Romance Linguistics 2010: Selected Papers from the 40th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Linguistics (LSRL), Seattle, Washington, March 2010 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

ROMANCE LINGUISTICS 2010

CURRENT ISSUES IN LINGUISTIC THEORY AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCEâ•––â•–Series IV

General Editor E.F.K. KOERNER Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung, Berlin [email protected] Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (CILT) is a theory-oriented series which welcomes contributions from scholars who have significant proposals to make towards the advancement of our understanding of language, its structure, functioning and development. CILT has been established in order to provide a forum for the presentation and discussion of linguistic opinions of scholars who do not necessarily accept the prevailing mode of thought in linguistic science. It offers an outlet for meaningful contributions to the current linguistic debate, and furnishes the diversity of opinion which a healthy discipline must have.

A complete list of titles in this series can be found on http://benjamins.com/catalog/cilt

Advisory Editorial Board Lyle Campbell (Manoa, Hawaii) Sheila Embleton (Toronto) Elly van Gelderen (Tempe, Ariz.) John E. Joseph (Edinburgh) Manfred Krifka (Berlin) Martin Maiden (Oxford) Martha Ratliff (Detroit, Mich.) E. Wyn Roberts (Vancouver, B.C.) Joseph C. Salmons (Madison, Wis.)

Volume 318

Julia Herschensohn (ed.) Romance Linguistics 2010. Selected papers from the 40th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Seattle, Washington, March 2010

ROMANCE LINGUISTICS 2010 SELECTED PAPERS FROM THE 40TH LINGUISTIC SYMPOSIUM ON ROMANCE LANGUAGES (LSRL), SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, MARCH 2010

Edited by

JULIA HERSCHENSOHN University of Washington

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (40th : 2010 : Seattle, Washington)   Romance linguistics 2010 : selected papers from the 40th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Seattle, Washington, March 2010 / edited by Julia Herschensohn. p. cm. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, issn 0304-0763 ; v. 318) Selected papers from the 40th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1.  Romance languages--Congresses.  I. Herschensohn, Julia Rogers, 1945PC11.L53â•…â•… 2010 440--dc23  isbn 978 90 272 4836 7 (Hb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 8341 2 (Eb)

2011034776

© 2011 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

To Laura Adjémian and to the memory of Christian Adjémian, my dear friend and fellow Romance linguist.

Table of contents Foreword and acknowledgements

ix

Editor’s introduction

xi

Theory and practice in Romance linguistics today: The importance of the annual LSRL Jurgen Klausenburger

1

part i. Morphophonology On the origins of /ɨ/ in Romanian Margaret E.L. Renwick An acoustic investigation of nasal place neutralization in Spanish: Default place assignment and phonetic underspecification Michael Ramsammy

17

33

An acoustic study of rhotics in onset clusters in La Rioja Christine Weissglass

49

Mid front vowel lowering before rhotics in Ibero-Romance Travis G. Bradley

63

Plural formation in Galician Sonia Colina

79

part ii. Syntax On bare subject relative clauses in Old French Deborah Arteaga

101

Directed motion in Medieval French Michelle Troberg

117

An ergative analysis of French valency alternations Edit Doron & Marie Labelle

137

ïš©ïš©ïš© Romance Linguistics 2010

Peninsular Spanish pre-nominal possessives in ellipsis contexts: A Phase-based account Luis Sáez On the nature of nominal features: Agreement mismatches in Spanish conjoined structures Violeta Demonte, Héctor Fernández-Alcalde & Isabel Pérez-Jiménez On the nature of bare nouns in Afro-Bolivian Spanish Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Sandro Sessarego Negative imperatives in Portuguese and other Romance languages Rerisson Cavalcante

155

177 191

205

part iii. Semantic interfaces Another look at Italian generic sentences Alda Mari

223

The agreement of collective DPs in Romanian Blanca Croitor & Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin

239

A multidominance account for conjoined questions in Romanian Dafina Raţiu

257

The Romanian verbal cluster and the theory of head movement Ion Giurgea

271

New challenges in the area of semantic dependencies: The Romanian epistemic constraint Anamaria Fălăuș

287

Polarity particles in English and Romanian Donka F. Farkas

303

Index 

329

Foreword and acknowledgements The fortieth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XL) took place March 26–28, 2010 at the University of Washington (UW) in Seattle, following earlier meetings at the University of Arizona (2009) and the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana (2008). The fortieth anniversary celebration (marked by Jurgen Klausenburger’s keynote address and a festive banquet) constituted the third milestone LSRL held at UW, which had previously hosted LSRL X (1980) and LSRL XXV (1995). Each year since 1971 a North American institution has welcomed this significant international gathering that attracts scholars from across the globe. LSRL has also served as a model for other regular gatherings of Romance scholars such as Going Romance, its European counterpart. LSRL XL received 130 abstracts, from which 50 were selected to be presented as papers; the parasession – Sharing and Differing in Romance Bilingual Contact Environments – explored how languages in contact assimilate to and dissimilate from each other. There were three keynote speakers, Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta (University of Southern California), Donka Farkas (University of California, Santa Cruz) and Jurgen Klausenburger (UW). Of the 50 papers presented, 19 have been revised and accepted into the present volume. The breadth of topics represented at the conference is well reflected in this collection. The conference and volume could not have been realized without the contributions of many individuals and organizations. The conference benefitted from the support at UW from the Linguistics Department, the Graduate School, and the Center for Canadian Studies; its implementation was made possible through the technical, organizational and professional expertise of David Brodbeck, Russell Hugo, Michael Furr, Joyce Parvi, Mickey Balderas and numerous student volunteers. We appreciate their contributions tremendously, both to the conference and to the eventual publication that it engendered. The volume that has resulted from the 2010 gathering also owes a debt to its benefactors: the authors who have carefully written and revised their papers; the reviewers who first evaluated abstracts to determine the program and later graciously refereed the submitted articles; John Riebold, the graduate Research Assistant who carefully reviewed formatting of the articles; and especially Professor E.F.K. Koerner and his advisers, and the John Benjamins team, notably Anke de Looper. Professor Koerner helped at every stage of the process and was always ready to send a prompt email response to any query. Ms. De Looper also promptly answered more technical questions and helped with production issues. We are grateful to all who have lent support to this new volume in the CILT series.

Editor’s introduction The purpose of this introduction is to reflect on the past, current and future role of Romance Linguistic scholarship and specifically to outline the contents of this volume. 1.  Romance Linguistics The fortieth anniversary of the annual LSRL provides an opportunity for reflection on the importance of this discipline through three centuries. As Klausenburger points out in his keynote article, Romance linguistic scholarship constituted a prototype of diachronic studies during the 19th and 20th centuries. The documentation of historical change in phonology, morphology (and to a lesser extent syntactic systems) furnished an account of a major branch of Indo-European, the thread deriving from Latin, that complemented descriptions of Germanic, Slavic and other sub-families. The mid-20th century, with the Chomskyan revolution in North America paralleling structural-functional approaches in Europe (e.g. Martinet 1960), saw a shift to greater emphasis on synchronic investigation and a deeper interest in syntax. While generative studies of the 1950s and 1960s had focused on the morphosyntax and phonology of English (Chomsky 1957; Chomsky & Halle 1968), the following decades saw a branching of generative studies to cross-linguistic similarities and differences, with Romance scholars from 1970 on (coincidentally the date of LSRL’s inception) investigating Romance syntax and phonology (e.g. Kayne 1975; Harris 1969). During the past four decades, the LSRL has been a forum for cutting-edge research and an incubator for new ideas. On the one hand, it continues to welcome papers dealing with topics that harken to the 19th century interests in diachronic change and dialectology; on the other hand, it is innovative in presenting novel theoretical views and exploring new subject areas. The current volume is representative of this continuity and originality in encompassing diachronic and synchronic work; phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics; and languages ranging from Romanian in the east to Brazilian Portuguese in the west. After the initial article, the volume comprises three sections, Morphophonology, Syntax, and Semantics Interfaces, the contents of which are described below. Klausenburger’s first paper sets the scene for the

 Romance Linguistics 2010

volume, describing the development of the LSRL over the past decades and situating it with respect to its historical predecessors. Klausenburger reflects on the role of the LSRL in Romance linguistics, arguing that contemporary scholarship matches that of the “classical” 19th century period. He begins appropriately with a historical overview of the 19th century giants (Raynouard, Dietz, Gröber, Meyer-Lübke and Schuchardt) and the 20th century LSRL. He then considers current theory and practice, adopting Malkiel’s (1961: 7) definition of a Romance linguist as one “who professes to owe his principal allegiance to linguistics,” and arguing that this definition applies equally well to the Neogrammarians as to scholars contributing to LSRL. He bolsters his central argument with evidence from recent publications debating issues in Romance linguistics.

2.  Overview of articles 2.1  Morphophonology The Morphophonology section begins with Renwick’s look at the origins of barred /i/, /ɨ/ in Romanian. Renwick provides a diachronic account of the vowel /ɨ/, showing how its primary etymons from Latin were supplemented by later borrowings from Slavic, Turkish and Greek. She demonstrates that the earliest instances of this vowel were phonologically conditioned (its allophonic distribution complemented by /ə/), but later borrowings led to its phonemic status. After a discussion of /ɨ/ minimal pairs in modern Romanian, she gives a synchronic analysis of the (in)frequency of /ɨ/ and its predictability from phonological environment (84% before a nasal consonant). The following four articles cross to the western edge of the former Roman Empire to delve into the morphophonology of the Iberian Peninsula. Ramsammy reexamines accepted analyses of variable realization of Spanish nasal consonants in the light of new empirical evidence from two Iberian dialects, one that alveolarizes (AS, neutralization to [coronal]) and one that velarizes (VS, neutralization to [dorsal]) word final nasals. His data confirm the dialect distinction for pre-vocalic nasals, but not for pre-consonantal ones. He proposes that the latter enter the phonetic component underspecified, a proposal that accommodates the attested range of phonetic gradience in their realization. The next article by Weissglass also presents acoustic data to determine precise correlates of rhotics and factors influencing their realization in onset clusters. Using data from four La Rioja subjects to determine the phonetic variables affecting rhotics in initial consonant clusters, she finds they are longer after velars, voiced consonants and [i], and shorter in other



