binding principles and the stipulation about antecedents. The nominative NP is in object position in all these modules. Let us next turn to the PF component. Since S-structure is the input to this component, the PF structure for this sentence is (85). To account for the fact that Case marking and verb agreement both treat the nominative NP as the subject, two possible analyses are available: (a) the nominative is reanalyzed in PF as the subject; (b) nominative Case and verb agreement apply directly to the pre-verbal position inside the VP. Note that option (a) involves positing yet another reanalysis process, this time of the (direct) object governed by V. Moreover, as far as word order is concerned, the nominative NP is not in the position in which subjects typically appear in Kannada. If the nominative were in subject position in PF the following should be the most common surface order for experiencer sentences: (87)

aru makkalu yp[ava-lige iddare] six children-nom she-dat be-3 pi 'She has six children'

This, however, is not the case. The most frequently observed basic order in experiencer constructions is N P ^ a t N P n o m V f i X p. The nominative NP seems to appear in a VP internal position. Hence, nominative Case in Kannada must be assigned to this position. Moreover, as already mentioned,

A Modular Approach

207

with at least some experiencer predicates the nominative NPmust be able to trigger verb agreement, even though it is not in a position in which it is governed by AGR. Let us next consider an account for the Case marking and verb agreement facts in the Government and Binding theory. As mentioned in 3.2, certain verbs in Italian (Burzio's ergatives) seem to have similar properties. These verbs cannot Case mark their objects. The object gets nominative Case from AGR and triggers subject agreement on the verb. As discussed in 6.5.3 below, experiencer verbs in Italian have similar properties. In Chomsky (1981) the analysis of these constructions involved the claim that co-superscripting applies to superscript the postverbal NP in Italian with AGR and with the element in the subject position. Subsequently, a rule (which Chomsky calls rule-/?) applies in the syntax of Italian, moving AGR into the VP. After the application of rule-/?, AGR governs the postverbal NP, assigning it nominative Case. Since AGR is also co-superscripted with this NP, the NP and AGR have to agree in all their features, explaining why the NP triggers agreement on the verb. In contrast to Chomsky's analysis, I am not assuming the existence of rule-/? in the syntactic component. I would like to propose that experiencer verbs in Kannada are similar to Italian ergatives in that they cannot assign structural Case to their objects. As a result, these NPs can be Case marked by AGR and also trigger agreement on the verb. I will propose that the NP gets its nominative Case via a chain which is created by co-superscripting the NP with the empty element in subject position at S-structure. Since at IDstructure co-superscripting occurs between the subject position and AGR, the object NP is also co-superscripted with AGR by transitivity of superscripting. This is illustrated in (88) below, which is the S-structure for (85) after co-superscripting: (88)

pro 1 AGR1 yp[ava-lige y [ a r u makkalu 1 [iddare]]] she-dat six children-nom be-3 pi 'She has six children'

Using the notion of chain and Case assignment to chains as suggested in Chomsky (1981), chapter 6, I will assume that Case can be assigned to chains. In addition, I will assume a notion of transfer: i.e., features of the chain will be percolated to all members of the chain. In (88) the chain is assigned nominative Case by AGR. This Case is then transferred to all members of the chain. The object NP aru makkalu 'six children' will, therefore, be assigned nominative Case. Let us next consider how agreement works in such a system. Agreement in general is between AGR and the element it governs and is co-superscripted with (pro in (88)). As discussed in 3.2, pro can be viewed as an empty pronominal with no inherent

208

Syn tac tic Modularity

features for person, gender and number. If AGR were to agree with pro, default agreement (third person singular neuter in Kannada) would be expected. If, however, pro is in a chain, due to the general requirement that feature transfer occur between elements and to all elements in a chain, pro will assume the features of the NP it is co-superscripted with. When agreement is spelled out, agreement will, in effect, be with the nominative NP. This explains agreement in (88) in Kannada and is further discussed in 6.6. Next, consider the examples in Kannada in which agreement with a nominative NP in these constructions does not take place (as in (68)b above). An account can be given for these cases if we assume that transfer of person, gender and number features is optional rather than obligatory with certain predicates. Note that it has to be assumed that a chain is formed in these instances (as in (68)b above) since the object NP gets nominative Case via the chain. I will return to a discussion of the cases in which agreement and Case in a chain do not seem to coincide in 6.6 below. It will be suggested that these instances constitute marked options of the more general instance in which Case and agreement are both transferred to all members of a chain. Note that according to this analysis Imbabura Quechua and Kannada do not differ in any major way as far as the PF structure of experiencer constructions is concerned. In both languages, these constructions have a dummy pro in subject position and both the experiencer and the second object are in nonsubject position in surface structure. The only difference between the two languages is that in Imbabura Quechua the verb always assigns structural accusative Case to its object and inherent Case to the experiencer NP. In Kannada, the verb does not assign structural Case to its object, even though it assigns it a 0-role. Experiencer NPs have inherent Case in both Imbabura and Kannada. It is interesting to note in this respect that in some other Dravidian languages, the NP which corresponds to the Kannada nominative in the experiencer construction is Case marked with accusative Case. Thus, in Malayalam, it must be claimed that experiencer verbs always assign structural (accusative) Case to their objects, as shown in (89): (89)

avalkka ayale ishtam ang she-dat him-acc liking as 'She likes him'

It was shown in Cole, Harbert, Hermon and Sridhar (1977) that in Malayalam it is the dative and not the accusative which behaves as a subject in various control structures. (See also Mohanan, 1983, on this issue.) The difference between Kannada and Malayalam can be captured by the difference in the

A Modular

Approach

209

Case assignment capabilities of the verbs in each language. Malayalam is like Imbabura Quechua and Huanca in requiring experiencer verbs to Case mark their (direct) objects. As a result no chains can be formed since Case conflict would result. See also the discussion in 6.6 below. 6.5.3 Modern Hebrew Experiencer Constructions In this section I will propose an analysis for the experiencer construction in Modern Hebrew. In Modern Hebrew there are two different patterns, exemplified in (90)a-b below, in which experiencers can appear. I will propose that in Modern Hebrew both the experiencer and the nominative NP (in (90)a-b) are base generated as objects. Modern Hebrew differs from all the languages discussed in this thesis, since there is no evidence that the experiencer is reanalyzed as a subject at any level. The nominative, however, with certain predicates is optionally moved into subject position by Move-a in the syntactic component. 20 In Modern Hebrew, in addition to the pattern observed in (90)a, we also have pattern (90)b, with the nominative in preverbal position: (90)

a. ko'avot li ha-'eynaym hurt-fem pi me-dat the-eyes-fem pi nom b. ha- 'eynaym ko'avot li the-eyes-fem pi nom hurt-fem pi me-dat 'My eyes hurt me'

In both patterns (a) and (b), the dative experiencer does not control verb agreement. It cannot be Case marked with nominative Case. Moreover, the dative cannot appear as PRO in control structures: (91)

*'anij lo roca -g[PROj lix'ov ha - rosh ] I-nom not want inf-hurt the-head-nom ('I don't want my head to hurt (to me)')

Nor can an NP-trace, under raising predicates, appear instead of the dative NP. (92)

*'ani i 'alul ha - rosh] s [ t j lix'ov I-nom likely inf-hurt the head-nom ('I am likely to hurt (in my head)')

This seems to indicate that at the stage where the binding principles apply the dative is not a subject. Next let us examine how the nominative NP in experiencer constructions is analyzed by the binding principles. First, note that in control structures PRO can appear in the position of a nominative NP:

210

Syntactic

Modularity

(93)

ha- 'eynaym- hitxilu "^[PROj lix'ov li] the-eyes-pl start-pl to hurt me-dat '(My) eyes started to hurt me'

An NP-trace under a subject raising verb such as 'ahil 'likely to' can also show up instead of the nominative NP: (94)

ha- 'eynayirij 'alulot lix'ov the-eyes-pl likely-pi to hurt '(My) eyes are likely to hurt me'

li ] me-dat

To summarize, in (91)-(92) above it was shown that the dative experiencer is not a subject for binding. The nominative NP, however, must be a subject at the stage at which the binding principles apply as shown in (93X94). Before turning to an analysis of the Hebrew data note that not all experiencer constructions allow the nominative to show up pre-verbally. In the possessive construction a post-verbal position is preferred for the nominative: 21 (95)

a. yesh li mexonit is me-dat car-nom b.*mexonit xadasha yesh car-nom new is 'I have a new car'

xadasha new li me-dat

The (b) version can be interpreted only as a topicalized sentence. There is another interesting fact limited to the post-verbal NPs in the possessive construction. In literary Hebrew, nominative Case is the only Case associated with possessed objects, and these objects always trigger agreement on the verb, as exemplified below. (96)

hayta li ha-ba'aya was-sg fem me-dat the-problem-sg fem nom hazot lifney shana this ago year 'I had this problem a year ago'

In colloquial Modern Hebrew, however, (96) is ungrammatical. As noted in Ziv (1976) only an accusative NP is acceptable in this position. Moreover, verb agreement is no longer obligatory with the accusative NP; the preferred form is now third person agreement on the verb.

A Modular (97)

211

Approach

haya/?hayta li 'et haba'aya hazot lifney shana was-masc/was-fem me-dat acc the problem this ago year 'I had this problem a year ago'

An analysis for experiencer constructions like (95) and (96) also needs to account for the facts in colloquial Modern Hebrew in which an accusative post-verbal NP is used instead of a nominative NP. Two analyses are possible for the data presented in this section. One option is to base generate the nominative NP in experiencer constructions in pre-verbal subject position. An inversion rule will have to be posited to account for the cases in which the nominative shows up post-verbally. Another option is to generate the nominative in a post-verbal position and to move it into subject position in the syntactic component. I will present arguments below for preferring the second analysis. I shall next consider the two analyses in greater detail, (a) First analysis. According to this analysis, the nominative NPs are base generated pre-verbally, in subject position: The experiencers are base generated as (indirect) objects. (98)

ha- 'eynaym* the-eyes-nom

AGR 1 vp[[ko'ev-] hurt

li] me-dat

There are two possible surface structures derived from (98). In one derivation, no movement rules apply. In the PF component, the NP in subject position is checked for nominative Case and verb agreement is spelled out, agreeing with this nominal. In this derivation, ha-'eynaym in (98) is in subject position in all components, explaining the facts cited in (93)-(94). However, a second derivation is possible. In this derivation free inversion applies, moving the subject NP into an adjoined position under VP. A chain is then created since the subject is coindexed with the empty category in subject position. Moreover, since AGR is also co-superscripted with the empty subject position, pro, AGR and the post-verbal NP are all co-superscripted: (99)

prOj1 AGR 1 [[ko'ev li ] ha-'eynaymj] hurt me-dat the-eyes

In the S-structure representation shown in (99), the post-verbal NP can be Case marked nominative via the chain, or more precisely due to the fact that AGR assigns nominative Case to the chain, and Case is transferred to all members of the chain. The nominative also triggers verb agreement via the chain, assuming that transfer of agreement features to the empty NP in subject position is the unmarked case in a chain, as discussed in 6.6.

212

Syntactic

Modularity

The assumption, then, is that verbs like ko 'ev 'hurt' cannot assign Case, otherwise ha-'eymym, which is governed by the verb after inversion would have to have accusative Case. The dative NP is Case marked with inherent Case (or alternatively by the preposition le-). Hence, this NP can never be part of a chain since Case conflict would result. Reanalysis of the experiencer NP into subject position is impossible since it would involve movement from one 0-position to another, since the subject position is a 0-position in this derivation (cf. (98) in which the subject position is not empty at D-structure and, hence must be a d -position). Moreover, in this derivation the adjoined NP cannot be a subject as far as the binding principles or the principles which hold at LF are concerned. Note, however, that there are certain problems with the inversion analysis. First of all it does not explain why in possessive constructions the nominative cannot appear in pre-verbal subject position. Nor can it explain how in colloquial Modern Hebrew accusative Case is assigned to the post-verbal adjoined NP. In Imbabura (and Malayalam) it was proposed that the verb always assigns accusative Case to the NP it governs (see 6.5.2). However, the post-verbal NPs in these languages appeared in VP internal base generated positions and not in adjoined positions. This would argue for a base generated VP internal position, at least for the possessed accusative NP in (97) above. Therefore, in order to account for all experiencer constructions two different derivations have to be assumed: (a) one in which a nominative is base generated in subject position and adjoined to VP by inversion; (b) a base generated VP internal position for possessives. Note, moreover, that a VP adjunction analysis of the sort needed to account for the data in experiencer constructions is not independently motivated in Modern Hebrew. Thus, although Hebrew does allow inversion to apply in non-experiencer constructions, inversion is generally triggered by preposing an adverbial or some other element to the beginning of the sentences. Furthermore, inversion does not adjoin the subject to the VP - it simply inverts the verb with the subject; as exemplified in (100)a: (100) a.