Editor’s introduction 

contexts. In contrast to earlier claims of rhotic realization as fricatives, she mainly finds only taps and approximants. The last two articles in this section draw on Optimality Theory (OT) to analyze Iberian vowels and morphophonology. Bradley examines lowering of /e/ before rhotics in Castilian Spanish and closely related languages and dialects (Aragonese, Astur-Leonese, Judeo Spanish and Central Catalan). After a presentation of relevant cross-linguistic data, he adduces phonetic evidence for the vowel-lowering pattern. Using articulatory and acoustic support, he proposes an OT hierarchy of constraints to account for the varying results in the different languages. The proposal contributes to both Iberian dialectology and phonological theory. The article that concludes this section, Colina’s examination of plural formation in Galician, also uses OT to explore allomorphic variation in several Galician dialects. Extending her earlier proposal of Galician nasals as glides, Colina examines Galician plural formation for consonant final words. She uses OT to analyze the normative dialect – which employs different strategies for nasals, laterals and rhotics – and southeastern dialects. A motivated ranked order of OT constraints permits the derivation of normative plurals, while a reranking of the same list predicts the dialectal ones. The phonological and phonetic arguments elucidate not only the characteristics of Galician plural formation and its relation to Standard Portuguese and Spanish, but also the constraints governing consonant clusters in Galician phonology. 2.2  Syntax The next section, Syntax, includes seven articles that provide synchronic analyses of Old French (OF), Modern French (MF), Peninsular Spanish, New World Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. The first two articles deal with OF, Arteaga’s study of relative clauses and Troberg’s investigation of argument structure. Arteaga examines a little studied construction, the bare subject relative clause (RC) as il n’ont elme ___ ne soit quassez “they have no helmet [that] is not broken”. After situating this construction with respect to other features of OF, she asks whether these RCs are instances of parataxis, CP or IP. Using data from case marking (nominative, oblique), word order and verbal mood, she argues against parataxis (the two clauses are linked, not juxtaposed) and CP (no evidence of C domain). Adopting Minimalist tenets of Merge, Agree, Copy and Delete (Chomsky 2001), she concludes that the bare subject RCs are IPs whose subject is deleted under identity with its matrix antecedent. Troberg presents a wealth of data on a hitherto unexplored phenomenon, directed motion verbs capable of encoding Path in OF (unlike MF, but like modern Germanic languages). After describing the data, she compares two theoretical approaches, the macroparametric (a single parameter linked to N–N compounding) and the microparametric (lexical properties

 Romance Linguistics 2010

of prepositions and verbs interact in small clause formation). She argues that the microparametric view is preferable on synchronic and diachronic grounds. Doron & Labelle also deal with argument structure in their study of valency alternations in MF intransitive verbs. They provide an account of French “anticausative” verbs such as (se) rougir “to redden” that display two constructions: the active Process-focusing rougir, and the middle voice Result-focusing se rougir. To account for these constructions, they adopt standard assumptions on the verbal projections vP > VoiceP > VP. Process predicates allow merge of v in active Voice with no external argument; Result predicates lack v and spell out non-active Voice as se. This proposal accounts for the interpretive differences between the two constructions, for their distinct distribution in French syntax, and for similar constructions in Hebrew and other typologically distinct languages. The next three articles deal with Spanish nominal constructions: prenominal possessives, agreement mismatches, and bare nouns. Sáez investigates Spanish pronominal possessives (PNPs), which uncharacteristically disallow ellipsis of the head noun (los/*nuestros ____ blancos “the/our ____ white-ones”). He proposes that PNPs originate in a genitive phrase (the Phase complement) that is DP external, and they do not merge in D, as do definite articles. Ellipsis remnants must bear phonological stress, but the Phase complements of C and D escape this condition through earlier transfer to phonology. The behavior of PNPs with numerals provides further evidence for this analysis and its proposed syntactic derivation. Demonte, Fernández-Alcade & Pérez-Jiménez analyze a construction unique to Spanish among the Romance languages, mismatched determiner agreement as in su bar y discoteca abrirán “its bar-M and disco-F will open”. To explain the agreement of the determiner with the first conjoined noun, but of the verb with the plural conjoined DP, they exploit the notion of two sets of phi featues, c[oncord]features that determine Closest Conjunct Agreement of the D and i[ndex]-features that read the higher conjoined DP feature [plural] that determines verb agreement. Gutiérrez-Rexach & Sessarego describe the unique characteristics of DPs in Afro-Bolivian Spanish (ABS), which, they show, disconfirm the validity of Chierchia’s (1998) Nominal Mapping Parameter (NMP). After a presentation of Chierchia’s NMP, they outline the definite, indefinite and bare nouns used by ABS to indicate generic and specific DPs. Because ABS does not conform to the clustering predicted by the NMP, they propose an alternative unified account of ABS determiners, including a covert one that allows for its wide range of interpretations. The final article of this section turns to Brazilian Portuguese (with references to other Romance languages) in exploring the incompatibility of true imperative and preverbal negation. Cavalcante compares the negative imperatives of Brazilian Portuguese (BP) to those of other Romance languages, which require



Editor’s introduction 

use of suppletive (non-imperative) morphological forms. BP, in contrast, has no true imperatives, no distinct distribution between negative and affirmative imperatives, and optional use of either indicative or subjunctive in negative and affirmative imperatives. After presenting problems for syntactic and semantic analyses, he adopts a PF account (Bošković 2004) requiring merger of an imperative morpheme in C under adjacency with the verb (European Romance). BP, on the other hand, does not require adjacency or merger, differences attributed to its eroded verbal morphology. 2.3  Semantic Interfaces The last section, Semantic Interfaces, includes six articles (five on Romanian and one on Italian) dealing with semantic interpretation and its interface with morphosyntax; half the articles deal with determiners. In the first paper Mari examines two types of Italian generic sentences, singular indefinite and plural definite, which manifest the same interpretive properties as their English counterparts. He proposes a new covert abilitative modal (correlated with imperfective present, intensional properties) to account for the indefinite, and he assumes a situation variable (correlated with perfective, potentially accidental properties) for the definite. He thus derives the aspectual differences associated with the two kinds of articles. Croitor & Dobrovie-Sorin address the syntax and semantics of optional plural agreement of the verb with Romanian collective DP subjects modified by a partitive D. Assuming that Number is valued on D (not n) in Romanian, they show how the interaction of the semantic properties of the determiner and the noun give the interpretative options allowing variable verb agreement. Adopting Higginbotham’s (1994) analysis of mass quantifiers to partitive collective DPs, they demonstrate that these DPs’ “atomic minimal parts” coerce a plural agreement, while the morphology gives a singular concord. They thus argue that Romanian partitive quantifiers transform a group denoting entity into a sum denoting entity. In the third article in this section, Raţiu considers conjoined questions in Romanian (e.g. Who and what bought) that are syntactically and semantically distinct from matching questions (Who what saw). The latter are predictably analyzed as monoclausal, while the former require a biclausal account. Although sluicing would appear to be a factor, Raţiu shows its inadequacies and instead proposes a multidominance and linerarization solution. In the next paper, Giurgea examines the behavior of Romanian verbal clitics – pronouns, auxiliaries, mood particles, negation and adverbs – focusing on the unique properties of the adjacency

ïš© Romance Linguistics 2010

requirements. Pointing out the typology of PF and syntactic clitics, he shows that the Romanian clitics constitute the syntactic variety. He explains unusual head order in terms of morphological linearization, an idiosyncratic exception to the general rule. Fălăuș semantically analyzes the Romanian indefinite count determiner vreun “some, any” which occurs in hypothetical contexts and contrasts with the freechoice item oarecare “whatsoever”. She first outlines vreun’s distribution, which is limited to modal operators whose interpretation is epistemic. She then proposes a succinct and unified proposal of polarity sensitivity – premised on Chierchia (2006) – that exploits the notion of alternatives, whose extent of variation predicts the different distribution of vreun and oarecare. The final article of this section and of the volume is the second keynote paper, Farkas’ discussion of polarity particles in English and Romanian. She investigates the seemingly straightforward polarity particles yes/da, no/nu, and ba (reversal). She describes a universal typology of absolute features (e.g. No, …not) that are redundant, and of relative features (e.g. Ba da, “but yes” a reversal of a preceding negative assertion). She points out that polarity particles require a unique topic proposition as antecedent and thus are appropriate as responses to polar questions, assertions and imperatives (discourse anaphoricity, reference to a salient proposition introduced earlier in the discourse). Her analysis provides a markedness scale for the polarity/reversal items and a novel discussion of these items with imperatives, both morphological and pragmatic. 3.  Conclusion The articles in this volume present a number of leitmotifs that tie them together topic-wise as well as language-wise. Several deal with agreement anomalies, such as variable agreement in Spanish (Demonte et al.) and Romanian (Croitor & Dobrovie-Sorin), generic interpretation in ABS (Gutiérrez-Rexach & Sessarego) and Italian (Mari), with a full six of them analyzing the syntax and semantics of determiners. In confirmation of Klausenburger’s comments regarding the presentation of new empirical data on Romance languages, several of the articles present previously unexplored phenomena: Troberg’s work on OF argument structure, Demonte et al.’s analysis of a Spanish agreement anomaly, Gutiérrez-Rexach & Sessarego’s presentation of Afro-Bolivian Spanish articles, and the rich exploitation of little studied constructions in Romanian by Croitor & Dobrovie-Sorin, Raţiu, Giurgea, Fălăuș, and Farkas. The authors make significant contributions both to the documentation of Romance languages and to linguistic theory.



Editor’s introduction ïš©ïš©

References Bošković, Željko. 2004. “On the Clitic Switch in Greek Imperatives”. Balkan Syntax and Semantics, ed. by Tomić, Olga Mišeska, 269–291. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. “Reference to Kinds across Languages”. Natural Language Semantics 6.339–405. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. “Broaden your Views. Implicatures of Domain Widening and the Spontaneous Logicality of Language”. Linguistic Inquiry 37.535–590. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. ‘s-Gravenhage: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase”. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. By Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Harris, James. 1969. Spanish Phonology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Higginbotham, James. 1994. “Mass and Count Quantifiers”. Linguistics and Philosophy 17.447–480. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Malkiel, Yakov. 1961. “Three Definitions of Romance Linguistics”. Romance Philology 15.1–7. Martinet, André. 1960. Eléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Colin.

Theory and practice in Romance linguistics today The importance of the annual LSRL Jurgen Klausenburger University of Washington

Since its inception in 1971, the LSRL (Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages) has gained in prestige to become the foremost conference in Romance linguistics today. The papers given at this meeting distinguish themselves with as much originality as shown in any linguistics conference at present. This paper claims that such a state of affairs can be compared to the classical period of Romance linguistics in the second half of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. Just as the latter constituted a very successful application of the dominant theoretical apparatus of the time, comparative historical linguistics based on Neogrammarian principles, today’s scholars are achieving great success by making use of current advances in linguistics. The positing of an “organic continuum” of the discipline derives from one of the three definitions of Romance linguistics offered by Malkiel (1961), but its essence was already captured in Schuchardt (1915).

1.  Introduction On the occasion of the 40th installment of the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, it is appropriate to review the history of this conference since its inception at the University of Florida in 1971, offering both a retrospective and perspectives. I will attempt (1) to connect our gatherings to the early history of Romance linguistics in the 19th century, (2) to describe the theory and practice of the field currently, and (3) to make some predictions about its role in the 21st century. The idea for historical retrospective and placement of the LSRL actually began in the proceedings of the first conference already, when Jean Casagrande and Bohdan Saciuk, the editors, composed articles on “Syntactic studies in Romance” and “Phonological studies in Romance”, respectively. These efforts tried to relate the Romance field to general linguistics at the time, determining whether it was keeping up or lagging behind with respect to the theoretical advances of the 1960’s.



Jurgen Klausenburger

For LSRL V, at the University of Michigan in 1975, Robert A. Hall, Jr. wrote about the early phase of Romance studies in the 19th century, in “Romance linguistics: whence and whither”? At the eighth meeting, in Louisville in 1978, Henry and Renée Kahane treated Romance linguistics in the context of what they termed “Humanistic linguistics”. In 1980, the University of Washington held LSRL X, when Heles Contreras and I decided to write reviews of the Romance field for the decade of the 70’s, on the model of those in the first proceedings, “Romance syntax in the seventies” and “Romance phonological studies in the 70’s”, respectively. The proceedings of the 21st gathering, at the University of California, Santa Barbara, contain Yakov Malkiel’s “The centers of gravity in nineteenth-century Romance linguistics”. Fifteen years ago, in 1995, the LSRL came to the University of Washington for the second time. For this twenty-fifth installment, students put together “The first twenty-five years. LSRL I – LSRL XXV: A comprehensive bibliography”. It includes all the papers published in the first twenty-five proceedings, arranged by field. LSRL XXIX at the University of Michigan in 1999 for the first time included a parasession and in his introduction to the parasession volume, Steven Dworkin reflects on “current tendencies” in Romance (historical) linguistics.

2.  Early history It is generally accepted that the discipline of Romance linguistics has its roots in the work of five prominent scholars in the 19th century, sometimes called the giants of the field. I will briefly summarize their contributions in the following. François Raynouard (1761–1836) Major work: Choix des poésies originales des troubadours (1816–1821) Raynouard is known as the ‘father of Romance philology’. His thorough philological investigations coincided with the Romantic revival of interest in the Middle Ages. He believed that Old Provençal was to be considered Proto-Romance, the original Romance language from which all the others are derivable. Friedrich Diez (1794–1876) Major work: Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (1836–1838) Diez has been called the ‘father of Romance linguistics’. He was the author of the first comparative Romance grammar and etymological dictionary. His major contribution consisted of adapting the comparative method, which had been applied to Indo-European in contemporary work in the 19th century, to the Romance languages. Malkiel (1973:â•›37) calls his Grammatik “a monumental edifice which invited confrontation with Bopp’s and Grimm’s structures and, despite countless flaws, gave a serious, professional touch to Romance scholarship”.



Theory and practice in Romance linguistics today

Gustav Gröber (1844–1911) Major work: Grundriss der romanischen Philologie (1888) Gröber was an ardent practitioner of Neogrammarian methodology. His major work was a state of the art survey of the discipline, a tone-setting encyclopedialike volume. He attempted to give a history of Romance philology, a programmatic statement on its scope, a sketch of the methodology of linguistic research, and a classification and external history of Romania. Gröber followed closely the Neogrammarian doctrine of “sound laws admit of no exception” and tried to prove its validity for the Latin/Romance field by using sets of cognates to establish hypothetical ‘Vulgar Latin’ ancestral forms, many of which were later confirmed by newly discovered attestations. Wilhelm Meyer-Lübke (1861–1936) Major work: Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (1890–1902) For most, Meyer-Lübke’s work ranks as the epitome of classical Romance linguistics. He built grammatical study on phonetics, believing that “change is a physiological process not controlled by meaning, which causes disintegration, which may then be patched up by analogical change, dictated by functional needs” (Posner 1996:â•›4). His work replaced the grammar of Diez, improving it both in methodology and in the amount of data covered, taken from both literature and dialects. Meyer-Lübke essentially copied ideas similar to those employed in the explanation of Verner’s Law, claiming that an accentual pattern underlay historical Romance sound change, an idea he himself gave up later. But he firmly established the Neogrammarian paradigm for historical Romance linguistics in the 19th century. Meyer-Lübke also published Einführung in das Studium der romanischen Sprachen (1901) (not really an “introduction”!), and the very important and widely used Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (REW)(1936). Hugo Schuchardt (1842–1929) Major work: Der Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins (1866–1868) Schuchardt’s contribution was to battle against the Neogrammarian belief in strict and exceptionless sound laws. He traced Romance phonological details back to archaic popular (Vulgar) Latin. He reconciled, in a highly personal etymological research style, dialectology with manuscript tradition, a knowledge of the stratification of Latin and substratum languages, and factors of material civilization. His approach began the so-called “idealist” tradition in Romance linguistics, with its emphasis on the conscious creativity of linguistic processes and on the communicative functions of language, opposed to the (inflexible) systematic rigor of Neogrammarian theory. Schuchardt’s detractors claim that he misunderstood the basis of Neogrammarian principles, that he interpreted them in their “most literal and vulnerable sense” (Hall 1977:â•›309). Thus, although Schuchardt’s motto “every





Jurgen Klausenburger

word has its own history” is generally accepted, this fact may be deemed irrelevant to the discussion of sound change, according to Hall, since words belong to a different level of linguistic structure. 3.  Beginning and evolution of the LSRL I will now jump from the period of classical Romance linguistics to the last quarter of the 20th century, describing the rise and growth of the North American Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Later, a connection will be established with the early phase of the discipline in a new definition of Romance linguistics. In the foreword to the proceedings of the first conference, three specific goals of the symposium were listed: a. to bring forth novel contributions to the description of the Romance languages; b. to draw attention to phenomena that might be of importance in the constant re-evaluation of our theoretical views; c. to make available some insights into the nature of the Romance languages which might be useful in the teaching of these languages. Although meant as a one-time event, the success of this meeting has, as we know, led to an annual conference of great prestige in Romance linguistics, rivaled, but not equaled, by a similar gathering in Holland, “Going Romance”.1 The LSRL has been held in the U.S., with four exceptions, the sixth (1976) in Montreal, the twentieth (1990) in Ottawa, the twenty-sixth (1996) in Mexico City, and the thirty-second (2002) in Toronto. Three universities have hosted the conference three times, University of Texas, Austin (1974, 1986, 2005), University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (1972, 1988, 2008), and the University of Washington, Seattle (1980, 1995, 2010). Two gatherings have been held at the University of Florida, Gainesville (1971 and 2000), Indiana University, Bloomington (1973 and 2003), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1975 and 1999), University of Southern California, Los Angeles (1984 and 1994), Rutgers University (1987 and 2006), and Penn State University, University Park (1982 and 1998). One may detect, as can be expected, a growth in the number of the papers published in the proceedings of each conference, starting with an average of 20+ during the first decade, to around 25 in the second, to between 25 and 30 during the last two decades. LSRL XXIX, at the University of Michigan, initiated the tradition of adding one or more parasessions to the main body of the conference, .  The 24th installment of this meeting took place in Leiden in December 2010.



Theory and practice in Romance linguistics today

raising the need for parallel sessions. This fact will also make likely the publication of two volumes of papers, as has already been the case for LSRL XXVI, XXIX, XXX, and XXXV. Since the published papers represent, usually, about one half to three-fourths of the ones presented orally, the latter have now risen to between 50 and 60. Although further growth is possible, it is unlikely that the LSRL will ever want to compete with its traditional fore-runner, the Congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes, in terms of numbers. Participants, however, originate from all over the globe, in particular from Europe, in addition to North America. It is interesting to note that the distribution of the papers at the LSRL has not changed drastically since its inception. There has always been a clear dominance of syntax over the other main components, phonology and morphology, estimated at about half of all the papers. This is borne out in detail in the comprehensive bibliography produced for LSRL XXV, already mentioned. There, syntax occupies 14 pages, the same number obtained when adding four other sections enumerated, semantics (2 pages), phonology (8 pages), morphology (3 pages), and special topics (1 page).2 I will discuss the significance of these statistics later, as they bear on the relations of Romance linguistics to general linguistic theory. In light of the historical origins of our discipline, it is also important that only twice have organizers of the LSRL felt the need to hark back to this theme. The second installment, at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, was actually labeled “Conference on Diachronic Romance Linguistics”, without the usual title LSRL, and the (first) parasession to an LSRL, at the University of Michigan (1999), carried the title “New solutions to old problems: Issues in Romance historical linguistics”. In general, parasessions have been concerned with sociolinguistic questions, language acquisition, creoles, languages in contact, and bilingualism. In a global characterization, one may claim that the LSRL has evolved parallel to general linguistics in the last four decades. The existence of the “lag” between theory and Romance syntax discovered by Casagrande in his review article published in the proceedings of the first LSRL, and the “lack of originality” of theory still evident to Contreras for Romance syntax in the early 1980’s, have long ago disappeared. Papers on syntax given at the LSRL have been and are applying current models and distinguish themselves with as much originality as shown at any linguistics conference today. Similarly, recent theoretical advances in phonology are well represented also. The relative lack of morphological studies is surprising,

.  In Posner’s review article “Romance linguistics in the nineties”, a similar break down may be found, as she stipulates that “synchronic syntax occupies most space in these volumes” (1998:â•›346), referring to the proceedings of LSRL XXII–XXV.





Jurgen Klausenburger

especially since (1) Romance is such a fertile field for morphology and (2) many works and models have recently proliferated in this area. Let us now enter the core of my presentation, an overview of theory and practice of Romance linguistics today.

4.  Current theory and practice In 2003 and 2005, the journal La Corónica published a series of articles under the (provocative) title “Historical Romance linguistics: the death of a discipline”? Despite the pessimistic tone introduced by the heading, “all the contributing authors responded … with answers that forcefully reaffirm the vitality and viability of historical Romance linguistics” (Dworkin 2003:╛╛9). However, it is clear that the moribund nature of (historical) Romance linguistics can be detected and justified on a level other than vitality of research, in the apparent enrollment drop in courses of Romance linguistics and even their disappearance from the catalogs (or websites) of departments of Romance languages or Linguistics. Several reasons were given for this state of affairs in the 25 papers of the two clusters organized by La Corónica: –â•fi History of language courses are being dropped in French/Spanish/Italian literature programs –â•fi Retired Romance linguistics faculty will be replaced by other specialties –â•fi The comparative nature of the discipline has been lost, due to the lack of knowledge of more than one Romance language, and Latin, by potential students –â•fi Outdated teaching methodology exists, practiced by middle-age white males, offering a lack of models for many new students –â•fi The field has the reputation of an elitist discipline –â•fi Politics rears its ugly head in tensions between the literature and linguistics sections in Romance language departments –â•fi There is no buzz, or excitement, for new generations of students –â•fi There seems to exist little, if any, respect for Romance linguistics among theoretical linguists –â•fi No one has written a “real text book” for Romance linguistics3 –â•fi Some journals require the publication of articles in a Romance language, not English .  This has now been taken care of, it seems, with the publication of Alkire and Rosen (2010).