'etmol yesterday 'Yesterday b. ??'etmol yesterday c.??pagsha met-3 fem

pagsha Rina 'ish barexov met-3 fem Rina a man in-the-street Rina met a man in the street' pagsha 'ish Rina barexov met-3 fem a man Rina in-the-street Rina 'ish barexov Rina a man in-the-street

In (100)b inversion adjoined the subject to the VP instead of just in-

A Modular

213

Approach

verting the subject and the verb. (100)c shows that inversion is much less acceptable if the sentence is not preceded by an element moved into the sentence initial position (see Borer. 1979 on the issue of inversion in Modern Hebrew). Under the analysis presented here, in experiencer constructions a separate process of inversion has to be posited, one not attested in general in Hebrew. This process adjoins the subject to the VP, and is not dependent on moving an element into sentence initial position to "trigger" the inversion. 22 Another argument against base generating the nominative NP in preverbal position comes from 0-theory. Note that the pre-verbal NPs in the experiencer construction do not receive a 6-role typical of subjects: they are patients and not agents. Usually the patient 0-role is assigned to objects and not to subjects. Thus, passive subjects, for example, get their 0-role via the trace in object position. The subject in these constructions is not a 0-position. The same is true of Burzio's ergative verbs which are identical to Perlmutter's unaccusative verbs. 23 These verbs typically take a non- 0-marked subject, and do not assign Case to their objects. The nominative NP which optionally shows up in subject position is base generated in VP internal (object) position, and preposed by Move-a. For Italian the following derivation is based on Chomsky (1981), 4.5: (101) D-structure: Move-a:

Np[e] AGR yp[arriva- j^p[molti studenti]]] arrive many students molti studentij AGR yp[arriva- t j

The verb in (101) cannot assign accusative Case to the object position. Hence either Move-a must move the NP into subject position for it to get Case marked, or after co-superscripting with the empty category in subject position, the NP gets nominative Case post-verbally. Similarly, in Hebrew there are ergatives with base generated post-verbal nominatives. (102) a. higi'a David arrived-3 masc sg David 'David arrived' b. naflu kol ha-'alim fell-3 masc pi all the leaves 'All the leaves fell o f f c. kara 'ason happened-3 masc sg a disaster 'A big disaster happened there'

gadol sham big there

I will assume that the same mechanism that accounts for the ergatives in Italian accounts for ergatives in Hebrew.

214

Syn tac tic Modularity

In the experiencer construction, the nominative NP is not an agent, but either a patient (a possessed object) or theme in sentences such as (94) above. If the nominative were an agent, an agentive-causative verb would have to be used, as in (103) below. (103) David hix'iv David-nom hurt-caus-3 masc sg 'David hurt me'

li me-dat

In this case, the nominative NP is preferred in the pre-verbal rather than post-verbal position. (104) ?? hix'iv li David hurt-caus-3 masc sg me-dat David-nom ('David hurt me') Moreover, in Italian there is independent evidence that in experiencer constructions the nominative NP must be base generated in a VP internal position and not adjoined to the VP by inversion. 24 In Kannada my analysis also involved positing a base generated post-verbal position for nominatives in experiencer constructions. If this crosslinguistic evidence is taken into consideration, it points in the direction of base generating the nominatives in Hebrew in a VP internal position in experiencer constructions, rather than generating them in subject position and adjoining them to the VP by inversion. (b) Second analysis. Let us next consider an alternative analysis in which nominatives in experiencer constructions are base generated as objects. The verb then takes an empty NP subject position, to which no 6role is assigned: 25 (105) a. j^p[e] yp[ko'ev li ha- rosh] hurt-3 me-dat the-head-nom b. j^jp[e] yp[yesh li ha- sefer shelxa] is-3 me-dat the-book-nom yours Note that the assumption that the subject position for (105)a is j^p[e] is consistent with the claim that all experiencer clauses have the same Dstructure. As shown above, possessives only take j^p[e] subjects. There also are other types of dative experiencer predicates which only take ^ [ e ] subjects and never fill this position: (106) jvjp[e] yp[kar/ham/tov/mesha 'amen cold/hot/good/boring 'I am cold/hot/well/bored'

li] me-dat

A Modular Approach 007)

215

yp['asur li s [PROle'ashen]] forbidden me-dat inf-smoke 'It is forbidden for me to smoke'

Np[e]

Thus positing a restructure like (105) allows for a unified analysis of experiencer constructions both in Hebrew and cross-linguistically. A similar analysis is proposed for existential sentences in Borer (1981). Let us now consider how this analysis accounts for the data in Hebrew. The D-structure for a typical experiencer clause is repeated here for convenience: (108) N p M 1 AGR 1

vp[ko'ev

li ha'eynaym] hurt me-dat the-eyes-nom

At D-structure Np[ e l co-superscripted with AGR. Assuming the devices for forming chains discussed in 6.6, a number of derivations are possible from this D-structure. (a) As discussed in 6.6, I am following Borer (1981) in assuming that there is random co-superscripting at S-structure. One possibility is, then, that the post-verbal NP gets an index which is different from the index of Np[e] (pro in this case) and AGR: (109) pro 1 AGR1 [ko'ev li ha'eynaymi] hurt me-dat the-eyes-nom As discussed above, the verb ko'ev cannot assign Case to its object. Since no chain is formed in (109) the post-verbal NP must move into subject position to be in a Case marking environment. After Move-a has applied, the NP is in subject position. The fact that NP-trace and PRO are possible in this position is now explained (cf. examples (93)-(94)). The NP is Case marked nominative and triggers verb agreement since it is co-superscripted with and governed by AGR, as in (90) repeated below: (90)

ha- 'eynaym the-eyes-fem pi nom 'My eyes hurt me'

ko'avot hurt-fem pi

li me-dat

(b) Another possibility is that after random co-superscripting the postverbal NP receives the same index as pro and AGR: (110) pro 1 AGR1 [ko'ev li hurt me-dat

ha-'eynaym 1 ] the-eyes

216

Syntactic

Modularity

In (110) pro and the post-verbal NP ha-'eynaym are members of the same chain. The NP can then receive nominative Case via the chain, and it will also trigger verb agreement via the chain, as shwon in (111). This is similar to the data in Kannada discussed in the previous section. (111) ko'avot li ha-'eynaym hurt-fem pi me-dat the-eyes-fem pi nom 'My eyes hurt me!' There is an additional complication regarding these post-verbal nominative NPs in Hebrew. In colloquial Hebrew, in addition to (111), speakers also have (112). In (112) the nominative NP does not trigger agreement. Rather, agreement is third person singular, the default agreement. (112) ko'ev li ha-'eynaym hurt-masc sg me-dat the-eyes-fem pi nom 'My eyes hurt me' An account for (112) can be given if transfer of agreement is allowed to be optional rather than obligatory in colloquial Hebrew with predicates such as ko'ev. This is similar to the account given in Kannada for the instances in which verb agreement with the post-verbal NP is optional rather than obligatory with certain predicates. (See the previous section and also 6.6 below.) The difference between Kannada and Hebrew then is that in Hebrew the dative experiencer is not reanalyzed as a subject in any of the components, while in Kannada reanalysis must apply since the binding principles treat the experiencer NP as a subject. Hebrew then simply lacks the rule of reanalysis for experiencers. Consider next the derivation of possessive experiencers. In literary Hebrew the nominative NP would be base generated in a VP internal position, a shown in (105)b, repeated here for convenience: (105) b. jyjpfe] [yesh li ha- sefer shelxa] is me-dat the-book-nom yours 'I have your book' The NP ha-sefer cannot receive Case from the possessive predicate. This NP can be Case marked with nominative Case via a chain, as discussed above for the example in (109). Note, however, that with possessive predicates the derivation in which no chain is created and Move-a has to apply, moving the NP into a Case marking position, is not possible. Thus, the equivalent of (90)b is ungrammatical with a possessive predicate:

217

A Modular Approach (113)

*ha- sefer shelxa yesh li the-book-nomyours is me-dat ('I have your book')

The ungrammatically of (113) can be explained if Borer's analysis of yesh as an existential particle which is not a proper governor is extended to possessive sentences. Borer's claim is that existential (and locative) yesh differs from ergative verbs in that it is a particle which cannot properly govern the post-verbal NP. As a result extraction from the post-verbal position would violate the ECP. Hence, in existential sentences NP preposing can apply only if a clitic is attached to the particle. The clitic in this case will properly govern the trace in the post-verbal position as discussed in Borer (1981), Chapter 4: NP proposing in existential/locative sentences (114) *ha- seferj yesh tj ba- sifriya the-book-nom is in-the-library ("The book is in the library') (115) ha- seferj yesh-no t¡ ba-sifriya the-book is - 3 mase in-the-library 'The book is in the library' In (115) Borer assumes that the rule of Clitic Spell-Out has applied even though the particle yesh does not have Case features. The clitic -no in (115) properly governs the post-verbal NP, which can be moved into subject position by Move-a, as shown in (115). Returning to the possessive construction, note that the rule of Clitic Spell-Out has to be limited to apply only with yesh as an existential predicate. In (116), in which yesh is a possessive predicate, Clitic Spell-Out cannot apply. Hence the derivation cannot be saved, and it always is in violation of the ECP. (116)

*ha- sefer^ yesh- (no) the-book-nom is - (3 mase) ('I have a book')

li tj me-dat

In (116) Clitic Spell-Out cannot apply since the particle is the possessive yesh rather than existential yesh. As a result, the post-verbal NP cannot be moved into subject position since an ECP violation results due to the assumption that yesh, unlike ergative predicates, is not a proper governor in literary Hebrew. Hence, in literary Hebrew the nominative NP has to appear in the post-verbal position as part of a chain and receive its Case via the chain.

218

Syntactic Modularity

Let us next turn to the analysis of possessives in colloquial Hebrew. As mentioned above, in colloquial Hebrew the possessive predicate has been reanalyzed as a Case assigner, assigning accusative Case to the NP it governs. This reanalysis is part of a general process of reanalysis affecting ergative verbs. Hence, ergative verbs such as likrot 'happen', can optionally assign accusative Case to the postverbal NP as shown in (117)b: (117) a. kara sham ha-ason ha-gadol b a - 'olam happened there the-disaster -nom the-big in-the-world b. kara sham et ha- ason ha-gadol ba - 'olam happened there acc the-disaster the-big in-the-world "The biggest disaster in the world happened there' Other ergatives and ergative passives which are optional Case assigners are discussed in Borer (1981), chapter 4. Note, however, that in the possessive construction accusative Case assignment is obligatory rather than optional. Thus (113) is ungrammatical in colloquial Hebrew, which only has (118): (118) yesh li et ha-sefer shelxa is me-dat acc the-book yours 'I have your book' According to the analysis proposed here, (118) has the following Dstructure: (119) Npte] 1 AGR1 [yesh li et ha-sefer shelxa] is me-dat acc the-book yours 'I have your book' A chain can be created if the accusative NP happens to be assigned the same index as AGR and Np[e]: (120)

Np[e]'

AGR1 [yesh li et ha-sefer shelxa1] is me-dat acc the-book yours

Note, however, that (120) leads to Case conflict since the chain (or rather the NP ' y ° u r book') is assigned two Cases: nominative via the chain and accusative from the predicate. Hence, the derivation in which a chain is established is blocked. Alternatively, 'your book' is randomly co-superscripted with a different index from ^p[e]. No chain is established in this instance, and the NP receives accusative Case from yesh:

A Modular

Approach

219

(121) jsjpfe] 1 AGR1 yp[yesh li et ha-sefer shelxal] is me-dat acc the-book yours There are, however, some problems with the derivation proposed for (121) above. It was claimed that no chain can be formed in (121) since this would lead to Case conflict. This also predicts that verb agreement in (121) should not be with the accusative NP since this NP is not part of a chain in which AGR is a member. Note, however, that in colloquial Hebrew, in addition to (122) in which the accusative does not trigger agreement, there also exists an option in which the accusative NP does trigger agreement. Although this is a less preferred option, speakers do accept and produce these sentences: (122) No agreement with accusative NP pro 1 AGR 1 haya li et ha - ba'ya was-masc me-dat acc the-problem-fem sg ha-zot kvar lifney shana this already ago year 'I had this problem already a year ago' (123) Optional agreement with the accusative NP pro 1 AGR 1 hayta li et ha- ba'ya was- fem sg me-dat acc the-problem-fem sg ha-zot kvar lifney shana this already ago year 'I had this problem already a your ago' How can agreement with the post-verbal accusative NP be possible in (123) if no chain is established between the post-verbal NP, AGR and pro in subject position? In 6.6 a possible solution is suggested for this problem, involving the claim that a chain is indeed established in (123), but that transfer of nominative Case to the post-verbal NP via the chain is optional rather than obligatory in these instances. Hence, no Case conflict ensues if a chain is created in (123), allowing the transfer of agreement features from the NP to pro in subject position. In summary, in order to account for experiencer and possessive constructions in both literary and colloquial Hebrew, certain assumptions are necessary: (i) Verbs like ko'ev 'hurt' do not assign Case in either literary or colloquial Hebrew. These verbs are proper governors, hence, the post-verbal nominative NP can be moved into subject position. In colloquial Hebrew, agreement with the post-verbal NP is not obligatory, leading us to pro-

220

Syntactic

Modularity

pose optional rather than obligatory transfer of agreement features in colloquial Hebrew. (ii) The possessive/existential predicate yesh does not assign Case in literary Hebrew and is not a proper governor. Optional Clitic Spell-Out can apply with the existential use of yesh, but not with possessive yesh. Hence, only post-verbal nominative NPs are allowed in the possessive construction in literary Hebrew. In colloquial Hebrew, however, yesh is a Case- assigner. The post-verbal NP must have accusative Case and can optionally trigger verb agreement, leading us to propose optional transfer of Case in chains. Other ergative verbs are reanalyzed as optional rather than obligatory Case assigners in colloquial Hebrew. The properties of the latter group are discussed in detail in Borer (1981). As far as the dative experiencer is concerned, no reanalysis to subject is ever possible in Hebrew in any of the constructions mentioned in this section. As far as possessive predicates are concerned, one could try to explain this fact as a consequence of yesh not being a proper governor in Hebrew. Reanalysis of the dative to subject would thus lead to an ECP violation, just as the preposing of the nominative NP violates the ECP in possessive sentences. However, this explanation cannot account for the fact that reanalysis cannot apply with verbs like ko'ev, which are proper governors and in general allow NP preposing of the nominative NP, but not of the dative experiencer. The problem of when reanalysis of the experiencer NP can apply is further discussed in chapter 7. 6.5.4 Italian Experiencer Constructions Italian experiencer constructions are discussed by Perlmutter (1979) and (1983) in a relational framework. I will suggest an analysis of the construction in the Government and Binding framework in this section. According to this analysis, Italian experiencers are base generated as (indirect) objects and moved to subject position in LF. The nominative NP in (124) is base generated in object position and optionally moved to subject position by Move-a in the syntactic component. There are certain problems with the analysis which will be discussed in 7.4 below. Italian is similar to Hebrew in that experiencer verbs take a dative experiencer and also a nominative NP: 26 (124) gli piacciono le sinfonie di Beethoven him-dat like-3 pi the symphonies-nom of Beethoven 'He likes Beethoven's symphonies' The nominative can appear in post-verbal position as in (124) or in preverbal position as in (125):