Theory and practice in Romance linguistics today

It will be my intention to establish the vitality of Romance linguistics research with respect to the content of the LSRL presently. However, can we point to evidence of such vitality independent of our annual gatherings? Three recent publications on (historical) Romance linguistics vigorously support such a claim. The three volumes, Dworkin & Wanner (2000), Gess & Arteaga (2006), and Detges & Waltereit (2008), contain 39 papers, focusing on diachronic aspects. Two thirds of these apply three theoretical approaches currently prevalent, grammaticalization, minimalist program/principles and parameters, and optimality theory. Two of these collections, Dworkin & Wanner and Detges & Waltereit, resulted from conferences, the historical parasession of the LSRL in 1999 and the Deutscher Romanistentag 2005. Dworkin’s review concludes (2000:â•›xiii): “The thirteen papers taken as a whole reflect current tendencies in Romance historical linguistics (as practiced in the United States) and show that this field has changed in the last decades of the twentieth century”. Similar opinions have been expressed by reviews of the other volumes. In a post on the Linguist List in 2007, Isabelle Lemée states that the contributors in the Gess/Arteaga volume “actually participate in current theoretical advances in Romance linguistics”, and in a post of 2008, Paul Isambert emphasizes how the Detges/Waltereit volume brings to light the (continuously current) debate pitting functionalists against formal theoretical linguists. It is now time to offer a definition of the state of Romance linguistics today, by attempting to uncover a common bond between early practitioners in the 19th century and modern theorists, as best illustrated by the work presented at the annual LSRL. Almost fifty years ago, one of the most prominent Romanists of the 20th century, Yakov Malkiel, published a brief note in the journal Romance Philology entitled “Three definitions of Romance linguistics”. The first definition portrayed the field’s primary interest as writing historical grammars from Latin to the Romance languages, “a single correct projection of linguistic shifts” (1961:â•›2). The second definition referred to a special analytical methodology employed in the study of the Romance languages, a “knack for minute precision work and … special flair for the more intimate, elusive facets of evolution” (1961:â•›4). Finally, a third definition equates to the study of (any) linguistic material by scholars of Romance origin or nationality, natives of these countries who, by that very fact, may have developed a national style of doing linguistics. Which of these definitions, if any, is still valid today? In fact, Malkiel (1961:â•›7) provides a means of interpreting Definition 1 in a way that would carry it over to current concerns by stating that a Romance linguist who professes to owe his principal allegiance to linguistics and to view his topical specialization as a matter of secondary importance will tend to rally to the support





Jurgen Klausenburger

of this cause, even though it originally appealed to a philologist somewhat differently oriented.4 In what follows, I will claim that just as classical Romance linguistics of the 19th century constituted a highly successful application, perhaps even the epitome, of the dominant theoretical approach at the time, comparative historical linguistics based on Neogrammarian principles, today’s practitioners in the field achieve great success in their work making use of current advances in linguistics. In this way, the apparent stark contrast between a classical view of Romance linguistics and current research is not only removed, but, in fact, we are permitted to argue for the organic continuum of the discipline over the century and a half of its existence. Let us use the following time-line to situate the role of the LSRL for Romance linguistics: General Linguistics Romance Linguistics Ca. 1850 ff (A) 1860 ff – Neogrammarian theory – Classical period (Bopp and successors) (1885 – 1915) 1935 Ca. 1915 ff (B) Ca. 1950’s ff – Structuralism – Structuralism (Saussure and successors) Ca. 1950’s ff (C) Ca. 1970’s ff – Generative Grammar – Generative Grammar (Chomsky and successors) I understand this juxtaposition as follows. The three general theories selected in this overview have been applied in the linguistic analysis of Romance languages over the past 150 years. In a sense, they all continue to be employed today. However, different degrees of intensity are discernible in this application. The classical period of Romance linguistics, for which Malkiel (1972:â•›835) distinguishes the 75 years from 1860 until 1935 as the “flowering of comparative Romance linguistics”, within which 30 years, from 1885–1915, constitute the “all-time crest”, involves a truly profound assimilation and evolution of Neogrammarian theory. On the other hand, although many prominent works, especially in phonology, such as Martinet (1955), were produced as part of the structuralism phase of Romance linguistics, here the penetration into the Romance field has traditionally been

.  It is interesting to note that one of the giants of classical Romance linguistics, Hugo Schuchardt, already expressed a similar sentiment (1915:â•›12): “Romanist ist nur ein äuβeres Kennzeichen; dem inneren Beruf nach ist man Sprachforscher – oder man ist es nicht”.



Theory and practice in Romance linguistics today

considered less strong. The consistent influence of generative grammar begins in the 1970’s, coinciding with the founding of the LSRL. In the last 30 to 40 years, this involvement has become as intense as the one seen for Neogrammarian theory during the classical period. One may speculate that because structuralism arose during the heyday of Neogrammarian influence, it could not replace the latter in a robust fashion. When we arrive in the second half of the 20th century, and especially in the last quarter, the Neogrammarian approach is on the wane, and Romance linguistics is ready to embrace fully the (new) generative paradigm. Several questions persist, however. How radical has the replacement of the Neogrammarian model of the 19th century by a theory emphasizing universal grammar been? Actually, Neogrammarian historical linguistics may also be considered a universal theory, as it concerns principles of sound change relevant for every linguistic system. If we accept this interpretation, the oft-claimed uniqueness of classical Romance linguistics will lose its validity: Neogrammarian methods did not make the history of the Romance languages from Latin unique. These methods simply applied general (universal) aspects to the history of Romance. The uniqueness arose over the centuries due to geographic, historical, cultural, political, literary and other factors binding the Romance languages and countries together and tying them to their Latin ancestry. Such a genetic/ historical connection, of course, constitutes the sine qua non in the definition of a language family, recognized over the centuries. Since the Neogrammarian model so vigorously underlined this historical bond, one may have gotten the impression that this approach supplied the essence of what Romance linguistics is. I would like to conclude, on the other hand, that the uniqueness of the Romance languages will not be sacrificed inside the newly dominating theory by which they are being analyzed today, simply because whatever uniqueness is assumed depends solely on factors external to linguistic theory. As already stated, all three of the linguistic approaches listed in the timeline above continue today, with generative grammar, in a variety of incarnations, clearly in the leading role. The annual LSRL since 1971 has managed to reflect the current situation, global statistics pointing to the dominance of syntactic studies. However, our conference does not represent generative grammar exclusively, as both Neogrammarian and structuralist (in the most general sense) papers continue to make an appearance.5 The pronounced shift from diachronic to synchronic interest in linguistics since Saussure probably constitutes the

.  Today, no one attaches the label Neogrammarian to his / her work. What I mean to say is that some papers read at the LSRL employ a methodology of historical linguistics very reminiscent of Neogrammarian principles.



 Jurgen Klausenburger

underlying force that regulates the current distribution of the three theoretical possibilities given. Before concluding, I would like to describe how one could come to a different result in interpreting the foregoing facts. Posner (1998) offers exactly such a divergent opinion. Rebecca Posner, one of the best known English Romanists of the second half of the 20th century, is the only scholar who has done a thorough review of articles published in LSRL proceedings, having the historical context of our specialization in mind. Specifically, Posner chose 70 papers, which appeared in the volumes following LSRL XXII–XXV, 1992–1995. She divides her review into ten sections titled as follows, with the number of contributions for each given in parenthesis: –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi –â•fi

History from Latin to the Romance languages (2) History of linguistic thought (1) Phonological change (14) Non-phonological change (6) Variation/language contact (7) Prosodic phonology (8) Morphology (10) Semantics/aspect (8) Synchronic syntax (12) Syntactic/semantic faits divers (2)

This constitutes but a selection of the papers of the four LSRL volumes, featuring “those topics that are likely to interest Romance philologists, neglecting those of concern only to aficionados of a particular theory” (1998:â•›327).6 One must admire Posner for the painstaking work she has done in reading and critiquing papers of great diversity. She announces, however, her skeptical attitude from the beginning (1998:â•›327): “Most contributors make a bow towards such fashionable concepts as parametrization, underspecification, optimality, minimalism, incorporation, and unaccusativity. Often interest in the Romance languages themselves is secondary to the light that they may cast on relatively abstruse theoretical hypotheses”. In general, Posner shows herself to be very knowledgeable on the topics of the articles she examines and she commends “the enthusiasm and professionalism of most of its practitioners” and recognizes that “the work reviewed here is clearly of vital interest to linguistic specialists” (1998:â•›352). Sarcasm is sometimes mixed with .  This personal choice must account for the non-representative statistics, showing approximately equal numbers for phonological change and syntax, even though syntax, as pointed out above, has dominated the LSRL ever since its inception.



Theory and practice in Romance linguistics today 

praise of these contributions, as when Posner states that “buried under apparently arbitrary theoretical apparatus are often to be found precious nuggets of information” or when she laments that “we shall probably continue to have to trawl through such volumes to bring to the surface the occasional jewel” (1998:â•›353). In her conclusion, Posner arrives at an understanding very much in line with my own interpretation: “The emphasis here is on ‘linguistics’ rather than ‘Romance’, and there is comparatively little that can serve to demarcate Romance linguistics as a separate branch of study” (1998:â•›352). However, she then adds the following complaint: “But what is there here for Romance philologists, in whose armory has always prominently figured language study, but who have wider cultural, social and intellectual concerns, in which history and tradition play a prominent role?” (1998:â•›352–353). There is no doubt that she is addressing here what I have called the uniqueness of Romance linguistics. For Posner, it includes philology, of course, and all the factors which I considered external to linguistic theory, above. Her definition of Romance linguistics/philology turns out to be much broader than “an application of Neogrammarian theory”. She would probably accuse me of being too cavalier in limiting Romance linguistics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to such an exercise. For her, and, I am sure, many like-minded Romance linguists, the new paradigm which has invaded the Romance field in the last 40 years is an unwelcome intruder! The latter’s content and influence are duly recognized and appreciated, but with its take-over, the loss of the tradition of Romance linguistics/philology is keenly felt. It is then perfectly understandable how one may conclude that Romance linguistics “has lost some of its distinguishing intellectual features” (Dworkin 2000:â•›xiv).7 5.  Prospective and conclusion It is axiomatic to say that to make predictions is dangerous. Yet, the temptation to succumb to exactly such a rash undertaking is usually too strong. Permit me to indulge, therefore, in a speculation about the status of Romance linguistics in the 21st century.

.  Such a line of thought approaches what the Kahanes (1980:â•›178) have termed “humanistic linguistics”, which “encompasses those aspects of language which correlate with the paideia of Western man, with its spiritual existence: man as he creates language and is influenced by it, as he is linked to the past through language and yet aware of its vital implications – creativity, relativity, historicity, attitudes”.

 Jurgen Klausenburger

In the preceding sections, I have attempted to establish a logical continuum for the practice of Romance linguistics, from its inception in the second half of the 19th century until today. At each step along this history, specialists in the Romance languages have made admirable, sometimes outstanding and superb, contributions in applying the prevailing paradigm, or paradigms.8 Perhaps because the Neogrammarian model of historical linguistics was first on the time-line, it was able to anchor itself most profoundly in the Romance field, making it appear that this approach defined the essence of Romance linguistics for all times! However, it is clear that the uniqueness of the Romance family, if it exists at all, must be entirely attributed to extra-linguistic factors, as mentioned above. Therefore, the post-Neogrammarian models should be just as valid in defining what Romance linguistics is as the Neogrammarian period, traditionally labeled the classical one. As a matter of fact, it has perhaps been illusory to speak of an “independent discipline dedicated to the Romance languages” (cf. Klausenburger 2001:â•›11).9 Rather, analyses of the Romance languages have been, are, and always will be part and parcel of Linguistics, simply put. As already pointed out, current linguistic practice presents a rather heterogeneous picture, dominated, of course, by various versions of a universal theory of generative syntax. Our annual LSRL has gained its raison d’être and great importance in reflecting quite faithfully this state of affairs. It will contribute to the evolution of (Romance) linguistics for the foreseeable future. I consider this not a rebirth of our discipline, since there was never a death, or even interruption of research. It is simply the continuation of the interest by Romance specialists to demonstrate how this language family offers a great variety of data for us to garner more and more insights into linguistic structure in general.10

.  In the terminology of Kuhn (1962), they would qualify as both work of “normal science” and “genuine theoretical contributions”. .  See the alternative opinion expressed in Posner (1998), discussed above. .  As is well known, European humanistic curricula and research put emphasis on the 19th century tradition to a much higher degree than in North America. Extensive manuals and introductions of the field of Romance linguistics in that vein continue to be published, as evidenced most recently by the very dense and impressive tome authored by Gleβgen (2007). It is interesting to note, however, that the exchange involving Meisel & Schwarze (2002) with Kramer (2004) raises issues on the status of Romance linguistics in Germany very reminiscent of the points I make in this paper.



Theory and practice in Romance linguistics today 

References Alkire, Ti & Carol Rosen. 2010. Romance Languages. A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Casagrande, Jean. 1972. “Syntactic Studies in Romance”. Generative Studies in Romance Languages, ed. by Jean Casagrande & Bohdan Saciuk, 1–22. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Contreras, Heles. 1981. “Romance Syntax in the Seventies”. Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Symposium on Romance Linguistics, ed. by Heles Contreras & Jurgen Klausenburger, 25–39. Seattle: University of Washington. Detges, Ulrich & Richard Waltereit, eds. 2008. The Paradox of Grammatical Change: Perspectives from Romance. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dworkin, Steven N. 2000. “Introduction”. New Approaches to Old Problems. Issues in Romance Historical Linguistics, ed. by Steven N. Dworkin & Dieter Wanner, ix–xiv. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ———. 2003. “Historical Romance Linguistics: The Death of a Discipline?” La corónica 31. 9–17. Dworkin, Steven & Dieter Wanner (eds). 2000. New Approaches to Old Problems. Issues in Romance Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gess, Randall & Deborah Arteaga, eds. 2006. Historical Romance Linguistics. Retrospective and Perspectives. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gleβgen, Martin-Dietrich. 2007. Linguistique romane. Domaines et méthodes en linguistique française et romane. Paris: Armand Colin. Hall, Robert A., Jr. 1977. “Romance Linguistics: Whence and Whither?”. Studies in Romance Linguistics, ed. by Michio P. Hagiwara, 302–321. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Isambert, Paul. 2008. Review of Detges & Waltereit 2008. Post on Linguist List. Kahane, Henry R. & Renée Kahane. 1980. “Humanistic Linguistics”. Contemporary Studies in Romance Languages: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. by Frank H. Nuessel, Jr., 159–182. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Klausenburger, Jurgen. 1981. “Romance Phonological Studies in the 70’s”. Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Symposium on Romance Linguistics, ed. by Heles Contreras & Jurgen Klausenburger, 197–213. Seattle: University of Washington. ———. 2001. Coursebook in Romance Linguistics. Munich: Lincom Europa. Kramer, Johannes. 2004. “Linguistische Romanistik heute”. Romanische Forschungen 116.66–73. Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lemée, Isabelle. 2007. Review of Gess & Arteaga 2006. Post on Linguist List. Malkiel, Yakov. 1961. “Three Definitions of Romance Linguistics”. Romance Philology 15.1–7. ———. 1972. “Comparative Romance Linguistics”. Current Trends in Linguistics, ed. by Thomas Sebeok, Vol. IX: Linguistics in Western Europe, 835–925. The Hague: Mouton. ———. 1973. “Summits in Romance Linguistics”. Canadian Journal of Romance Linguistics 1.33–48. ———. 1993. “The Centers of Gravity in Nineteenth-Century Romance Linguistics”. Linguistic Perspectives on the Romance Languages, ed. by William J. Ashby, Marianne Mithun, Giorgio Perissinotto & Eduardo Raposo, 3–17. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Martinet, André. 1955. Economie des changements phonétiques. Berne: Francke. Meisel, Jürgen M. & Christoph Schwarze. 2002. “Romanistische Linguistik heute”. Romanische Forschungen 114.423–444.

 Jurgen Klausenburger Posner, Rebecca. 1996. The Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1998. “Romance Linguistics in the Nineties”. Romance Philology 51.326–355. Saciuk, Bohdan. 1972. “Phonological Studies in Romance”. Generative Studies in Romance Languages, ed. by Jean Casagrande & Bohdan Saciuk, 215–225. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Schuchardt, Hugo. 1915. Aus dem Herzen eines Romanisten. Graz: Leuschner und Lubensky, k.u.k. Universitätsbuchhandlung.

part i

Morphophonology

On the origins of /ɨ/ in Romanian* Margaret E.L. Renwick Cornell University

The source of Romanian /ɨ/ is debated: did it come from a native vowel split, or was it imported through borrowings? I argue that Romanian /ɨ/ split from /ə/ in native words under a definable set of phonological conditions, but that the influence of borrowings from other languages encouraged its eventual phonemicization. In native words, instances of /ɨ/ are predictable based on the surrounding phonological environment, indicating its original allophonic status. Borrowings from Slavic, however, show expansion of the phonological environments permitting /ɨ/; and in Turkish loanwords /ɨ/ appears in contexts lacking any Â�phonological conditioning, indicating that at the time of borrowing, [ɨ] was on the verge of phonemic contrast. Despite the combination of forces that conspired to phonemicize /ɨ/ in Romanian, the result is a marginally-contrastive vowel with very low type frequency, which appears almost exclusively in predictable environments that reflect its phonologically-conditioned history as an allophone.

1.  Introduction This paper examines the Romanian vowel system from an historical perspective, considering how a sound becomes a phoneme. When, why and how did Romanian gain its high central vowel /ɨ/? Was it a native development, or encouraged by contact with other languages? I show that in fact both these factors were crucial, indicating multiple causation of the phonemicization of /ɨ/. I then examine the synchronic vowel system of Romanian, surveying the distribution of its vowels through a study of type frequency. This reveals a strong link between the phonological processes that brought /ɨ/ into Romanian and its synchronic distribution, and paints a picture of marginal contrastiveness where /ɨ/ is concerned. The philological question is complex. Although Roman rule ended in 271 A.D. in what is now Romania, the first extant document in the Romanian language

*╇ Thanks to Carol Rosen, Abby Cohn, Cliff Crawford, Catalina Iricinschi, Wayles Browne, Draga Zec, and two anonymous reviewers.

 Margaret E.L. Renwick

dates from the 1500s. During this interval, Romanian had extensive contact with numerous languages; thus many factors could have affected its phonemic inventory during this wide window, yet few documentary sources are available. Here, I examine phonological patterns in words with /ɨ/, including native words, and loanwords from Old Slavic and Turkish. 1.1  The positions on /ɨ/ The development of Romanian /ɨ/ is variously explained. In one account, /ɨ/ split from /ə/, both being Romanian innovations to the Popular Latin vowel system (Vasiliu 1968; Coteanu 1981; Rosetti 1986). Others have proposed that /ɨ/ came from its Proto-Slavic equivalent, *y or /ɨ/ (Petrovici 1958; Hall 1974; Mallinson 1988); and finally, Petrucci (1999) argues that /ɨ/ cannot have come from Slavic *y, due to a lack of direct correspondences between loanword vowels and Romanian /ɨ/. Either of these arguments – for native or loanword-based development – fails to appreciate the full picture; my research shows both elements are necessary. A combination of forces within early Romanian phonology, together with loanwords containing phonemes and clusters that were non-native to Romanian, conspired to shape the modern Romanian distribution of /ɨ/. 1.2  Vowels: From Latin to Romanian En route to Romanian, the front and back vowels of Latin underwent three mergers, and the resulting vowel system now has two non-low central vowels in addition to /a/, as seen in Table 1. Table 1.╇ Latin stressed vowels and their Romanian phonemic equivalents Latin stressed vowels ī

ū ĭ

ŭ

ē

ō ĕ

ŏ a

Romanian phonemic vowels

Orthography

i

ɨ

u

i

â/î

u

e

ə

o

e

ă

o

a

a



On the origins of /ɨ/ in Romanian 

1.3  A brief history of /ə/ We cannot discuss the history of /ɨ/ without its mid-central counterpart /ə/, attested in all the dialects of Romanian: it dates to the Common Romanian period (600s–900s A.D.; Rosetti 1973, 1986). It began primarily as an unstressed variant of /a/, and it likely became a phoneme after the 600s, when /a/ became the definite article of many feminine singular nouns, creating minimal pairs like casă / kasə/ “house” ~ casa /kasa/ “house (def.)” (Rosetti 1986; Coteanu 1981; Vasiliu 1968). Pre-nasal raising also contributed to the coalescence of /ə/ as a phoneme: the change of /a/ to [ə] before a nasal allowed [ə] to expand its domain within the language, and become a distinct vowel in both stressed and unstressed position. Pre-nasal raising eventually caused /ə/ to raise all the way to /ɨ/. From the conditions under which /ə/ emerged in Romanian, we see a path for /ɨ/ to enter the language, beginning with the common process in Romanian of pre-nasal raising. It is unclear whether [ə] developed first out of unstressed /a/ and other phonological conditions, and only later [ɨ] emerged; or whether [ə] and [ɨ] co-existed as allophones of a single phoneme. Nonetheless, we can document the historical changes (adapted from Petrucci 1999:â•›64) which gave rise to /ə/, and later /ɨ/.

(1) Basic condition for /ə/: */a/ > */ə//C ____ [–stress]



(2) Prenasal /a/ raises:

*/a/ > */ə// ____ Â�Â�[+stress] n(C)(V) mC}

In (1), we find the most common condition for producing /ə/, namely that /a/ centralized in unstressed position. Under stress, pre-nasal raising could occur, as shown in (2): /a/ rose to /ə/ before /n/, or preceding the sequence /mC/. 2.  Sources for /ɨ/ in Romanian Next, we must consider whether a particular word’s etymology played a role in the appearance of /ɨ/. Examining words from Latin, Slavic and finally Turkish, we find that more recent borrowings exhibit a wider range of phonological environments for /ɨ/ than the native vocabulary. 2.1  Latin to early/Common Romanian The vocalic changes that took place in native words from Latin represent, by and large, a stage of Romanian during which [ɨ] was not a phoneme. The vowel [ɨ] began as an allophone of /ə/ or perhaps /a/ in Romanian native words, in stressed position before a nasal consonant.