A Modular

Approach

221

(125) le sinfonie di Beethoven gli piacciono the symphonies-nom of Beethoven him-dat like-3 pi 'He likes Beethoven's symphonies' In both (124) and (125), it is always the nominative which triggers verb agreement. In Italian the dative is not analyzed as subject by the binding principles. Thus PRO cannot appear in this position in obligatory control structures: (126)

*GeorgiOj preferirebbe [PROj piacere le sinfonie di Beethoven] ('Giorgio would prefer to like Beethoven's symphonies')

Moreover, as shown in Perlmutter (1979), there are other processes which crucially refer to subjects and which do not analyze the dative experiencer as a subject. Since it is unclear which general principles of the Government and Binding theory account for these facts, I will not discuss the data here. 2 7 The crucial point is that experience« in Italian are subjects for control purposes only. This was illustrated in Perlmutter (1979) in considerable detail. There are four different non-finite embedded clause types in Italian in which a PRO seems to appear in the embedded subject position: da + infinitive constructions, the participial absolute construction, gerunds, and infinitival adverbial clauses. The PRO in these clauses is always controlled by the matrix subject. I will only illustrate this fact from the da + infinitive construction. Parallel examples from other control structures can be found in Perlmutter (1979). Thus in (127) below, PRO can only be controlled by the matrix subject, and not by the matrix object:

(127) La mammaj mi ha rimproverato tante volte [PROj da rompersi la scatole] 'My mother reprimanded me so many times that she/*I got fed up' Dative experiencers, however, can be controllers in this construction: (128) Glij sono mancate vitamine tanto [PROj da amalarsi] 'He lacked vitamins to such an extent that he got sick' Thus the dative experiencer must be analyzed as an object at the stage where binding is checked, but must be a subject for control purposes. Since there is evidence that the experiencer is an S-structure and PF

222

Syntactic

Modularity

object, it could be assumed that reanalysis applies from object to subject before control is determined. Let us assume then that experiencers are reanalyzed as subjects in the LF component, before control is determined and after binding is checked. As far as the nominative NP is concerned, there is evidence that it must be base generated in an object position, rather than generated preverbally and adjoined by inversion to the VP. The evidence is connected to the ability of base generated objects, but not NPs adjoined to the VP, to trigger ne cliticization. This is illustrated below. In (129) a nominative NP which has undergone inversion and adjunction to VP cannot trigger the partitive clitic ne. Example (130) shows that base generated nominative NPs in Italian can trigger ne cliticization: 28 (129) *yp[ yp[ne telefonano] ^ [ m o l t i ] ] ('of them many telephoned') (130) yp[ne arrivano j^p[molti]] 'of them many arrived' Note that when the nominative appears in experiencer constructions postverbally, it can trigger a ne object clitic (data from Perlmutter 1981): (131) gliene sono piaciute him-dat-of-them be like-past-pl 'He liked many (of them)'

molte many

Example (131) indicates that the post-verbal nominative is in a base generated object position, rather than a position adjoined to VP by inversion. It can be assumed, then, that experiencers in Italian have the following D-structure : (132) Np[e] AGR yp[gli piace- j^p[le sinfonie he-dat likethe symphonies-nom di Beethoven]] of Beethoven Again, we have to assume that verbs like piacere do not Case mark their direct objects. The same assumption is necessary for base generated postverbal NPs in (130) (Burzio's ergatives): (133) Np[e] AGR yp[arriva- j^p[molti studenti]]

A Modular

223

Approach

As argued in Rizzi (1980) and Chomsky (1981) Italian is a pro-drop language. Therefore, just as in Hebrew there are two possible derivations, (a) The non-Case-marked NP is moved into subject position by Move-a. This predicts that pre-verbal nominatives will be analyzed as subjects by the various principles of the Government and Binding framework which predict a subject-object asymmetry. Once the subject position is filled, the dative cannot be reanalyzed, (b) If a chain is created in (132) with pro and the post-verbal NP as members, the post-verbal NP gets nominative Case via the chain and triggers verb agreement: (134) pro 1 AGR 1 yp[gli piacciono ^p[le sinfonie di Beethoven 1 ]] No movement of the nominative occurs and, therefore, it should not be treated as a subject by binding or control theory. The dative in this case can be moved into subject position by an LF movement rule. As discussed above, reanalysis must occur after the stage when binding is checked since the dative is not a subject for binding purposes. After LF reanalysis experiencer clauses have the following structure: 2 9 (135)

NP

idat

Vp[Vex

P

N P n o m

ti]

This explains the control facts in (128) above. Let us next examine whether the data from Italian support the analysis presented above. Note that the analysis predicts that there will be a significant difference in the behavior of pre-verbal and post-verbal nominative NPs. Since post-verbal nominatives are base generated in an object position, they should be analyzed as objects by the binding principles and control. In contrast, the pre-verbal nominative should be a subject at all levels. This prediction is borne out, as shown in Perlmutter (1983). Thus, at least as far as control is concerned, it is argued in Perlmutter (1983) that the pre-verbal nominatives are controllers for various "Equi" constructions, but post-verbal nominatives are not. Sentence (136) is an example of a pre-verbal nominative NP as a controller in the adverbial infinitive constructions: (136) PROj prima di partire per l'estero, Giorgioj mi sembrave un po' nervoso 'Before leaving for abroad, Giorgio seemed a bit nervous to me' Moreover, the pre-verbal nominative is clearly treated as a subject by the binding principles. For example, NP-trace can appear in this position under a raising verb like sembra 'seem':

224

Syntactic

Modularity

(137) molte sinfonie di Mozartj sembrano g[tj yp[piacergli]] many symphonies of Mozart seem-pl like-him 'He seems to like many of Mozart's symphonies' Contrast this with (138), in which the nominative NP is in a post-verbal position. In this case, the post-verbal NP cannot be raised since this would violate binding principle A. The pro in subject position can, however, undergo raising: (138) proj 1 sembrano gft- 1 yp[piacergli molte sinfonie seem : pl like-him many symphonies di Mozart 1 ]] of Mozart 'He seems to like many of Mozart's symphonies' In (138) the plural agreement on the verb 'seem' can be explained if we allow agreement features to be transferred to all members of a chain. In the embedded clause in (138) a chain can optionally be established between pro and the post-verbal NP. The NP receives nominative Case via the chain and also transfers agreement features to pro. pro is raised into the empty matrix subject position, determining plural agreement on the verb in the matrix clause. There is a problem with this analysis. Usually raising applies to lexical NPs out of infinitival subject position since these NPs cannot receive Case in their clause. It was claimed that in (138)pro is raised. Note, however, that since pro does not fall under the Case filter, there is nothing in the theory which forces pro to raise into the matrix clause. What then is the explanation for the plural agreement on the matrix verb? One could suggest that in (138) raising occurred out of a pre-verbal nominative position, followed by free inversion of the nominative NP into a postverbal adjoined position. (139) a. Raising of the pre-verbal nominative NP molte sinfonie di Mozart^1 AGR 1 yp[sembrano many symphonies of Mozart seem-pl s[*i yp[piacergli]]] like-him b. Free inversion pro^ AGR 1 y p [ y p [ s e m b r a n o s [ t j ypfpiacergli]]] seem-pl like-him [molte sinfonie di Mozartj 1 ]] many symphonies of Mozart

A Modular Approach

225

In (139)b pro is in a chain with the adjoined post-verbal NP due to coindexing via a movement rule. As a result pro receives the plural feature of the NP and triggers plural agreement on the matrix verb. Such an account seems to avoid the problems created by having to raise pro in (138). There is evidence, however, against this alternative account. Note that the post-verbal NP in (138) can trigger ne cliticization, which as discussed above can only be triggered by base generated post-verbal NPs. This argues for S-structure (138) and against the derivation in (139) in which the nominative NP is in an adjoined position. (140) sembrano «¡[piacergliewe molte] 'He seems to like many (of them)' The fact that in Italian Move-a has to apply to an empty category (a dummy pro) is, then, problematic for any account which treats all occurrences of A-movement as a consequence of the Case filter. This is further discussed in chapter 7. 30 6.6 Case Marking and Verb Agreement Via A-Chains In this section I would like to consider a unified account for the Case marking and verb agreement facts presented for the various languages discussed in this chapter. Let me first summarize the facts. According to the data presented in 6.2-6.5.4, the following possibilities arise in various languages: (a) The experiencer NP is invariably Case marked with inherent Case and never triggers verb agreement. (b) If the experiencer verb is transitive, it can also subcategorize for a (direct) object. This NP can have various Case and agreement properties and can also appear in subject position. The various possibilities are summarized in the table below. NPs Case marked with nominative Case are marked [+] for Case; NPs Case marked accusative by the verb are marked [-] for Case. NPs which trigger verb agreement are marked [+] for verb agreement; NPs which do not are marked [-]. It is important to notice that a language can be instantiated in more than one column. Moreover, some languages allow several options with the same predicate, while in other languages different predicates allow different options. The variability in Case marking and verb agreement is only relevant as far as the direct object of the verb is concerned. Experiencer NPs, which are not assigned structural Case by the verb, are always Case marked with inherent (objective) Case, never trigger verb agreement, and always appear in a VP internal position: i.e., these NPs are never in subject position in surface structure.

226

Syntactic

Modularity

(141) Attributes of VP internal non-experiencer NPs

Case (Nom.) Verb Agreement Word Order: NP in subject position Examples

la

lb

2

3

4

+

+

+

_

_

+

+

-

-

+

+

-

-

-

-

Italian Hebrew* Kannada

coll. Hebrew Kannada

coll. Hebrew coll. Hebrew Telugu Imbabura Huanca Malayalam

Italian Hebrew*

*Includes both literary and colloquial Hebrew

What can explain the distribution of Case and agreement for the object and the inherent differences between objects and experiencer NPs? I will try to outline an approach, based on the notion of chain which can explain the facts summarized in the table above. I will exemplify how this approach accounts for the data in various languages. Subsequently some problems with the approach will be discussed and a possible solution to these problems will be suggested. Before turning to the discussion of the account of the Case marking, verb agreement and word order facts in the Government and Binding theory, let me point out that the same range of data is accounted for in Relational Grammar by Perlmutter's "Brother-in-Law Case Marking" and "Brother-in-Law Verb Agreement" laws. (See Perlmutter, 1983.) Perlmutter accounts for data in Italian, Kannada and some other languages by allowing Case marking and verb agreement rules in impersonal constructions (constructions with a dummy subject) to refer to the object of the verb instead of the dummy subject. 31 This section should then be viewed as an attempt to give an account for Brother-in-Law phenomena in the Government and Binding theory. I would like to propose that the word order, Case marking and verb agreement facts fall out from a number of general principles of Universal Grammar and need not be stipulated. Let me next turn to a discussion of these general principles and their interaction and show how they account for the data. Let us assume, first of all, that Case assignment is to chains, as proposed in Chomsky (1981), chapter 6. Each NP is then a member of at least a single link chain. Intuitively a chain is a sequence of categories at S-structure coindexed by Move-a, each member except the first being a

A Modular

227

Approach

trace of the first member. Chomsky also extends the notion of chain to include elements which are co-superscripted with each other. Co-superscripting applies at D-structure between AGR and the element it governs, and it also applies at S-structure between objects of certain verbs and an empty, non- 0-marked subject position. Thus, for example, in the following configuration, a chain is formed between pra and the post-verbal NP: (142) pro 1 AGR 1

W

[ V NP1]

The co-superscripting between pro and the NP base generated under VP has to be stipulated in Chomsky (1981), since it only applies with certain ergative verbs. (142) is an example of an ergative clause in Italian, as discussed in Burzio (1981). Let us then assume that Case and 0-roles are assigned to chains. As far as Case is concerned, there is the following principle for Case assignment: (143) The chain C = (ofj.. . . a n ) has the Case K iff for some i, otj occupies a position assigned K by /J In addition, the following reformulation of the Case filter is necessary: (144) Every lexical NP is an element of a chain with Case In (142) AGR = 0. It governs pro and assigns it nominative Case. According to (143) the whole chain can have nominative Case. I will also make the additional assumption that the Case of the chain appears on all the elements of the chain: i.e., it is transferred to the NP inside the VP, which will therefore be marked with nominative Case since it is part of a chain marked with nominative Case. I will, in addition, assume, following Borer (1981), chapter 4, that co-superscripting at S-structure is, in fact, random and need not be stipulated. In the instances in which an NP bears an index identical to the index of pro (and AGR), it is part of a chain. Moreover, there also are conventions ruling out Case conflict in (142). As discussed in Burzio (1981), verbs allowing nominative Case on their objects (i.e., in my framework verbs which allow their objects to be part of a chain with pro as the other member) cannot assign Case to their objects and do not assign a 0-role to their subjects. Otherwise Case conflict would arise since the chain and, hence, all of its elements would be Case marked by two categories: by the verb and by AGR. Let me next exemplify how the notion of chain introduced above will account for the cross-linguistic variation discussed in this chapter (cf. table (141)). I will consider the behavior of both experiencer NPs and non-experiencer NPs as far as Case marking, verb agreement and word

228

Syntactic

Modularity

order in various languages are concerned. Turning to Italian first, let us examine what the possible derivations are for (142) in this language. First of all, indices are assigned freely; if the index on the NP agrees with pro, a chain is formed. If the indices do not happen to agree, no chain is formed. Due to the fact that the verb cannot assign Case, the Case filter is violated in these instances unless the NP moves into subject position where it can get nominative Case from AGR. The assumption that certain verbs are not Case assigners together with the assumptions about chains and the Case theory seem to predict the range of data for Italian. For example, consider D-structure for an experiencer in Italian, as in (145): (145) pro yp[gli piacciono jsjp[le sinfonie di Beethoven]] him-dat like-pl the symphonies of Beethoven 'He likes Beethoven's symphonies' Since superscripting can freely apply to all NPs, in (145) at S-structure cosuperscripting could occur between the indirect object clitic gli and pro. AGR would then assign nominative Case to the chain: (146) pro1 AGR1 yptgli 1 piacciono le sinfonie to-him like-pl the symphonies di Beethoven] of Beethoven Note, however, that this is ruled out by Case conflict since gli is inherently Case marked with dative Case. Thus, only the derivation in which gli has an index which differs from pro is possible. In effect, since experiencer NPs always have inherent Case, no chains can ever be formed with such NPs. The direct object, however, is not assigned Case by the verb since experiencer verbs (just like ergative verbs) cannot assign structural Case to their objects. Hence, nominative Case is assigned to this NP via a chain if the index on the NP agrees with the index on pro and AGR (i.e., if a chain is formed). (147) pro 1 AGR1 yp[gli piacciono le sinfonie di Beethoven1] If no chain is formed the Case filter rules (145) out, unless the object moves into subject position where it can be Case marked directly by AGR. Let us next turn to the agreement facts. The prediction is that if the object is part of a chain (via co-superscripting or due to its moving into subject position), this NP also determines agreement on the verb. This follows from the assumption that if the NP is co-superscripted with pro, the features of the post-verbal NP are copied onto pro, due to the re-

A Modular

Approach

229

quirement that all elements of a chain share the same features. In effect, I am assuming feature transfer of Case and of gender, person and number. The transfer always seems to be from the lexical NP to pro as far as person, gender and number are concerned, possibly due to the fact that, as stated in Chomsky (1981), the empty subject position in this instance can be considered a proximate element with the NP as an antecedent. Due to the requirement that proximate elements have the same features as their antecedents, pro always assumes all the features of the NP in the chain. In summary, it is predicted that in Italian non-experiencer objects of ergative (experiencer) verbs receive nominative Case via a chain since these verbs are never Case assigners. The nominative NP also triggers verb agreement since pro assumes all the features of the object NP. Alternatively, if a chain is not created via co-superscripting, the object can move into subject position, where it is Case marked by AGR and where it triggers verb agreement like all other subjects in Italian. The experiencer, on the other hand, can never be part of a chain and, hence, never triggers agreement and always appears with inherent dative Case. These possibilities are illustrated in (148)a-b below: (148) a. Verb agreement with nominative post-verbal NP via a chain pro 1 AGR 1 yp[gli piacciono le sinfonie to-him like-pl the symphonies di Beethoven 1 ] of Beethoven b. Verb agreement with nominative NP in subject position le sinfonie di Beethovenj 1 AGR 1 the symphonies of Beethoven yp[gli y [piacciono tj]] him-dat like-pl 'He likes Beethoven's symphonies' The data from Kannada can be explained in a similar fashion. In Kannada chains are always formed between pro and the object NP, resulting in nominative Case on the NP and in verb agreement with the object NP. As in Italian, experiencers are always marked with inherent Case (dative) and never trigger verb agreement. The only difference between Kannada and Italian is that Kannada does not allow the object NP to move into subject position in order to get Case marked when a chain is not formed. This is further discussed in chapter 7. Let us next see how this system accounts for the facts in Imbabura Quechua and Huanca Quechua. In these languages, it seems that all verbs

230

Syntactic

Modularity

(including experiencer verbs) always assign Case to their objects. Hence, no chains can be created between these objects and pro since Case conflict would result. The experiencer has inherent Case, again barring chains in this configuration. This predicts, then, that Imbabura Quechua and Huanca can never exhibit Case marking and agreement properties like Italian and Kannada since chains are always ruled out by Case conflict. The difference between languages like Italian, on the one hand, and languages like Imbabura and Huanca, on the other, is due to the fact that Italian, as described by Burzio, does not allow Case marking of objects with ergative and experiencer verbs, while Imbabura Quechua and Huanca always require Case marking by the verb. Colloquial Hebrew is another example of a language in which an NP in post-verbal position can have accusative Case. Certain verbs are reanalyzed from non-Case assigners to Case assigners in colloquial Hebrew as discussed in 6.5.3. It is predicted that the differences in Case marking and agreement can be verb by verb in the same language since these differences follow from individual Case assignment properties of certain verbs. In Italian and Kannada, all ergative and experiencer verbs are not Case assigners; in Imbabura Quechua and Huanca all verbs are Case assigners, while in Hebrew some ergatives are Case assigners and some are not. Note that up to this stage I have only discussed examples in which Case assignment and verb agreement group together: i.e., examples in which verb agreement is invariably triggered by a nominative NP. If nominative Case is assigned to an NP in the VP via a chain, it is predicted that this NP will invariably trigger verb agreement since, as discussed above, agreement is a result of transmission of the features of the NP to the other members of the chain. There are, however, examples in which an NP which is a member of a chain and is Case marked nominative does not trigger verb agreement. Kannada has certain sentences in which agreement with the nominative NP in object position is not obligatory (as described in 6.5.2), and colloquial Hebrew seems to have an increasing tendency for post-verbal nominative NPs with no verb agreement, as discussed in 6.5.3: (149) ko'ev li ha-'eynaym hurt-sg masc me-dat the-eyes-pl fem nom 'My eyes hurt me' It is difficult to explain the above lack of verb agreement in a system in which nominative Case on the object NP is assigned via a chain, which in turn implies that the gender, number and person features of this NP should be copied onto the pro. Hence agreement should always be with the object NP. In (149), however, the verb does not agree with the nomi-

A Modular

Approach

231

native NP. The verb seems to have third person default agreement. The same facts hold for certain verbs in Kannada, as described in 6.5.2. A possible explanation for these facts can be proposed if the requirement is weakened that all features of the antecedent in a chain be copied onto all members of the chain. To phrase the matter differently, the transfer of person, gender and number features is optional in these cases. Thus, in Kannada with certain verbs feature transfer (and hence agreement with the nominative) is optional rather than obligatory. In colloquial Hebrew feature transfer is. in general, obligatory but has become optional with certain verbs. None of the examples show that feature transfer is impossible: i.e., in all the examples agreement with the nominative is a possible option, but it is not the only option. There are other examples involving Case, however, which necessitate a further weakening of the generalization that all Case and agreement facts follow from the general process of Case assignment to chains and feature transfer via a chain. These examples involve languages in which the verb seems to assign structural Case to its object. In the framework discussed here, this is an indication that no chain is formed between the object and the pro in subject position since a chain in this instance would get Case marked twice, once by the verb and once by AGR, causing Case conflict. For example, in Telugu, a Dravidian language, experiencer verbs assign structural accusative Case to their (direct) objects. The experiencer is marked with inherent dative Case: (150) VaaDiki kaanukkaal-ni him-dat presents-pl-acc 'He got presents'

vacc-eeyi got-pl

The example is from Perlmutter (1983). Since in the approach proposed here no chain is formed with the object due to Case conflict, verb agreement with the accusative object should be impossible. It seems, however, that the accusative NP triggers subject agreement on the verb in (150), hence the plural marking on the verb. Another example of this sort comes from colloquial Hebrew. As noted above, a number of ergative verbs in colloquial Hebrew have become Case assigners. With possessives this is practically the only option. Verb agreement in these sentences is usually with pro as shown in (151 )a. However, speakers also accept (151)b, in which agreement seems to be with 'students', the accusative object of the ergative possessive verb: (151) a. haya lo et ha-talmidim haxi tovim ba-universita was-sg to-him acc the-students very best in-the-university 'He had the best students in the university'

232

Syntactic

Modularity

b. hayu lo et ha-talmidim haxi tovim ba-universita were-pl to-him acc the-students very best in-the-university (151)a can be derived by assuming that a chain is ruled out in this instance since it would cause Case conflict due to the fact that the verb 'be' assigns accusative Case to its object. How then can one explain the plural agreement on the verb in (151)b? One possible explanation involves a further weakening of the requirement that features be transferred to all members of a chain. Instead of claiming that the Case of the chain is always transferred to all its members, one could claim that in certain languages, with certain verbs, the transfer is optional (as in Hebrew (151 )b) or even impossible (as in Telugu). When transfer of Case does not take place, the verb can assign Case to the object since no NP in the chain is Case marked twice and Case conflict is avoided . 32 Thus there is a chain even though it has no effect as far as Case is concerned. Verb agreement, however, can be with the accusative object in these instances. This entails that transfer of features from the post-verbal NP to pro is a separate process from transfer of Case to all members of a chain. A similar assumption had to be made for the examples in Kannada in which the NP is marked with nominative Case but doesn't transfer agreement features. Note that the cross-linguistic facts seem to indicate that the variation in Case and verb agreement are not only language specific but also construction specific, and in some instances (as in Kannada and colloquial Hebrew) verb specific. Hence, only an account which allows different options of transfer of Case and agreement for different verbs can account for the data. The account for these facts in the Government and Binding theory predicts that there are certain core cases which represent the unmarked case. In these unmarked cases, Case and agreement always correlate: i.e., if there is Case transfer to the NP, indicating the existence of a chain, there is also transfer of agreement features from this NP to pro. If there is no Case transfer (as in Imbabura, Huanca and Malayalam), there is generally no transfer of agreement features either. It is very hard to draw conclusions from the small sample of languages examined in this chapter, but it seems that the examples of constructions in which Case and agreement do not coincide are by far outnumbered by examples in which Case and agreement do coincide. A lot of the examples come from languages like colloquial Hebrew, which seems to be in a state of fluctuation. In colloquial Hebrew verbs are being reanalyzed as Case assigners, but subject agreement in some cases is with the post-verbal NP, which receives its Case from the verb. The prediction is that this is an unstable situation and that eventually verb agreement will cease to be via a chain in these cases since there is less and less overt evidence for chains with these verbs as far

A Modular

Approach

233

as the child language learner is concerned. Equivalently, in the cases in which agreement ceases to be with post-verbal nominative NPs, the prediction is that, since on the surface there is less evidence for the existence of chains with these verbs, Case will also cease to be transferred and the verb will be reanalyzed as a Case assigner, making chains superfluous (and impossible) for these verbs. There is some evidence from errors in child language that this is indeed the analysis some learners come up with when confronted with the data. Thus a common error in child language is to have accusative Case on objects of verbs in constructions in which agreement has become optional in colloquial Hebrew, as illustrated in (152): (152) ko'ev li et ha-beten hurts-masc sg to-me acc the-belly fem sg 'My belly is hurting me' Finally, as far as word order is concerned, the fact that in Italian the direct object can be moved into subject position is claimed in Chomsky (1981) to follow from the Case filter. In the framework outlined here formation of chains is optional due to the fact that superscripting at Sstructure is random. If no chain is formed the object cannot get Case in its original position since ergative verbs do not assign Case in Italian. The NP can move into subject position where it gets Case marked by AGR. Note, however, that as discussed in chapter 7, this explanation predicts that movement to the empty subject position should always be possible with verbs which do not assign Case. In languages like Kannada, however, and in some constructions in Hebrew, in which ergative verbs are not Case assigners, movement to subject position is never an option (cf. the discussion in 6.5.3). Thus, either a chain is formed and the NP gets Case via the chain, or the derivation is ungrammatical. In effect, once Case marking via a chain is allowed, there is no reason for the NP to move into subject position. So movement must be an option in some languages but not others and does not follow from the Case filter as suggested in Chomsky (1981). Another fact worth pointing out is that, although Case assignment via chains is discussed in chapter 6 of Chomsky (1981), Chomsky assigns Case to the post-verbal NP in Italian by allowing rule-/? to apply in the syntax, as discussed in 3.2. In the derivation in which rule-/? does not apply, the NP has to move to subject position in order to receive Case. Let me digress here and consider how an account which has both rule-/? and allows chains via co-superscripting can account for the data presented here. The following assumptions are necessary to account for the data:

234

Syntactic

Modularity

(i) Case marking is by AGR to an element it governs but does not require a co-superscripting relationship, (ii) Verb agreement is between AGR and an NP co-superscripted with AGR but does not require a government relationship. Co-superscripting occurs in D-structure between AGR and the element it governs and also at S-structure in certain configurations. Four possibilities then arise: 33 (a)

pro' ^ [ V + A G R 1 NP1]

(Italian, Kannada, Hebrew)

Rule-./? applies in the syntax and also co-superscripting takes place. The post-verbal NP is assigned an index identical to that of AGR. The postverbal NP gets nominative Case since it is governed by AGR and also triggers verb agreement since it is co-superscripted with AGR. (b)

pro 1 ypfV+AGR 1 NPJ] (Some Kannada and colloquial Hebrew verbs)

Rule-/? applies but no co-superscripting takes place: i.e., the NP happens to receive a superscript which differs from the superscript on AGR. Hence the post-verbal NP gets nominative Case (it is governed by AGR), but this NP cannot trigger agreement since it is not co-superscripted with AGR. AGR gets co-superscripted at D-structure with the empty NP and, hence, it is spelled out as third person singular. (c)

pro 1 AGR1 ypfNP 1 V] (Telegu, possessives in colloquial Hebrew)

Rule-/? does not apply but the NP is co-superscripted with AGR. Assuming transfer of features, pro assumes the features of the NP. Hence agreement is, in effect, with the post-verbal NP, even though this NP does not receive nominative Case since Case can only be assigned by AGR to the element it governs. The NP gets accusative Case from the verb since the verb is a Case assigner. (d)

pro 1

AGR 1

yp[NPJ

V] (Imbabura, Huanca, Malayalam, colloquial Hebrew)

Rule-/? does not apply and superscripting does not create a chain. The NP is accusative and does not trigger agreement. In general, in this alternative system nominative Case on the NP in the VP is always due to rule-/?, and verb agreement is via the chain, assuming obligatory transfer of features from antecedents to pro in a chain. It seems, then, that a system which posits rule-/? as an optional rule in the syntax of some languages, in addition to assuming chains (for verb agreement), can account for the data discussed in this chapter. 34

A Modular

Approach

235

The problem is that in the approach which assumes both rule-/? and chains, whether rule-/? applies or not will have t o be made not language specific but construction or verb specific. Thus, in Hebrew rule-/? applies with some verbs but not with others. It seems that a system like the one suggested earlier in this section which does not incorporate rule-/? can also account for the variation found in natural languages with regard to the Case marking and verb agreement facts mentioned in this chapter. The account predicts that there are certain core cases of interaction between Case and agreement. The marked cases are accounted for by weakening the requirements that transfer of Case and other features be obligatory. A system which distinguishes between unmarked core cases and marked cases is preferable to a system which predicts that all possible combinations of Case and verb agreement are o f equal likelihood, such as the system which posits rule-/? in addition to random superscripting at S-structure and which has Case assignment directly to the VP internal position, in addition to allowing feature transfer for verb agreement via a chain.