 Margaret E.L. Renwick

2.1.1  Latin /a/ → Romanian /ɨ/ Many native words containing /ɨ/ had /a/ in their Latin etymons. As a continuation of the process in (2), we see in (3) that pre-nasal raising continued, raising an etymological low vowel to a high one. Examples appear in (4) and (5). Other vowels too show this widespread pre-nasal raising: Latin bene → Romanian bine “well”; Latin bonus, bona → Romanian bun, bună “good”. (3) */ə/ > [ɨ]/____ [+stress] n(C)(V) mC} 

(based on Petrucci 1999:â•›65)

(4) /an/ → [ɨn]: Latin Romanian plangere plânge /plɨndʒe/ “complain” remanet rămâne /rəmɨne/ “remains” (vb) lana lână /lɨnə/ “wool” (5) /amC/ → [ɨmC] Latin Romanian *sa(m)bata sâmbătă /sɨmbətə/ “Saturday” *strambu strâmb /strɨmb/ “twisted” campu câmp /kɨmp/ “field”

In some words /n/ was eventually lost, but had already triggered pre-nasal raising. (6) /an/ → [ɨ] Latin Romanian aranea râie /rɨje/ “mange” granu grâu /grɨw/ “wheat” quantu cât /kɨt/ “how much?”

2.1.2  Latin non-low vowels → Romanian /ɨ/ In Romanian, /a/ was not the only vowel that emerged as /ɨ/; non-low vowels also centralized to /ɨ/. In these examples, /ɨ/ is always followed by a nasal, as seen in more-typical examples of raising to /ɨ/. This suggests a general link in conditioning between nasals and /ɨ/. (7) V[–low] → /ɨ/ Latin Romanian commendat comândă /komɨndə/ *imbracat îmbracă /ɨmbrakə/ longu lângă /lɨŋgə/ *summicella sâmcea /sɨmtʃa/

“sacrifices” (vb) “gets dressed” “beside, near” “peak, point”

2.1.3  Latin /#in/ → Romanian /#ɨn/ Many words in which /iN/ → /ɨN/, such as îmbracă above, contained the Latin prefix in. This shows backing of /i/ to /ɨ/. The vowel /i/ may have analogized to



On the origins of /ɨ/ in Romanian 

other instances of /ɨN/; another analysis (Rosetti 1973:â•›80) is that word-initial Latin /in/ became the “archiphoneme N,” which was realized either as a syllabic nasal or /əN/, and later as /ɨN/: (8) /#iN/ → (/#N̩/) → /#ɨN/: Latin Romanian imperator împărat /ɨmpərat/ “emperor” in în /ɨn/ “in” incantare încânta /ɨnkɨnta/ “to delight” *invitiamentu învăţământ /ɨnvətsəmɨnt/ “education”

2.1.4  Conditioning by Latin /r/ Besides pre-nasal position, the most common environment for /ɨ/ in Romanian is next to /r/. The role of /r/ is summarized below in (9) and (10): /ɨ/ emerged in native words when it either preceded the sequence /rC/, or followed /r/, especially in word-initial position (cf. Schulte 2005). (9) /*ə/ → [ɨ]/____ rC (10) /V/ → [ɨ]/r____

(adapted from Petrucci 1999:â•›65)

(11) Examples of /V/ → /ɨ/ before /rC/: Latin Romanian marcidu mârced /mɨrtʃed/ “rotten” *carnaciu cârnat /kɨrnat/ “sausage” *fratratu fârtat /fɨrtat/ “close friend” tardivu târziu /tɨrziw/ “late” pergula pârghie /pɨrgie/ “lever” (12) Examples of /i/ → /ɨ/ after /r/: Latin Romanian ripa râpă /rɨpə/ “abyss” *horritu urât /urɨt/ “plain, ugly” rivu, riu râu /rɨw/ “river” risu râs /rɨs/ “laugh”

The phonological changes enumerated in Subsection 2.1 account for many instances of /ɨ/. Petrucci (1992, 1999) argues that the presence and distribution of /ɨ/ in all Romanian words can be attributed to these native Romanian phonological processes, but data from Old Slavic and Turkish counterindicate this view. 2.2  Old Slavic loanwords in Romanian Slavic influence on Romanian began during the Common Romanian period (Rosetti 1973:â•›79), peaking during the 1100s with South Slavic languages like

 Margaret E.L. Renwick

Â� Bulgarian. Rosetti (1958) and Hall (1974), among others, argue that Romanian /ɨ/ came from Common Slavic loanwords, which introduced the vowel to Romanian speakers. Most words having /ɨ/ in Romanian with a Common Slavic source do not show /ɨ/ in the source form; for example, we find nasal vowels in ProtoSlavic *sŭmętana (Romanian smântână /smɨnˈtɨnə/ “sour cream”) and Proto-Slavic *mǫdru (Romanian mândru /ˈmɨndru/ “proud”; Petrucci 1999:â•›66). This body of vocabulary nevertheless propelled the expansion of [ɨ] in Romanian, pushing it towards phonemic status. 2.2.1  Romanian treatment of Old Slavic nasal vowels One major source for Romanian /ɨ/ in words of Slavic origin are the Old Slavic nasal vowels, including 〈ą〉 and 〈ę〉; Romanian adopts them with /ɨN/. In this case, exemplified in (13), the resulting /ɨ/ is not always stressed in Romanian, contrasting with that vowel’s native context. (13) Old Slavic /V/̃ → Romanian /ɨN/ Old Slavic Romanian gąsakŭ gânsạc /gɨnˈsak/ “gander” mądrŭ mândrị /mɨnˈdri/ “take pride” ząbŭ zâmbị /zɨmˈbi/ “smile at” svętu sfậnt /ˈsfɨnt/ “saint, holy”

2.2.2  Romanian treatment of Old Slavic liquid-jer metathesis Among Slavic loans, we find many instances of /ɨrC/ and /ɨlC/, in words whose etymons include a Slavic jer vowel. Native changes cannot account for /ɨl/ in particular, and it represents an expansion in the domain of [ɨ]. The jers (front jer 〈ĭ〉 or 〈ь〉, and back jer 〈ŭ〉 or 〈ъ〉) were not generally adapted as /ɨ/ in Romanian: Why are certain jers treated differently? The words adapted with /ɨR/ in Romanian had “fake” jers in Slavic. These vowels appear in words that underwent liquid-jer metathesis, which eliminated liquid syllable codas in favor of onset clusters; some Slavic languages instead deleted the vowel and had syllabic liquids. Within the Slavic languages, the fake jers were phonetically different from others, and this may explain why they were treated differently in Romanian. We cannot know precisely what forms Romanian borrowed: in the earliest Old Church Slavonic (OCS) attestations, fake and true jers were not distinguished orthographically. Comparing the Romanian, OCS and *Common Slavic forms, we find that the source forms for nearly all Romanian /TɨRT/ words, seen in (14) and (15), originally had the form TъRT and underwent metathesis in Slavic. Romanian either borrowed the pre-metathesized forms, as early as the 600s, or borrowed



On the origins of /ɨ/ in Romanian 

forms containing syllabic liquids, epenthesizing /ɨ/ to adapt them to Romanian phonology. (14) Old Slavic *TъrT → Romanian /TɨrT/ *Common Slavic OCS Romanian *kъrma krŭma cârmă /kɨrmə/ “helm” *gъrb gŭrbŭ gârbă /gɨrbə/ “hump” *o-sьrd-ьce osrŭdije osârdie /osɨrdie/ “concern” (15) Old Slavic *TъlT → Romanian /TɨlT/ *Common Slavic OCS Romanian *stъlp- stlŭpŭ stâlp /stɨlp/ “pillar” *tъlk- tlŭkŭ tâlc /tɨlk/ “meaning” *vъlv- vlŭchva vâlvă /vɨlvə/ “sensation, stir”

2.2.3  Other Old Slavic sources for Romanian /ɨ/ In some words in (16), in which /ɨ/ corresponds to Slavic /e/, and (17), /ɨ/ appears in an unconditioned context. Where /ɨ/ corresponds to 〈y〉, the correspondence is with the Slavic equivalent of /ɨ/. In (18), /ɨ/ cannot be due to conditioning: here, /ɨ/ does not precede a nasal, nor does it follow /r/ or precede /rC/, the three native conditioning environments. This increase in instances of unconditioned /ɨ/ indicates that Slavic words entering the Romanian lexicon affected the phonology by expanding the domain of /ɨ/. (16) Slavic /e/ → Romanian /ɨ/ Old Slavic Romanian mezga mâzgăli /mɨzgəli/ “scribble” kermuš cârmoaje /kɨrmo̯aʒe/ “heel of bread” veslo vâslă /vɨslə/ “oar” (17) Slavic 〈y〉 → Romanian /ɨ/ Old Slavic Romanian rysŭ râs /rɨs/ “lynx” pyşanŭ pâşen /pɨʃen/ “haughty” bylije bâlie /bɨlie/ “washbasin” sylĭce sâlţă /sɨltsə/ “jam-knot” xytrŭ hâtru /hɨtru/ “cunning” (18) Otherwise unexplained words from Old Slavic Old Slavic Romanian bŭtŭ bâtă /bɨtə/ “stick, club” chudŭ hâd /hɨd/ “hideous” kŭbilŭ câbla /kɨblə/ “measure of grain” dira dâră /dɨrə/ “track, trace” gidija gâde /gɨde/ “assassin”

 Margaret E.L. Renwick

2.2.4  Summary: Romanian /ɨ/ from Old Slavic sources In most words from Old Slavic, /ɨ/ arises from the same set of phonological processes that create /ɨ/ in native Romanian words. These include pre-nasal raising (often from nasalized vowels in Slavic); raising or backing after /r/, and before /rC/. However, many words cannot be accounted for by phonology alone, suggesting that the domain of /ɨ/ was expanding as the Romanian lexicon developed. 2.3  Turkish loanwords in Romanian Turkish influence on Romanian began in the 1200s, after the peak of Slavic influence. As Rosetti (1958) notes, Romanian /ɨ/ has three major sources in Turkish loanwords. First, Turkish /VN/ produces Romanian /ɨN/, and Turkish /VrC/ also triggers Romanian /ɨ/. Additionally, Turkish /ɨ/ – written 〈ɩ〉 – is borrowed into Romanian as /ɨ/, where it is usually stressed. 2.3.1  Turkish borrowings with conditioned /ɨ/ Native phonological processes, described in 2.1, suffice to explain the Â�presence of  /ɨ/ in (19) and (20): /ɨ/ occurs in pre-nasal position, and also before the sequence /rC/. (19) Turkish /VN/ → Romanian /ɨN/ Turkish Romanian kantarci cântărị /kɨntəɩri/ “weigh” alɩm alâm /alɨm/ “rent” kaldɩrɩm caldarâm /kaldarɨm/ “cobblestone” anasɩnɩ anasână /anasɨnə/ “interjection” (20) Turkish /VrC/ → Romanian /ɨrC/: Turkish Romanian kɩrbaç gârbaci /gɨrbatʃi/ “whip” barş bârş /bɨrʃ/ “year” terlik târlic /tɨrlik/ “slippers”. sürme sârmea /sɨrme̯a/ “antimony” mirza mârzac /mɨrzak/ “Tartary-chief ”

2.3.2  Turkish borrowings with unconditioned /ɨ/ In the loanwords below, the correspondence of Turkish /ɨ/ to Romanian /ɨ/ is clear. This is rarely true of words from Old Slavic (leading Petrucci (1999) to wrongly argue for the exclusively native origins of /ɨ/ in Romanian). In words from Turkish, however, the correspondence of /ɨ/ to /ɨ/ is much more common. Since Turkish borrowings arrived in Romanian later than the bulk of Slavic loans, we can hypothesize that the difference in vowel treatments across