NOTES 1. Buizio (1981) has proposed an account of properties of ergative verbs based on the generalization that verbs which do not assign a 0-role to their subjects also do not assign Case to their objects. The structure in (2) contradicts this generalization. As discussed in 6.6 below, verbs which do not assign a 0-role to the subject have to be allowed in some languages to assign Case to their objects. 2. There is no independent evidence, however, that desiderative experiencers are D-structure subjects, even if they have to be analyzed as subjects at S-structure. Thus an analysis is possible in which desideratives are D-structure objects, explaining the lack of co-superscripting between AGR and the experiencer. In the syntactic component, Move-a reanalyzes these NPs as subjects, explaining the facts about binding and the ECP. In PF, however, the experiencer is again reanalyzed as an object, to account for the Case marking, cliticization and agreement facts. This analysis, however, still contradicts the »-criterion. Also, it posits two different reanalysis processes: one from object to subject and a second one from subject to object in the PF component. Thus, such an analysis is merely a more complex version of analysis A, presented here. 3. A similar proposal, positing an additional level between S-structure and LF, is considered in Pesetsky (1982). Pesetsky's arguments for the additional level are independent of the arguments presented here. 4. Given Chomsky's Visibility Hypothesis which states that only Case marked traces are visible in the LF component for ^marking, reanalysis would have to leave behind a Case marked trace. In (12), however, it was claimed that the trace left behind by Move-a is not Case marked. Hence, reanalysis in (14) cannot leave behind a Case marked trace. It seems, then, that even though in general reanalysis could leave behind a Case marked trace (since it occurs on the right-hand side of the grammar and has no effect on Case

236

Syntactic

Modularity

in the PF component), in certain instances as in (14) no Case is left behind. 0-assignment, however, is to the trace in LF. The Visibility Hypothesis seems to be contradicted in these instances. See also Borer (1981), Chapter 2, for a discussion of the viability of the Visibility Hypothesis. 5. PF scrambling is necessary to account for the word order possibilities in the framework presented here, since the accusative Case on the complement subject is not interpreted as a sign that actual movement of the NP took place, as discussed in 4.3. In a framework such as the one proposed in Lefebvre and Muysken (1982), the accusative Case on wawa in (29) is due to this NP moving into the main clause (via a rule of raising). No additional rules of PF scrambling are then necessary to account for (29). For arguments against this approach, see sections4.4 and 5.3.3. 6. To be more precise, the dependents of the embedded clause are governed by a verb-complex, which is a combination of the embedded and matrix verb. 7. As far as the theory of binding and control proposed in Manzini (1983) is concerned, PRO is a pure anaphor subject to principle (A) of the binding theory. In this revised binding theory, it is possible for restructuring to apply at S-structure as long as PRO is prevented from being Case marked, since the only stipulation in the revised binding theory is that empty anaphors like PRO cannot have Case. 8. The prediction for Imbabura is that restructuring will apply to raising structures as well as control structures. Although I do not have conclusive evidence that this prediction is true, it seems that raising structures exhibit some of the characteristics associated with restructuring. Thus in (i) the embedded object can be validated, suggesting that the embedded S has been pruned: (i)

Kichua - ta - mi paria - y kati - ju - rka - ni Quechua-acc-val speak-inf continue-prog-past-1 'I continue to speak Quechua'

9. The statement that the experiencer after S-pruning is governed by both the embedded and the matrix verb does not imply that this NP has two distinct governors. It has to be assumed that the two verbs, after S-pruning, form a verbal complex (even though they can be non-continguousin surface structure). 10. In Lefebvre and Muysken's analysis of raising as Move Case (Lefebvre and Muysken, 1982) the facts presented in 6.4.1 are derived from the assumption that all NPs can raise from a complement clause and land inside the main clause VP. Since in this approach there is an actual rule of raising, pruning need not be posited to account for the examples involving experiences discussed in this section. The raising analysis was, however, rejected for Imbabura in sections 4.4 and 5.3.3 above. 11. The data presented in this section were collected during field work in Peru, August 1979-January 1980. My special thanks go to Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino who helped me in evaluating the Huanca data and provided some of the judgments, and to Jorge Chacón who provided most of the data in this section. The orthography for Huanca is that adopted in Cerrón-Palomino (1976) and described in section 2.5 of his book. Note that this orthography is morphophonemic in nature and reflects the pronunciation at an earlier stage in the history of the dialect. It is, in many cases, far removed from the phonetic representation. Thus, for example, q is phonetically never realized as a postvelar stop, but it is realized as a glottal stop or as vowel length or has no phonetic realization. So, the definite marker •kaq (cf. example (56)) can be realized as [ka2], [ka:] or [ka]. Cerrón-Palomino justifies choosing a morphophonemic orthography over a phonetic orthography since the former enables a unified representation of various Huanca dialects by

A Modular

Approach

237

minimizing the phonetic differences among the various subdialects spoken in the Junin-Huanca district. 12. Sentence (42) is actually ambiguous and can also mean 'I am about to eat meat'. Note that when -naa carries this inceptive meaning, the subject can optionally appear in nominative Case. Nominative Case is impossible, however, with desiderative -naa. Thus, (i) below only has the inceptive meaning: (i)

Hwan tushu-na yka- n Juan-nom dance-inceptive-prog-pr 3 'Juan is about to dance'

13. In main clauses, inversion is acceptable, and the subject can freely appear in a postverbal position. 14. In Huanca the same assumptions as in Imbabura have to be made about the structure of complement clauses and the ECP, including the control from COMP parameter posited in 5.3.2. In Huanca traces in COMP are not proper governors. Therefore subjects are never extractable by Wh-movement unless S-deletion occurs under a verb like muna- 'want' or kri- 'believe'. The matrix verb then governs and Case marks the embedded subject and extraction is not blocked. The facts in Huanca are identical to the facts in Imbabura discussed in Chapter 5. 15. See Cerrón-Palomino (1976), 6.21.17, on the use of the suffix -qla, which is an allomorph of -qlu and is described to have various aspectual uses often depending on the meaning of the verb it is attached to. Thus, it can signify that the action has been completed recently, as in (i): (i)

paqa-qla-ali-n wash-asp-pl-pr 3 'They just finished washing it'

or that the action should occur with some urgency (immediately), as in (ii): (ii)

miku-qlu-y eat- asp-imp 'Eat, as soon as possible'

The meaning of -qla in (61)-(62) is close to the use in (ii): -qla in these sentences indicates that the action in the main clause happens with some urgency. 16. I would like to thank S.N. Sridhar for providing me with additional data on Kannada and for discussing his analysis with me. 17. Dryer (1981) claims that in Kannada the verb in the experiencer construction does not in general agree with the nominative NP. Sridhar (personal communication) claims, however, that most of the examples cited in Dryer are verbs which are "defective" in the sense that they do not exhibit morphological agreement even with nominative NPs in subject position. These verbs have a peculiar behavior outside of the experiencer construction, in that they always appear in an invariant third person singular neuter form. These verbs include bantu 'come', beku 'need', baradu and kudádu which are prohibitive modals. Thus, in addition to (i) in which there is no agreement with the nominative NP in the experiencer construction, one could show that beku also does not exhibit agreement with nominative subjects, as in (ii):

238

Syntactic

(i)

Ravi-ge avalu bek- ittu Ravi-dat she-nom need-past 3 sg neuter 'Ravi needed her'

(ii)

nanu oda - beku I-nom read-need 3 sg neuter 'I must/need to read'

Modularity

According to Sridhar, Dryer's examples, then, do not indicate that Kannada in general does not allow agreement with the nominative in the experiencerconstruction. Rather, agreement is in general obligatory with some verbs (see example (67)) and optional with others (as in (68)). 18. The analysis presented here for participial clauses differs somewhat from the one presented in Sridhar (1979). Sridhar describes the process of Coreferential Subject Deletion as "turning the main verbs of all but the last component clause into participles and deleting all but one (either the first or the last) occurrence of identical subjects." (Sridhar 1979, 3.2.2). The analysis presented here makes a different prediction. Since we interpret the missing subject as PRO, it is predicted that it is always the last occurrence (i.e., main clause subject) which will appear as a full NP. A lexical NP should not be able to appear as the subject of a participial (infinitival) clause. The data cited in Sridhar (1976) and (1979) do not contradict this prediction: all deletion sites (PROs) in grammatical sentences can be analyzed as occurring in the participial clause. Thus, when a lexical subject is retained in what Sridhar claims to be the first participial clause, conceivably the subject canbe analyzed as the subject of the main clause, with the participial clause intervening between the subject and predicate. Kannada is an SOV language; hence it is not unusual for embedded clauses to appear in typical object position: (i)

Umaj [PROj angadige hogi ] adige madidalu Uma-nom shop-to having gone meal made 'Uma, having gone to the shop, cooked the meal'

My claim is, then, that the structure must be as in (i) above and not as in (ii) below: (ii)

[Umaj angadige hogi ] PROj adige madidalu Uma-nom shop-to having gone meal made

Embedded participial clauses with experiencer verbs actually present us with evidence for (i) rather than (ii). Thus consider (iii), where a PRO appears in place of the dative experiencer: (iii)

[PROj hendatiya jnapaka bandu ] Rama- vihvalanadanu wife's remembrance having come Rama- went beserk 'Remembering his wife, Rama went beserk'

If in Kannada it would be possible to have lexical subjects in participial clauses, a PRO in the main clause in (iv) should be equally acceptable: (iv)

?? [Rama-nigej hendatiya jnapaka bandu ] Rama-dat wife's remembrance having come PROj vihvalanadanu went beserk ('Remembering his wife, Rama went beserk')

A Modular Approach

239

(iv), however, is much less acceptable than (iii) according to Sridhar (personal communication). The dative in (iv) makes it clear that Rama-nige is a constituent o f the embedded clause. The ungrammatically of (iv) supports the conclusion that whenever a lexical subject appears in sentence initial position, it is a constituent o f the main rather than the subordinate clause (which has a PRO subject). 19. Sridhar (personal communication) claims, however, that in some cases sentences with datives as PROs in control structures are not fully grammatical: (i)

?? avanuj [PRCX huccu hidiyalu] istapaduvudilla he-nom madness-nom to catch likes - not 'He doesn't want to become crazy'

According to Sridhar, (i) is unacceptable due to the non-volitionality of the dative NP (PRO in this case), since it is anomalous to talk about liking or disliking something that is not in your control. It might be, then, that additional requirements, connected to the 9-role o f PRO, hold in obligatory control structures in Kannada, and if the PRO does not have the role o f agent, control is not very felicitous. 20. Modern Hebrew dative experiencers were analyzed as underlying indirect objects in Hermon ( 1 9 7 8 ) . It was claimed that in a relational framework there was no evidence that experiencers in Modern Hebrew were subjects at any stage in the derivation. The nominative NPs in this construction were analyzed as subjects at all levels. This differs from the analysis presented here, in which nominatives are Dstructure objects, optionally moved into subject position by Move-a. 21. Possessors, like experiencers, are always Case marked with dative Case, do not trigger subject verb agreement and cannot be replaced by PRO or NP-trace. Therefore, possessors are analyzed as objects at all levels. This was discussed in Hermon (1978). In this section I refer to possessors as experiencers, although there obviously are semantic differences between the two. 22. In Borer ( 1 9 8 1 ) the following is cited as an example o f adjunction to VP: (i)

?

'axlu et ha-tapu'ax Rina vo-David ate-pl acc the-apple Rina and-David 'Rina and David ate the apple'

As Borer mentions, this sentence is somewhat marginal. In contrast, examples like ( 9 0 ) a and (95)a, which in the analysis argued for in this section have a postverbal NP in a base generated rather than in an adjoined position, are completely grammatical. 23. On the notion "unaccusative" see Perlmutter ( 1 9 7 8 a ) and ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Perlmutter has an analysis for unaccusatives similar to the approach developed in Buizio ( 1 9 8 1 ) and Chomsky ( 1 9 8 1 ) . According to Perlmutter, unaccusative verbs are base generated with a direct object and empty subject position. Subsequently, the object is advanced to subject by "unaccusative advancement". Alternatively, a dummy object is inserted, which is advanced to subject. Perlmutter then proposes a special principle (the "Brother-in-Law Verb Agreement and Case Marking Principle") to account for the fact that the object is Case marked nominative and triggers verb agreement. (See Perlmutter, 1983.) This principle is basically identical to Chomsky's device of inserting PRO into the empty subject position and co-superscripting it with the postverbal NP and AGR. Thus, both Government and Binding theory and Relational Grammar need a special principle to handle post-verbal (base generated) nominatives. 24. The evidence is connected to the ability o f post-verbal NPs in experiencer constructions to float the partitive marker -ne. See 6.5.4 on this issue.

240

Syntactic

Modularity

25. Note that in (105) the dative follows the verb and precedes the nominative NP. It is unclear whether the experiencer is assigned dative Case structurally by the verb or by a preposition (in which case it is analyzed as the object of the preposition le 'to'). (105)b is an example from literary Hebrew. In colloquial Hebrew, as discussed below, the nominative NP is replaced by an accusative NP. 26. The data in this section are from Perlmutter (1979) and (1983). 27. Among the facts mentioned by Perlmutter as evidence for the grammatical termhood of the experiencer is the inability of experiencers to float quantifiers like tutti 'all'. Quantifiers like tutti can float from nominals only if the nominal is a surface subject. The dative experiencer fails this "test", and thus cannot be a surface subject. 28. The difference in structure between (129) and (130) is discussed in Chomsky (1981) 4.5, based on work by Buizio (see Buizio, 1981, and footnote 23 above). In his thesis, Burzio presents substantial evidence that in Italian there exist two different structures with post-verbal nominative NPs. He derives (i) by inversion, which adjoins the subject molti studenti to the VP. In (ii) molti studenti is base generated in the object position of the VP: (i)

y p [ y p [ telefonano]

(ii)

yp[arrivano

Np[molti

molti studenti]] studenti]]

29. The dative can be assumed to be base generated to follow the nominative NP (as shown in (i) below) although various word-order considerations might place it pre-verbally or immediately after the verb in surface structure: (i)

y p [glipiacciono

Np[le

sinfonie]

Np[

a Gianni]]

In (i), Gianni can receive dative Case from the preposition a. The clitic gli always appears before the finite verb. 30. This is not to say that no other account is possible for (138). Thus, one could claim that since both sembrare and piaccere are ergative verbs, Italian allows chains to be established (via random co-superscripting) between the matrix pro and AGR and the post-verbal NP in the embedded clause. No actual raising of the embedded pro is then necessary to account for the argument facts in (138). 31. In Relational Grammar it is predicted that it is only the direct object which is put en chômage by the insertion of the dummy, which can be the "brother-in-law" for Case marking and verb agreement. This falls out from the requirement that dummies can only be inserted as nuclear terms (direct objects and subjects) and that a dummy has to put another term en chômage (Perlmutter's "Active Dummy Law"). In the approach proposed here, similar results are achieved by limiting chains to NPs structurally governed by the verb and by eliminating certain chains due to Case conflict 32. The notion of Case conflict assumed here is one in which conflict arises only if a lexical NP is doubly Case marked. The chain itself can be doubly Case marked, but Case transfer to all members of the chain need not take place. In the instances in which Case transfer does not take place the chain itself has two members with two different Cases, without creating Case conflict, since no NP is doubly Case marked. 33. In the structures in (a)-(d), no specific VP internal order is implied. For example, Italian has pcst-verbal nominative NPs, while Kannada has pre-verbal VP internal nominative NPs. Both Kannada and Italian are examples of option (a). 34. An approach which assumes rule-/? and does not allow (at least) agreement via chains cannot account for the instances in which agreement is with an accusative NP inside the VP (possibility (c) in the text).

Chapter 7

Conclusions

7.1 Introduction In this chapter I will evaluate the analysis of experiences presented in Chapter 6 for Imbabura Quechua and other languages. In 7.2 I point out which features of the analysis were imposed by specific requirements and principles of the Government and Binding framework. In 1 3 I discuss the problems created by the assumption that reanalysis in experiencer constructions is an instantiation of Move-a. In 7.4 the inadequacies of the framework in dealing with certain types of experiencer constructions and the general problems raised by the analysis in the Government and Binding framework are discussed. 7.5 is a general summary and highlights some theoretical conclusions.

7.2 Predictions about Experiencer Constructions in Government and Binding Theory I shall first summarize the range of facts observed in experiencer constructions crosslinguistically and the analyses proposed in Chapter 6 for various languages. Experiencer constructions were analyzed as having the following Dstructures in the language examined in this thesis: 1 (1)

a. b-

Np[e]

vp[NPdat/acc

V

NP[e]

yp[NP dat/acc

NP

] 'acc/nom

V

1

NP is the experiencer. Some experiencer verbs take a second object (NP') which is Case marked accusative in some languages (as in Imbabura and Huanca Quechua) and nominative in others (as in Italian and Kannada). It was proposed that movement rules could affect the structures in (1) in two ways: (a) the nominative NP in ( l ) b can be moved into subject position by Move-a in the syntactic component; (b) the experiencer can be reanalyzed as a subject by a movement rule in the binding component or LF component, if (a) did not apply. Reanalysis takes place in various components of the grammar in dif-

242

Syntactic

Modularity

ferent languages, and also in different experiencer constructions in the same language (as in Imbabura, in which reanalysis for desideratives must be posited at a different level from reanalysis for lexicals). Reanalysis as posited in Chapter 6 always occurs in the LF component: either before B-structure (the level at which binding is checked) or after this level, but before the ECP (and control in some languages) is checked. Reanalysis is never posited in the PF component. Next let us consider which features of the analysis presented above are predicted by principles of the Government and Binding framework: i.e., which aspects of the analysis follow from the theory without special stipulation. (a) 6-theory and Reanalysis The 0-criterion assures that movement of an argument can only be to a position to which no 0-role is assigned, and from a D-structure position to which a 0-role is assigned. (See Chomsky 2.2, and especially 2.2 (17), on this issue.) Since subjects are not assigned a 0-role obligatorily, but all complements of the verb are, there can be no movement to a position within VP. This directly rules out an analysis which assumes that experiencers are D-structure subjects and are reanalyzed as objects in PF. Note that there would be no objection to reanalysis from subject to object if an empty non- 0-marked position under VP were permitted. Chomsky rejects such a proposal on the grounds that positing such a position would contradict the connection drawn between subcategorization and 0-marking, which actually follows from the projection principle (Chomsky, 1981, 2.2, (6)). The principle predicts that without exception if a subcategorizes the position /?, then a 0-marks 0. In other words, subcategorization entails 0-marking. As a result, ^ p [ e ] can only appear in the subject position with VPs which do not take a 0-marked subject position. Thus, one of the consequences of the requirement that subcategorization entail 0-marking is to rule out a movement from embedded subject to matrix object position (Subject-to-Object-Raising). Since the embedded subject is generated in a 0-position in D-structure, and the position it would move to is subcategorized (and hence 0-marked) by the verb, the raised NP would be doubly 0-marked at S-structure (and LF) in violation of the 0-criterion. In a similar manner, the requirement that all VP complements be 0-positions also rules out a movement from subject to object position in the experiencer construction. As already mentioned, movement from object to subject position is allowed in cases in which the subject has no 0-role. Since the position of subject is not subcategorized for by the verb, it may lack a 0-role. For the experiencer construction, this forces us to assume that the subject

Conclusions

243

position for these verbs is not a 0-position. Hence, reanalysis can occur from object to subject position. Reanalysis can apply to the nominative non-experiencer object NP (in the syntactic component), or to the experiencer (in LF or the binding component). See 6.5.3 and 6.5.4 above for examples of such reanalysis in Hebrew and Italian. Moreover, since movement can only be into an empty position, it is predicted that nominatives in languages such as Kannada or Italian could not be base generated in subject position. If they were, the experiencer could never be reanalyzed as subject in these languages, contrary to the situation in Kannada and Italian, since the subject position would be a 0-position filled by the nominative NP. Assuming that nominatives are base generated in object position, the theory further predicts that once the nominative is moved into subject position by Move-a in the syntactic component, the experiencer cannot be reanalyzed as subject since the position is not empty anymore and movement can only occur to an empty position. Thus, in Italian, once the nominative has been moved into subject position, the experiencer cannot be reanalyzed in this derivation. If Move-a does not apply and the nominative stays in post-verbal position, the experiencer can be moved into the empty subject position by reanalysis in the LF component. In 7.4 I discuss certain problems connected with this prediction. (b) Modularity and Reanalysis The overall organization of core-grammar also makes certain predictions about the analysis and range of facts found in experiencer constructions across languages. Consider agan a sketch of the organization of the grammar (as proposed in Chapter 6):

(LF)

244

Syntactic

Modularity

In 6.3.2, I argued for the existence of a separate binding component on the right-hand side of the grammar. Note that no internal ordering is assumed among any of the rules or principles which apply in the various components. The principles (like the binding principles and the ECP) are checked at a level which is the output level of the component. Thus binding is checked at the output of the binding component. Therefore Move-a and reanalysis in the binding component have to obey the binding principles. All movement rules (including LF movement) will have to obey the ECP which holds at LF (the output level of the LF component). 2 Let us next consider what predictions (2) makes about reanalysis in various languages. Take, for example, a language like Imbabura Quechua in which reanalysis is posited in the binding component for desideratives. The prediction is that if desideratives are subjects at B-structure (due to reanalysis) they also will be subjects at LF, since B-structure is the input to the LF component. Moreover, the status of desideratives is unaffected in PF, since reanalysis on the right-hand side of the grammar does not affect the PF component. This generalization carries over from Imbabura to all languages in which reanalysis must be posited in the binding component. The organization of core grammar then predicts that if an experiencer is a subject for the binding principles it also has to be a subject for the ECP and control (assuming that control holds at LF in a particular language). An implicational hierarchy is then established: if experiencers are subjects for binding, they must also be subjects for LF principles. Note that the above implication is not biconditional: i.e., if experiencers are LF subjects they need not be subjects at B-structure, the level at which the binding principles apply. Thus, reanalysis can occur in the LF component, after B-structure (as in the case of lexical experiencers in Imbabura). In such a language experiencers are subjects only for the ECP (and possibly for control), but not for the binding principles. This again is predicted from the modular organization of the grammar, and the assumption that reanalysis can apply in various components. Moreover, the fact that the theory is modular in the sense that it is organized in terms of subtheories also limits the range of possible data. It is predicted that all phenomena derived from binding theory or the ECP will cluster together as far as experiencer NPs are concerned. For example, if in a certain language experiencers are subjects as far as binding is concerned, all phenomena and constructions in which binding theory makes certain predictions have to treat the experiencer as a subject. This rules out a stituation in which the experiencer is a subject as far as binding principle (A) is concerned and an object for principle (B) (or vice versa). In all the languages examined in chapter 6, this prediction has been borne out. Thus, in Imbabura desiderative experiencers are reanalyzed as subjects prior to the stage at which binding is checked. As shown in 4.3, PRO can

Conclusions

245

appear in the place of the desiderative and so can NP-trace (under a subject raising verb, like yarina 'to seem'). In Chomsky (1981) the fact that PRO can appear in this position follows from a theorem derived from binding principles (A) and (B), (the theorem that PRO must be ungoverned), and the distribution of trace follows from binding principle (A), demanding that the trace anaphor be bound in its governing category. The prediction then is, that when the experiencer is a subject at B-structure, the level at which binding is checked, both PRO and NP-trace will appear in this position under the appropriate verbs. In traditional terms the experiencer can be an Equi victim and also be raised by subject-to-subject raising. The Government and Binding framework predicts that the experiencer is either a subject in all these cases (if reanalysis occurs prior to the level at which binding is checked) or not a subject at all for binding (if reanalysis has not taken place). In Imbabura Quechua and Kannada experiencers are subjects for all binding principles. In Huanca, Hebrew and Italian experiencers are not subjects for any of the binding principles. A similar prediction is made about experiencers in the PF component. Since, in the analysis suggested here, experiencers enter this component as objects, all PF phenomena should treat the experiencer as an object. This predicts that verb agreement, object cliticization and Case marking always treat the experiencer the same way: as an object. In the languages which I have examined in chapter 6, this prediction is borne out. Experiencers are always Case marked with accusative or dative Case, never trigger verb agreement, and are associated with object clitics if the language has clitics. It seems, however, that there exist some languages with a different distribution of PF phenomena in the experiencer constructions. This is discussed in 7.4 below. In conclusion, the framework then restricts the list of potential analyses for experiencers quite severely, and also makes definite predictions about the range of facts which could be found in experiencer constructions, depending on where reanalysis occurs (if it occurs at all). 7.3 Reanalysis as an Instantiation

ofMove-a

In this section I will describe certain properties of the analysis of experiencers presented in Chapter 6 which do not follow from any general principles of the Government and Binding theory and which, apparently, must be stipulated. The details presented in this section are all connected to the assumption that reanalysis of the experiencer is basically an instantiation of Move-a in the binding or LF components, and the movement of the nominative NP to subject position is an instantiation of Move-a in the syntactic component. There are certain principles connected to the theories of Case and government which determine the

246

Syntactic

Modularity

properties of Move-a. Below I discuss how reanalysis differs from other instances of Move-a and has properties which are not derivable from general principles of the theory. At the end of this section the question will be raised whether there is justification to claim that reanalysis is an instantiation of Move-a. (a) The Location of Reanalysis Move-a can recur in all modules: the syntactic component, PF and LF. Thus, for example, Wh-movement in English can occur in the syntactic component, and again in LF. (3)

S-structure (after syntactic Wh-movement) ^[whoj g[tj remembers what] ] L F (after LF Wh-movement) -g[whatj who- g[tj remembers tj]]