On the origins of /ɨ/ in Romanian 

the loan classes reflects a general increase in speakers’ familiarity with the vowel in non-conditioned contexts. We see this increase in (21), where the occurrence of /ɨ/ is unexplainable without pointing out that it corresponds to an equivalent vowel in Turkish. (21) Words with only an /ɨ/ – /ɨ/ correspondence: Turkish Romanian satɩr satâr /satɨr/ “chopper, cleaver” balɩk balâc /balɨk/ “Black Sea turbot” gɩdɩklamak gâdila /gɨdila/ “tickle” kɩlɩç călâci /kəlɨtʃ/ “sword” kızlar agasi câzlar-aga /kɨzlaraga/ “master of eunuchs” kışla câşlă /kɨʃlə/ “winter camp” hamailı hamailâu /hamajlɨw/ “amulet” telhıs talhâs /talhɨs/ “functionary’s report”

In (21), we find /ɨ/ before a variety of stops and affricates, not just liquids and nasals. Also, when /ɨ/ appears before /r/ in (21), it is not the environment /rC/, but /r#/; therefore these words demonstrate an expansion of the phonological environments available to /ɨ/ in Romanian, beyond those expressed in (9) and (10). Still lacking minimal pairs between /ɨ/ and /ə/, these Turkish borrowings offer indirect evidence that /ɨ/ had become phonemic due to its unconditioned distribution, and certainly speakers of Romanian retained vowels faithful to Turkish forms long enough for them to be expressed as /ɨ/ in the modern language. Otherwise we should not see /ɨ/ in the words in (21), since they do not contain any known conditioning environments. 2.4  Summary: Etymological sources for Romanian /ɨ/ Besides the three sources presented here, Romanian /ɨ/ appears in words from many other languages, including Hungarian, Greek, and the modern Slavic languages Bulgarian, Polish and Serbian. Among these borrowings it is unclear whether Romanian /ɨ/ is a result of conditioning environments and vowel quality within the donor languages, or whether they are a result of phonological changes internal to Romanian. I argue that Romanian /ɨ/ was originally allophonic with /ə/, as is clearly seen in native vocabulary, and gradually expanded to phonemic status with help from borrowings, especially from Old Slavic and Turkish. We see evidence for this in the increasing number of loanwords in which /ɨ/ is phonologically unconditioned. Together, these sources for /ɨ/ constitute multiple causation of its phonemic status: both native processes and loanwords influenced development of /ɨ/. Although it is argued (i.e. Hall 1974) that Slavic loanwords brought /ɨ/ into

 Margaret E.L. Renwick

Romanian, this is not a complete account of its origins. When a language adapts a loanword to its phonology, vowel changes in the borrowed form are quite common; for example, the vowelâ•›/y/ is often adapted into English as /u/. Where /ɨ/ appears in Romanian loanwords, however, it is not necessarily modified from its original form, and here we see the effect of the pre-existence of allophonic [ɨ]: since it existed, loanwords having that sound were adapted without change. This however disrupted the allophonic system, and pushed /ɨ/ along the path to phonemic status. Historically, /ə/ and /ɨ/ were first attested as separate phonemes in the 1500s, but their distribution remains nearly complementary. We now turn to minimal pairs that verify this contrast. 2.5  /ɨ/ as a phoneme: Romanian minimal pairs Few minimal pairs separate Romanian /ə/ and /ɨ/. Besides those in (22), minimal contrasts arise between function words and phoneme pronunciations, such as mă [mə] “me” vs. m [mɨ] “m”, or onomatopoeic forms. (22) Minimal pairs: /ə/ vs. /ɨ/ /ə/ /ɨ/ rău /rəw/ “bad” râu /rɨw/ “river” ţări /tsÇšrj/ “lands” ţâri /tsɨrj/ “sea mackerels” văr /vÇšr/ “cousin” vâr /vɨr/ “I thrust”

Since /ɨ/ and /ə/ are argued to have been allophones, a logical question regards the origin of each minimal pair: Why does it exist? The answers lie in the relationship between the etymons of each word and the phonological processes that were active in Romanian during the formation of its lexicon. The first pair, /rəw/ vs. /rɨw/, come respectively from Latin reus “bad” and rivus “river.” The minimal pair arises first by loss of the intervocalic labial 〈v〉, a regular process in native Romanian words. Next, note that /e/ and /i/, in the Latin etymons, are front vowels at different heights. An initial trill /r/ caused these vowels to centralize to /ə/ and /ɨ/ (Schulte 2005), where each maintains the height of its etymological vowel, producing a minimal pair. In the pair /tsərj/ – /tsɨrj/, both are plural nouns; the first comes from Latin terra, in which degemination of /r/ occurred, and stressed /e/ became /e̯a/ Â�histÂ�orically. The front vowel gesture of this diphthong regressively triggered affrication of /*t/ and was no longer realized, leaving only /a/. In the plural, ending in /i/, metaphony raises stressed /a/ to /ə/, producing /tsərj/. The source of ţâri is Greek tsiros, which lost its final syllable and appears as /tsɨr/ in the Romanian singular. The centralization of /i/ to /ɨ/ may have occurred because the vowel preceded /r/ in a word-final position, as also in satâr (/satɨr/; Turkish satɩr) or



On the origins of /ɨ/ in Romanian 

batâr (/batɨr/; Hungarian bator). Schulte (2005) proposes that /ɨ/ in non-native Romanian words is a marker of their loanword status, which may explain its presence in this Greek borrowing. Finally, the pair /vər/ – /vɨr/ comes from Latin verus “cousin,” and Slavic vrĕti “thrust (vb).” In native /vər/, /ə/ is due to a native Romanian phonological process in which labial consonants trigger centralization of a front vowel (unless another front vowel follows; Vasiliu 1966). However, /vɨr/ derives from a Slavic verb. Romanian generally borrowed Slavic verbs via the verbal root, without the ending 〈ti〉; for example, Old Slavic trĕti > Romanian târî/ tɨˈrɨ/ “drag.” Minimal contrasts with other Romanian vowels reinforce the phonemic status of /ɨ/: (23) Other minimal pairs with /ɨ/ /ɨ/ Other vowels mână /mɨnə/ “hand” (n.) mină /minə/ “mine” (n.) râpă /rɨpə/ “precipice” rupă /rupə/ “break” (3-sub) pâr /pɨr/ (interj.) păr /pər/ “hair” par /par/ “pole”

Having outlined the etymological history of /ɨ/, we now turn to its synchronic role in today’s phonological system.

3.  The role of /ɨ/ in modern Romanian: A type frequency analysis 3.1  Frequency of segment types in Romanian This analysis examines the distribution of /ɨ/ in modern Romanian. Beyond the results of the phonological processes that caused raising and backing of Latin vowels to /ɨ/, this vowel has not spread widely into the Romanian lexicon. Its distribution with respect to surrounding segments is highly restricted. Very few Romanian words contain /ɨ/, and its appearance is usually predictable based on its formerly allophonic relationship with /ə/, and as we have seen, few minimal pairs distinguish the two phonemes. An analysis of the frequency with which different vowels and consonants occur in the Romanian lexicon supports this depiction of minimal contrastiveness resulting from historical allophony. This is effectively a type-frequency analysis (Levelt 1983); here, each Romanian phoneme represents a type, and a token is a specific instance of a type. For example, Romanian casa /kasa/ contains three phoneme types, /k/, /s/ and /a/, and has two tokens of type /a/.

 Margaret E.L. Renwick

The data are from a corpus designed for use in Romanian-language journalistic applications, created by Daniel Vladutu (personal communication), with the properties seen in Table 2. Table 2.╇ Word list statistics Total words

╇88,580

Total vowel characters

368,970

Total consonant characters

419,149

Total characters analyzed

788,119

In addition to general word classes (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.) the list includes some abbreviations, personal names, and proper nouns. It also includes declined nouns and adjectives, meaning that each noun is listed six times (indefinite, definite, and genitive/dative, both singular and plural); each adjective appears six times, and verbs also appear in multiple forms. The fact that some root words occur more than once means some segments are counted more than once, and my analysis slightly over-samples them; thus this is not a type frequency analysis in the strictest sense, but an initial attempt at orthographically-based phoneme type frequency. 3.2  Vowel type frequencies Figure 1 shows the relative type frequencies of Romanian vowels, including three diphthongs, arranged from high to low and front to back. The Y-axis shows a count of the total instances of a particular vowel, represented as a percentage of the total number of vowel characters in the word list.

Percentage of tokens

30% 25%

25.5% 20.4%

20% 15%

12.1%

11.0%

10%

5.5%

5% 0%

19.9%

1.8% i

i

1.8%

1.4% u

ie

e

ә

o

ea

0.7% a

oa

Figure 1.╇ Vowel type frequencies in Romanian

Figure 1 shows that vowel type frequency varies widely in this corpus. The most common are /i/, /e/ and /a/, then /u/ and /o/, while the least frequent vowels �



On the origins of /ɨ/ in Romanian 

are /ɨ/, /ə/ and the diphthongs /jɛ/ 〈ie〉, /e̯a/ 〈ea〉 and /o̯a/ 〈oa〉. All but /jɛ/ are unique to Romanian among Romance languages. To begin understanding the bassis of these differences, note that all the monophthongs, with the exception of /ɨ/, have significant morphological roles in Romanian – in verb paradigms, as markers of case or number. The morphological role of /ɨ/, however, is limited to a subset of gerunds and a handful of verbal inflections. This contributes to the large differences in type frequencies, which also reflect the uneven distribution of functional load across the vowels. 3.3  Segments following /ɨ/ in Romanian

Percentage of tokens

The allophonic history of /ɨ/ is reflected in its synchronic distribution. Let’s examine the segments that follow /ɨ/ in Romanian words.1 Figure 2 shows the array of segments found in the context /ɨX/, where X is the following segment.2 The X-axis shows all the segments (and word boundaries, ‘#’) found following /ɨ/; the Y-axis measures the percentage of all instances of /ɨ/ after which a segment occurs. 74%

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% #

c

p

t

b

d

g

ţ

f

s

ș

j

v

z

10% m

2% 8% 2% 0% 0% n

l

r

i

u

e

Figure 2.╇ Segments following /ɨ/ in Romanian

The vast majority of /ɨ/ tokens (74%) precede /n/. Another 10% precede /m/; and 8% are followed by /r/. No other segment follows more than 2% of instances of /ɨ/. Of the 622 instances of /ɨm/, 93% belong to the sequence /ɨmC/; and of the 472 instances of /ɨr/, 86% belong to the sequence /ɨrC/. These three frequent following environments correspond to the phonological processes that gave rise to /ɨ/ in Romanian (see 2.1). While /ɨ/ can be flanked by various consonants in Romanian, such that an absolute rule about its distribution is not possible, strong tendencies do help describe or predict the appearance of /ɨ/. In other words, /ɨ/’s allophonic

.  We expect the type frequencies of individual vowels and consonants to affect the degree to which they co-occur with other segments. See Renwick (2009, 2011) for the consonant type frequencies used here. .  In this figure, the notation “0%” does not indicate zero; it indicates a value between 0% and 1%. Space restrictions prevented the use of decimals in the percentages shown.