If reanalysis is just an instantiation of Move-a, it should be able to occur in either of the components (or all of them). Reanalysis, however, seems to occur in different components in different languages. In Imbabura Quechua.. it was necessary to posit two different processes of reanalysis: one for desideratives in the binding component; and a second one for lexicals in the LF component. In Kannada reanalysis occurs in the binding component, in Italian in the LF component, and in Hebrew it does not occur at all. The interaction of experiencers with the various principles of binding, control and the ECP necessitates these analyses. For each of the grammars of the various languages, it must, apparently, be stipulated in which component reanalysis applies. Moreover, reanalysis must be prevented in the grammar of languages like Hebrew. Ideally, these differences should follow from some general principle connected to the differences found among the grammars of the various languages and should not have to be stipulated for each language.3 In conclusion, although modularity offers an account for the variation observed in the languages discussed in chapter 6, it does not in itself predict which option a language will exhibit. The choice of component in which reanalysis of the experiencer applies (if at all) is one of the parameters of Universal Grammar with respect to which languages can differ. (b) The Case Filter and "Obligatory " Move-a In the languages discussed in this book, reanalysis of the experiencer NP is obligatory, if it occurs at all. Thus, note that in a language like Imbabura or Huanca Quechua the experiencer has to be reanalyzed as a subject prior

Conclusions

247

to LF. Otherwise the fact that Wh-movement of the experiencer yields ungrammatical sentences cannot be explained. Under the assumption that reanalysis is simply Move-a, what ensures the application of reanalysis in these instances? Could it be the same principle which in the Government and Binding framework ensures that movement to an A-position (NP movement) in the syntactic component (i.e., passive and raising) is in effect obligatory in a language like English? Let us review the principles which predict that NP movement is obligatory in certain instances and examine whether these principles also predict that reanalysis (an instance of Move-NP) is also obligatory. In Chomsky (1981) NP-movement always moves an NP from a non-Casemarking position to a Case marking position. Thus, passivization, for example, moves an NP from a position to which no Case can be assigned to a position to which Case can be assigned. This movement is necessary because predicates cannot assign Case to their objects. In subject-raising sentences, an NP which is the subject of an infinitival clause and hence cannot receive Case is moved to matrix subject position where it gets Case marked by AGR. Although NP movement per se is optional, if the movement does not apply, an NP which is lexical appears in PF without case. The derivation is therefore blocked by the Case filter: [*NP, if NP has a phonetic matrix and no Case]. In effect, Case theory then forces NP movement to apply in certain environments. In this sense NP movement is obligatory, due to the Case filter. Can the Case filter predict the obligatoriness of reanalysis as well? Reanalysis of the experiencer moves an NP from a Case marked object position in the binding or LF components. Since the movement happens subsequent to S-structure (on the right-hand side of the grammar), neither the Case filter nor the Case distribution filters have any effect on reanalysis. Therefore the obligatoriness of reanalysis cannot be derived from Case theory, as in the instance of syntactic NP-movement. Clearly, it should not be possible to stipulate that an instantiation of Move-a is obligatory, yet there does not appear to be any general explanation for the obligatoriness of reanalysis. The situation, however, is different as far as the reanalysis of the nonexperiencer NP is concerned. In languages like Italian, the non-experiencer NP is not reanalyzed obligatorily. This NP can stay in post-verbal position and receive nominative Case via a chain, or it can be optionally moved into subject position. Note that movement in this instance is not "forced" by the Case filter: i.e., since the option always exists of assigning Case to the post-verbal NP via a chain (if this NP happens to be co-superscripted with AGR thereby forming a chain), movement to subject position cannot be obligatory. The question then arises whether it is possible to maintain the claim that the Case filter predicts that move-

248

Syntactic Modularity

ment from a non-Case marking to a Case marking position will in fact be obligatory. First of all, there appear to be instances of obligatory movement into an A-position (of the experiencer NP) which do not follow from the Case filter. Secondly, as far as the nominative NP is concerned, even though the Case filter does not predict that movement of this NP into subject position is necessary, the NP can optionally move into subject position. These are then two instances in which Case theory does not predict the obligatoriness or optionality of movement to an A-position. (c) On Restricting the Application of Move-a Under the assumption that reanalysis is an instantiation of Move-a, reanalysis should be able to apply to any object NP, moving it into the empty subject position. Move-a applies to any position and illicit movements are ruled out by general principles like the binding principles or the ECP. Reanalysis, however, only applies to the experiencer. The second NP in the experiencer construction, which also is a complement of the experiencer verb, is never reanalyzed to subject in the binding or LF components. Thus in (4) in Imbabura only nuka-ta 'me' (the experiencer) can be reanalyzed, by moving it into the j^p[e] position.4 (4)

Npfe]

yp[nuka-ta tanda-ta miku-naya-n] me-acc bread-acc eat-desid-pr 3 'I desire to eat bread'

Are there any general principles which would block movement of the accusative NP tanda-ta 'bread'? Note that such movement would not violate the binding principles or the ECP since a trace in this position would always be bound in its governing category and would be properly governed by the verb. Similarly, it is unclear what can block the movement of the experiencer in a language like Hebrew in cases where the nominative is base generated post-verbally, as in (5). (5)

Npt e l v p [ k ° ' e v ^ " ros^ 1 hurt-3 to me the-head-nom 'My head hurts me'

As noted in 6.5.3, the experiencer in Hebrew is not moved into subject position at any level. A similar problem arises with regard to the movement of the nominative NP, which is moved into subject position by Move-a in the syntactic component in languages like Hebrew and Italian (see 6.5.3-4 above). In Kannada, however, movement of the nominative must be blocked. The

Conclusions

249

nominative in Kannada (as shown in 6.5.2) is always inside the VP and is not treated as a subject by any of the binding principles or by control theory. There is, however, no general principle which can predict that just in certain languages like Kannada movement of the nominative NP does not occur. In Hebrew and Italian there are two ways to ensure that the non-experiencer NP is in a Case marked position under experiencer verbs which do not assign Case to their objects: (a) by moving the NP into subject position, or (b) by assigning Case to the NP via a chain. In Kannada, however, only the latter option is available. It is unclear how option (a) is to be blocked in Kannada, other than by adding to the grammar of the language a stipulation to this effect. To summarize the problems discussed in this section, it seems that the assumption that the reanalysis of the experiencer and of the nominative NP are instantiations of Move-a leads to the necessity of blocking by stipulation certain instances of reanalysis and by making reanalysis obligatory in other instances. Note that it is the assumption that experiencer constructions are base generated with an Np[e] subject which causes all the problems mentioned above. Let us consider the implications of changing this assumption, a change which I shall ultimately reject. If instead of base generating an empty position, the experiencer (or the nominative NP in some languages) were generated in subject position, and moved to object position in the syntactic component or PF, the problem of having to block various instantiations of Move-a would not arise. Take, for example, a language like Kannada, in which the experiencer must be a subject for binding and control, but not in the PF component. If the experiencer were base generated as a subject, nothing could ever be moved into this position, since it is a 6position and is not empty. In contrast in a language like Hebrew the experiencer would be base generated in object position, with the nominative NP in subject position. In Hebrew it would then be the nominative which could optionally be moved to a position under the VP in PF (to account for the examples in which we have a post-verbal nominative NP). This then would explain why experiencers in Hebrew are never subjects. As mentioned earlier, such an analysis is excluded in the Government and Binding framework by the assumption that no empty positions can be generated under the VP. If no empty position is generated for the experiencer to be moved into, the analysis violates the projection principle. Moreover, even if the theory allowed an empty position under the VP, the analysis cannot be generalized to account for the behavior of experiencers in Italian, Huanca and lexical experiencers in Imbabura. These experiencers are subjects only in LF, but not for the binding principles. In these languages the following derivation would be necessary if the experiencer were to be generated in subject position (NP' is the experiencer):

250 (6)

Syntactic

Modularity

D-structure

NP' yp[A V]

S-structut-e (and B-structure)

proj

LF

NP! y p l t j V]

W[NP;

V]

At S-structure and B-structure the experiencer must be in object position, since it is a PF object and is a non-subject for the binding principles. At LF, however, it is a subject since it obeys the ECP. The experiencer then would have to be moved into object position, and subsequently moved back into subject position. It seems, then, awkward, at least for languages like Imbabura, Italian and Huanca, to base generate experiencers in subject position. Assuming then that experiencers must be base generated as objects in the Government and Binding framework for some languages, with an Np[ e ] in subject position, the problems mentioned in this section remain. A possible solution would be to give up the claim that reanalysis is an instantiation of Move-a. Rather, it could be claimed that reanalysis is similar in nature to local rules. The notion of local rule originated with Emonds (1976) and is developed in Borer (1981). One of the main characteristics of a local rule is that (a) it may apply at any level, and (b) its application may be restricted so that a particular instantiation of a local rule may be prohibited from applying in a particular component. For example, Borer argues that the parametric variations in clitic configurations in various languages can be accounted for if it is assumed that languages contain local rules, such as Case marking rules, clitic spell-out rules arid preposition insertion rules. Turning next to reanalysis, this rule does not involve movement over a variable and, hence, generally satisfies the definition of a local rule as given in Borer (1981), p. 33 (20). However, reanalysis differs from the local rules proposed by Borer in that all the rules discussed by Borer involve features of the inflectional morphology (such as Case, gender, number or person) or a specified grammatical formative (such as the preposition of). None of Borer's rules involve the movement of a term of the X notation, and local rules (such as Borer's rule of moving tense into the VP) do not leave traces in general. Reanalysis, however, moves an NP and leaves a trace behind. Reanalysis is, then, similar to local rules in exhibiting the same range of restrictions in its application as the local rules discussed in Borer (1981) but also seems to be an instantiation of Move-a since it moves an NP and leaves a trace behind.

Conclusions 7.4 Apparent

251 Counterexamples

In this section I will discuss certain characteristics of the analysis of experiencers which not only do not follow from general principles of the framework, but which are predicted not to exist by the principles. At the end of each subsection I will suggest a possible solution for the problem. (a) Movement in the Government and Binding framework is restricted to movement into empty positions. This predicts that in a language like Italian, in a derivation in which the nominative is moved into subject position by Move-a in the syntax, the experiencer will always remain an object since reanalyas can no longer apply. In the following derivation the nominative has been moved into subject position. It can, therefore, be a controller for PRO in various constructions (see 6.5.4 above). (7)

NP

nom VP[V

NP

dat

^

The prediction then is that in a sentence where the nominative is a controller of PRO, the dative experiencer never is, since it cannot be reanalyzed. This is because Move-a, as mentioned above, is only possible to an empty position, whereas in (7) the subject position is filled. Perlmutter (1979), however, cites examples of sentences like (8) in which either the preverbal nominative or the experiencer are controllers of PRO in adverbial infinitival constructions. 5 (8)

Prima di partire per l'estero, Giorgio mi sembrava un po' nervoso 'Before leaving for abroad, Giorgio seemed a bit nervous to me'

(8) can mean either 'before Giorgio left for abroad' or 'before I left for abroad'. The analysis presented here predicts that in (8) only the nominative Giorgio will be a controller. 6 What could account for the control facts presented above? One obvious solution is to re-examine whether control is clearly structurally determined in Italian. In English, as mentioned in Chomsky (1981), 2.4.3, control is not determined on purely structural grounds. It remains then to examine the data in Italian in great detail. Note, that in all the languages discussed in this thesis (and in the literature on experiencer construction) the determination of control seems to be the only principle which can treat both a nominative NP and an experiencer as a subject. Neither the binding principles nor the ECP ever treat both the nominative and the experiencer as a subject. 7 (b) Another problem raised by the analysis is connected to the prediction mentioned in 7.2 above that in the PF component experiencers are invariably objects. Since all experiencers are base generated as objects,

252

Syntactic

Modularity

and in all the languages examined in this study are objects for PF phenomena, reanalysis has been posited always to occur on the right-hand side of the grammar subsequent to S-structure, so as not to affect the PF component. As mentioned in 7.2, this predicts that experiencers will be objects for all PF phenomena. In the languages examined in Chapter 6 this prediction was borne out: the experiencer was shown to be an object for verb-agreement, Case marking and object cliticization. Although this prediction seems to be correct for most of the languages with experiencer constructions examined in the literature, there are two cases which are counterexamples to this generalization. Both examples involve experiencers which are analyzed as subjects by the relevant principles in the grammar, but which are objects in the PF component for certain PF rules and subjects for other PF rules. The two examples are from Middle English and Modern Georgian. I will limit myself to a discussion of Middle English here. The data from Georgian number agreement are very complex and it is not entirely clear what analysis one could propose for Georgian agreement phenomena in general in Government and Binding theory. For a discussion of number agreement in Georgian, see Harris (1976) and Cole, Harbert., Hermon and Sridhar (1981). In Middle English experiencers can be shown to be treated as subjects at least by the binding principles. Thus PRO can appear in control structures in the position where an experiencer normally would appear: 8 (9)

Hinij burj) [PROj to liken well his lif] him befits to like well his life (nom) i t befits him to like his life well' (1275, Dame Sirith: 82)

As was noted by Gaaf (1904) and Harris (1975), among others, experiencers occurring with a number of verbs, such as liken and dremen, are treated as subjects by certain syntactic processes but are Case marked accusative and do not trigger verb agreement: (10)

. ..ever me punched me unschriuen 'I always seem to myself to be unconfessed' (c. 1225, Ancren Riwle: 332)

In (10) the accusative experiencer me does not trigger verb agreement. The verb is marked with a third person singular suffix -ed. In late Middle English a significant change seems to occur. Butler (1976) claims that there are examples from late Middle English in which the experiencer still retains its accusative case but nevertheless triggers verb agreement:

Conclusions (11)

253

Sum men J>at han suche likynge wondren what hem ailen 'Some men that have such pleasures wonder what ails them' (c. 1450, The Chastizing of God's Children: 103,15)

In (11) the verb ail takes an -en plural suffix in agreement with the accusative plural pronoun hem. Moreover. Butler claims that the opposite situation can also be observed. He cites two examples of experiencers from late Middle English which have nominative Case but fail to trigger verb agreement: (12)

a. Do as ye seems best do as you-nom-pl think-3 sg best (c. 1430, Generydes: 6007) b. Now may ye sey what ye semeth... Now may you-nom say what you-nom think-3 sg (c. 1450, Merlin: 8517)

Thus, late Middle English must have gone through (a relatively short) historical stage in which experiencers were treated as subjects by some PF rules, but not by others. How can a synchronic grammar of late Middle English account for these facts? Note that experiencers need to be analyzed as subjects at the level at which binding applies. Under the assumption that experiencers in late Middle English are base generated as objects, reanalysis must apply in the binding component before binding is checked. In order to account for the facts in (11)-(12) it must be assumed that reanalysis applies again in the middle of the PF component. For examples like (11), Case marking would need to be ordered before reanalysis and verb agreement after reanalysis. For (12), verb agreement will have to precede reanalysis and Case marking will have to follow it. Clearly this involves ordering among the various PF processes, a highly undesirable situation. Moreover, reanalysis now has to apply twice: once in the PF component and once on the right-hand side of the grammar before binding is checked. Thus, although it is possible to propose a grammar to account for these examples, it is not the type of grammar the theory would predict could exist without adding stipulations (like extrinsic rule ordering). Alternatively, it could be assumed that in late Middle English experiencers are base generated as subjects and are reanalyzed as objects in the PF component. Even if one were to accept this approach in spite of the theoretical problems it raises (see 7.2 above), one still would have to order reanalysis after Case marking and before verb agreement for (12), and after verb agreement but before Case marking for (11). Thus extrinsic ordering is still necessary even if this option is chosen. Note that these examples from late Middle English represent a trans-

254

Syntactic

Modularity

itional stage in the history of the language. All examples like (11) and (12) above are from c. 1400-1500. By about 1500 most impersonal constructions had disappeared, and experiencers which were Case marked earlier with objective Case appear with nominative Case and invariably trigger verb agreement. It could be claimed then that it is predicted that a situation like the one discussed here is highly marked, since the grammar for this synchronic stage of English violates some of the basic tenets of the theory (i.e., that rules are not ordered). It remains to be seen, however, if all cases in which we must assume reanalysis in the middle of the PF component are transitional stages historically. 9 (c) A third problem raised by the analysis of experiencers proposed here is connected to subcategorization and 0-role assignment. In Chomsky (1981) it is suggested that subcategorization and lexical properties of the verb determine the 0-roles of the NPs in a clause. Chomsky emphasizes that it is the D-structure grammatical functions (i.e., grammatical relations) which are relevant for the determination of 0-roles. Thus D-structure direct objects are usually assigned the fl-role of patient; D-structure subjects are agents, etc. This sort of correlation implies then that there is a connection between the meaning of a verb and subcategorization. A basic assumption of the analysis presented here is that experiencers are D-structure objects in various languages. Thus for (early) Middle English a verb like liken would be analyzed to subcategorize for an empty subject position and an experiencer object. Modern English like, however, seems to take a D-structure experiencer subject. Thus in Modern English some D-structure subjects are assigned the 0-role of experiencer, whereas in Old and Middle English it is D-structure objects which get assigned this role. Can one claim that the meaning of the verb somehow changed to justify this difference in subcategorization? 10 More significantly, the same problem is also encountered in the analysis of a single stage of a language. Thus, in Italian, Perlmutter (1979) mentions that certain doublets exist. In these doublets, the verb either takes a dative or a nominative experiencer: (13)

a.

riuscirò a farlo succeed-l-sg-fut to do-it 'I will succeed in doing it ; I will manage to do it' riuscirà di farlo b. Mi me-dat succeed-3-sg-fut of do-it 'I will succeed in doing it; I will manage to do it'

Perlmutter seems to assume that in both cases the verb has the same meaning. Also, no morphological difference in voice or aspect seems to exist as far as the verb is concerned. 11

255

Conclusions

In Imbabura Quechua the situation is slightly more complicated. All experiencer verbs can take a suffix -chi. Once -chi is added to the verb, the verb takes a nominative subject experiencer, which is a subject at all levels. See also 2.5 on this issue. Consider the following pairs: (14)

a. nuka-ta-ka me-acc-top b. nuka-ka I-nom-top 'I hurt'

nana-wa-n-mi hurt-1 OM-pr 3-val nana-chi-ni-mi hurt-personalizer-pr 1-val

(15)

a. nuka-ta-ka me-acc-top b. nuka-ka I-nom-top 'I desire to

punu-naya-n-mi sleep-desid-pr 3-val punu-naya-chi-ni-mi sleep-desid-personalizer-pr 1-val sleep'

The analysis proposed here claims that the verbs in (a) and (b) are subcategorized differently: the (a) verb takes an empty subject and an object experiencer; the (b) verb takes an experiencer subject. At least with respect to Imbabura Quechua, there seems to be some justification for the claim that a verb like nanana is subcategorized differently from a verb like nanachina. As discussed in Chapter 2, speakers use the -chi form to indicate some degree of control over the situation. Using the form without -chi indicates that the speaker has no control over the state or action described by the verb. Hence it could be claimed that the NP has a different 0-role depending on whether it is generated in D-structure subject or object position and that the verb in each case has a slightly different meaning in Imbabura Quechua.

7.5 Summary and Theoretical Results In this section I would like to present a summary of the main results achieved by the investigation in this study. I will highlight the theoretical conclusions reached in the process of the analysis of experiencer constructions. Chapter 1 introduced the general problem of non-nominative subject constructions and summarized the main features of the Government and Binding framework. In Chapter 2 a general overview of Imbabura Quechua was presented. In Chapters 3 - 4 I addressed the question of the interactions of experiencers in Imbabura Quechua with the principles of government, Case theory, binding and control. The interaction of experiencers with the ECP was discussed in Chapter 5. I showed that these

256

Syntactic

Modularity

principles predict an object-subject asymmetry and that desiderative and lexical experiencers are treated either as subjects or objects by each of the principles. The question of the level at which the principles apply was also discussed. In Chapter 6 (6.1-6.3) two analyses of the data presented in the previous chapters were compared. It was claimed that an analysis in which experiencers are base generated as objects and reanalyzed as subjects on the right-hand side of the grammar (in the binding or in the LF components) was to be preferred on both theoretical and empirical grounds. In 6.5 the analysis was extended to experiencer constructions in Huanca, Kannada, Hebrew and Italian. In Chapter 7 I evaluated the proposed analysis in the light of certain predictions made by the Government and Binding framework. It was suggested that, although the framework predicts some of the features of the analysis presented in Chapter 6, certain characteristics such as the obligatoriness and location of reanalysis still, apparently, need to be stipulated. Problems for the framework from the analysis of certain languages were also discussed. Let me next turn to a brief summary of conclusions reached in the process of the analysis of Imbabura Quechua and other languages. These conclusions are of general theoretical importance since they affect some of the major premises of the theory. In Chapters 3-6 I claimed that the analysis of Imbabura and other Quechua languages (such as Ancash and Huanca) necessitates some changes in the framework. The following were suggested as parameters of UG on which languages like English and Imbabura Quechua could possibly differ. (a) The Notion of Governor It was claimed that although in English (and languages like French, Italian and Spanish) the definition of government needs to incorporate a notion of minimal governor, in Imbabura Quechua a notion of maximal governor is relevant. This accounts for the fact that in Imbabura in a structure like (16) below, it is the matrix verb which counts as a governor of NP' in cases where S-deletion occurs, even though the embedded clause is finite, and hence NP' has a local governor, (AGR) (see 4.3 above). (16)

NP V S [NP' AGR VP]

This notion of government, together with the assumption that S-deletion occurs under verbs like krina 'to believe' and yarn 'to think' in Imbabura, explains the range of data previously claimed to be due to a role of Subject-to-Object Raising in Cole and Hermon (1981).

Conclusions

257

(b) The Notion of Proper Governor The ECP demands that all empty categories be properly governed. Proper governors are lexical categories (such as V, P and N). Chomsky (1981) extends the notion of governor to include traces in COMP as proper governors. It was shown (in Chapter 5 above) that in Imbabura and Ancash Quechua traces in COMP do not count as proper governors for empty categories. In Imbabura, any extraction from embedded subject position is prohibited, despite the fact that there is no overt complementizer in COMP. Under the assumption that the restriction on empty categories in subject position follows from the ECP, it must be assumed that traces in COMP in Imbabura are not proper governors. A similar conclusion must be reached for Huanca Quechua (6.5.1). It was suggested that whether a language allows trace in COMP as a proper governor is one of the parameters with regard to which languages can differ. This is, in effect, a refinement of the control from COMP parameter proposed in Koopman and Sportiche (1981). (c) The Binding Component and B-structure The analysis of desiderative experiencers in Imbabura (in Chapter 4) and of experiencers in Kannada (6.5.2) necessitated a change in the assumptions about the organization of the components of core grammar and the level at which the binding principles are checked. In Chomsky (1981) it was suggested that the binding principles are checked at S-structure. This is because LF movement rules do not obey these principles. It was shown, however, (in Chapters 4 and 6), that desiderative experiencers in Imbabura and experiencers in Kannada need to be analyzed as objects in the PF component, and, hence, at S-structure (the input to the PF component). In contrast, the binding principles analyze the experiencers as subjects in these languages. Since it cannot be assumed that experiencers can be both subjects and objects at S-structure, it was suggested that binding principles are checked subsequent to S-structure, on the right-hand side of the grammar at the output of a special component (the binding component), referred to as B-structure for convenience. Reanalysis of the experiencer from object-to-subject then could apply in the binding component, affecting B-structure but not S-structure and PF. It was observed that in languages which have no rules (like reanalysis) applying in the binding component, there would be no empirical distinction between the claim that binding is checked at S-structure or at B-structure. It is not immediately obvious whether the introduction of an additional component is an undesirable change in the theory. In order to motivate such a move, however, one would need to show that the compo-

25 8

Syn tac tic

Modularity

nent is independently needed for the analysis of other constructions in other languages, a task beyond the scope of this investigation. Let me point out how the analysis presented in this thesis would be affected if, after further investigation, it were to appear that the introduction of the binding component is an undesirable move. A separate binding component was needed for the analysis of desideratives in Imbabura Quechua and experiencers in Kannada, under the assumption that the experiencers must be generated as D-structure objects and reanalyzed as subjects. If, however, it were assumed that these experiencers are D-structure subjects, reanalyzed as objects in the PF component, the binding principles could apply at S-structure, as suggested in Chomsky (1981), since experiencers would be both S-structure and LF subjects in these languages. There would be no need to posit a separate binding component if experiencers, in languages in which they are subjects for all syntactic and LF principles (i.e., binding, control and the ECP)can be base generated as subjects. The reanalysis to object in PF would not affect any of the other components. This type of analysis was proposed in 6.3.1 (analysis A) and was rejected mainly on theoretical grounds. Such an analysis necessitates positing an empty position under VP into which the experiencer can be moved in PF, and thus violates the assumption that no empty positions under VP can be generated. If this assumption were abandoned, however, the analysis of experiencers as D-structure subjects would become possible, and the reason for positing a separate binding component would not exist. It remains to be seen, then, which of the assumptions is more central to the theory: the assumption that there are only certain components and that multiplying them introduces unnecessary complications; or the assumption that no empty, non- 0-marked positions can be generated under VP. It is important to remember, however, that even if an analysis were proposed for Imbabura desiderative experiencer NPs and Kannada experiencers in which these NPs were base generated subjects, there are other instances in which experiencers must be base generated as objects. These are examples of experiencer NPs which are subjects only in LF and in no other component, and include lexical experiencers in Imbabura and Huanca and Italian experiencer NPs. Some experiencer NPs, then, would be D-structure subjects, and others D-structure objects. The analysis argued for in this work claims that all experiencer NPs are base generated as objects. (d) Rule-R and the Notion of A-chains It was proposed in 3.2 and 6.6 above that rule-./? can be dispensed with as a rule in the syntactic component of the grammar of pro-drop languages.

259

Conclusions

In 6.6 an account of Case marking to chains and verb agreement via chains was developed. This account posits certain parameters such as obligatory transfer of features from an antecedent to the pro in an A-chain. This parameter is set as [+] in the unmarked case. Some languages, however, choose a negative instantiation of the parameter. In such languages (Kannada and certain constructions in colloquial Hebrew) verb agreement fails to apply via a chain, even though nominative Case is assigned to the VP internal NP via the chain. Another parameter, the unmarked value of which is [+], is Case marking via a chain. Again, some languages choose the [ - ] instantiation (Telugu and colloquial Hebrew possessive constructions). It was claimed that the account based on rule-/? alone cannot account for some o f the variation observed in this study. An account based on rule-/? and A-chains is descriptively adequate but lacks explanatory adequacy.

NOTES 1. In SVO languages the structures will be as in (i)a and b: (0

a.

Np[e]

vp[V

b-

NPfe]

VP[V

N P ^ J NPacc/nomNP'dat/acc]

2. Case marking, verb agreement and object cliticization, however, are not checked at surface-structure (the output of the PF component), but at an earlier stage in the PF component, before stylistic movement mles and some morphological processes (like agreement lowering in PF) get a chance to apply. Possibly this indicates that the PF component needs to be subdivided into a filter subcomponent and a stylistic and morphological rule subcomponent, as suggested in Chomsky and Lasnik (1977). 3. Note, however, that it seems to be a general property of the framework that certain instantiations of Move-a must be restricted to apply in certain components only. Take for example the nile of quantifier movement in LF, another instantiation of Move-a. The theory must specifically restrict quantifier movement to the LF component and prevent quantified NPs from adjoining to S in the syntactic component. If quantifier movement were a syntactic rule, an S-structure like (ii) would be generated instead of (i): (i)

I think that you visited all the children

(ii)

g[(for) all the childrenj