 Margaret E.L. Renwick

history has left its mark, and the distribution of /ɨ/ has not greatly expanded beyond its original conditioned environments. Beyond the largely predictable distribution of /ɨ/, we have seen that few minimal pairs separate it phonemically from /ə/, which tends to appear in unstressed syllables, and rarely before a nasal (only 5% of schwas precede a nasal). Distributionally, /ɨ/ and /ə/ are nearly allophonic, or only marginally contrastive. Romanian /ɨ/ is problematic for a binary categorization of phonemic status, and raises questions about this widely accepted method of defining that status. 4.  Conclusions I argue that in Romanian, the presence of /ɨ/ is due not just to allophonic variation or borrowings, but a combination of the two. We find that among the oldest, native words, /ɨ/ was conditioned by a handful of processes, in keeping with views that /ɨ/ began as an allophone. In Slavic borrowings, Romanian /ɨ/ can often be explained by the native processes that produced it. However, we find /ɨ/ in an expanded set of conditions in words from Old Slavic, and in some words /ɨ/ cannot be explained by phonology alone. These words indicate an expansion of the role available to /ɨ/ in Romanian, setting it on the road to phonemic status. Among words from Turkish, introduced later than Slavic words, we still find instances of phonologically-conditioned /ɨ/. However, many words show direct correspondence of Turkish /ɨ/ to Romanian /ɨ/, in unconditioned environments. Borrowings from Turkish may have helped cement /ɨ/ as a phoneme in Romanian, and these words illustrate a stage when it was on the verge of contrastiveness. Taken together, the native phonological effects combined with extensive borrowing show a path of multiple causation towards phonemicization of /ɨ/. In the synchronic distribution of /ɨ/, we see little more than the phonological footprint of the vowel’s development. The phonemic status of /ɨ/ in modern Romanian is confirmed by minimal pairs, and by the fact that the distribution of /ɨ/ is no longer completely predictable; it may precede or follow any consonant, in stressed or unstressed syllables. However, despite its phonemic status, /ɨ/ has very low type frequency, making up less than 2% of all vowels in Romanian word forms. The allophonic history of /ɨ/ left its imprint on the segment’s distribution, which has not greatly expanded beyond its original conditioning environments. The distribution of /ɨ/ is highly constrained as a result of its history, and is only marginally contrastive with its former allophone /ə/. This in-between status sets up a research agenda I am pursuing, through acoustic and perceptual experimentation into the nature of marginal contrastiveness. Imagine the role of a Romanian listener, for example: If I hear a



On the origins of /ɨ/ in Romanian 

central vowel and note that it is stressed and pre-nasal, the relative frequencies of /ə/ and /ɨ/ in that environment mean that I may perceive /ɨ/ regardless of formant structure. Acoustically, do /ɨ/ and /ə/ differ comparably with respect to other pairs of Romanian vowels, or less? Do listeners perceive the contrast between them at the same rates as other vocalic contrasts, or are the two vowels easily confused? In addition to historical relevance, Romanian /ɨ/ raises new questions about the nature of phonemes, their relationship to one another and their functional role in a language’s vowel system.

References Coteanu, Ion. 1981. Structura şi evoluţia limbii române (de la origini pînă la 1860). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Hall, Robert. 1974. External History of the Romance Languages. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company. Levelt, Willem J.M. 1983. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mallinson, Graham. 1988. “Romanian”. The Romance Languages ed. by Martin Harris & Nigel Vincent. London & Sidney: Croom Helm. Petrovici, Émile. 1958. “Interpénétration d’une phonologie slave et d’une morphologie romane”. Mélanges linguistiques ed. by Iorgu Iordan, Émile Petrovici & A. Rosetti. Bucharest: Â�Academia Republicii Populare Romîne. Petrucci, Peter R. 1992. “The Historical Development of Rumanian /ɨ/”. Contemporary Research in Romance Linguistics: Papers from the 22nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages El Paso/Cd. Juárez, February 1992 ed. by Jon Amastae, Grant Goodall, Mario Montalbetti & Marianne Phinney. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Petrucci, Peter R. 1999. Slavic Features in the History of Rumanian. Munich: Lincom Europa. Renwick, Margaret E.L. 2009. On the origins of /ɨ/ in Romanian. Unpublished ms., Cornell University. Renwick, Margaret E.L. 2011. “Phoneme Type Frequency in Romanian”. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 17: 1. Article 22. Rosetti, Alexandru. 1958. “Slavo-romanica. Sur la construction du système vocalique en Â�roumain”. Romanoslavica 1. 27–30. Rosetti, Alexandru. 1973. Brève histoire de la langue roumaine des origines à nos jours. The Hague: Mouton. Rosetti, Alexandru. 1986. Istoria limbii române I: de la origini pînă la începtul secolului al Â�XVII-lea. Bucharest: Editura ŞtinÅ£ifică şi Enciclopedică. Schulte, Kim. 2005. “Vowel Centralization in Romanian Verbs of Slavic Origin: Deliberate Exploitation of an Indigenous Sound Change?” Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 270], ed. by Haike Jacobs & Twan Geerts, Â�378–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Vasiliu, Emanuel. 1966. “Towards a Generative Phonology of Daco-Rumanian Dialects”. Journal of Linguistics 2:â•›1. 79–98. Vasiliu, Emanuel. 1968. Fonologia istorică a dialectelor dacoromâne. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.

An acoustic investigation of nasal place neutralization in Spanish Default place assignment and phonetic underspecification* Michael Ramsammy University of Manchester

Previous accounts of nasal place neutralization in Spanish have claimed that word-medial nasal codas acquire place features by categorical assimilation, whereas word-final nasals are specified for place by epenthesis of a dialect-particular default value. This paper reports on the results of experimental investigation into the acoustic properties of place neutralized nasals in Spanish. Results confirm that speakers of alveolarizing dialects neutralize word-final nasal place contrasts to [coronal], whereas the output of neutralization in velarizing dialects is [dorsal]. Moreover, acoustic analysis reveals that preconsonantal nasal codas are not targets for categorical assimilation. In agreement with the experimental results, an alternative analysis is presented in which word-medial preconsonantal nasal codas are underspecified for place on the surface.

1.  Introduction Traditional descriptions of Spanish assert that nasals exhibit a three-way place-ofarticulation contrast in prevocalic environments (Harris 1984). As shown in (1), [m], [n] and [ɲ] freely occur in syllable-initial position; word-initial [ɲ], however, occurs only in a limited number of words.1

*╇ I am grateful to Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, Yuni Kim and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the preliminary versions of this article. I alone am responsible for any remaining errors. This research was funded by an AHRC research grant awarded to the author (grant number 135958). 1.  Note that the asymmetric patterning of [ɲ] has historical origins: diachronic palatalization of nasal geminates, gn and nj sequences yielded [ɲ] only in intervocalic contexts (see Penny 1991).

 Michael Ramsammy

(1) a. [ká.ma] d. [má.ta] “bed” kill.3-sg.pres b. [ká.na]

e. [ná.ta]

“grey hair”

“cream”

c. [ká.ɲa] f. [ɲá.ta] “reed” “death”

Nevertheless, this three-way surface contrast is suspended in other contexts. Assuming the generation of fully specified surface structures, Harris (1984) argues that preconsonantal nasal codas undergo categorical place assimilation to following obstruents: as illustrated by the examples in (2), place contrasts are neutralized in preconsonantal nasal codas by leftward spread of the placefeature values associated with any following obstruent, both in word-internal and word-external sandhi contexts. Moreover, nasal codas in word-final prepausal and prevocalic environments are specified for place by the epenthesis of a dialect-particular default feature value. Dialects of Alveolarizing Spanish (AS) assign a [coronal] place feature to any nasal occurring at the right edge of the word – either in absolute phrase-final position (3a) or a phrase-medial prevocalic position (3b) – whereas dialects of Velarizing Spanish (VS) enforce a default to [dorsal]. (2) a. [kám.po] “field” b. [kán̪.t ̪o] “chant” c. [báŋ.ko] “bank” d. [pam.bu̯é.no] “good bread” e. [pan̪.t ̪úɾ.ko] “Turkish bread” f. [paŋ.ka.li ̯én̪.t ̪e] “warm bread” (3) a. [pan]AS [paŋ]VS

b. [pa.ná.gɾi o̯ ]AS [pa.ŋá.gɾi ̯o]VS

“bread” “bitter bread”

However, subsequent researchers have questioned the analysis of VS that Harris proposes. Baković (2000) draws attention to the markedness paradox which arises from permitting a place neutralization process to select a highly-marked [dorsal] nasal as its output. Retreating from the requirement that phonological output representations should be fully specified (see also Colina 2009a:â•›86ff.), Baković argues that non-alveolarizing dialects of Spanish assign a place-underspecified nasal in word-final environments. Under this analysis, a markedness restriction formulated to penalize place-specified nasal codas in the output (NasCodaCond) forces the debuccalization of all word-final nasals; a superordinate constraint requiring



An acoustic investigation of nasal place neutralization in Spanish 

cluster homorganicity (Agree-[place]) prevents the debuccalization of nasal codas in preconsonantal contexts. De Lacy (2006) also presents an analysis of VS in which the output of wordfinal neutralization is not [dorsal]. Assuming a universal place-of-articulation markedness hierarchy, [dor] > [lab] > [cor] > [glot], de Lacy claims that place neutralization generates a nasal glottal stop, [ʔ̃],2 in non-alveolarizing Spanish word-finally. Nevertheless, given that no speaker of Spanish produces word-final nasals with glottal occlusion, de Lacy ascribes the velar quality of [ʔ̃] to phonetic implementation: the phonetic realization of [ʔ̃] “[c]oincidentally, … happens to be the same as [the phonetic realization of] [ŋ]” (de Lacy 2006:â•›38). In light of these claims, the goal of this paper is twofold. Given that the existing accounts of the Spanish nasal alternations are based exclusively on theoreticallydriven interpretations of impressionistic transcriptions, I aim to demonstrate, firstly, that analyses of non-alveolarizing Spanish assuming word-final debuccalization or word-final nasal glottalization are untenable. I discuss the results from acoustic experimentation which confirm that VS speakers produce wordfinal nasals with dorso-velar occlusion whereas word-final nasals are produced with alveolar occlusion in AS dialects. This finding confirms, furthermore, that, whereas [coronal] is unmarked in AS dialects, [dorsal], rather than [coronal] or [glottal], functions as the unmarked place-of-articulation feature in VS. Secondly, I aim to show that preconsonantal nasal place assimilation, which is often considered an obligatory, categorical process, displays evidence of gradience in Spanish. Based on acoustic comparisons of nasal realizations preceding [coronal] and [dorsal] obstruents, I propose an alternative analysis in which preconsonantal nasal codas are not targets for assimilation by autosegmental spreading. Thus, rather than assuming that phonological computation generates fully-specified output structures, I argue that a model permitting the phonetic underspecification (Keating 1988) of preconsonantal nasals predicts the generation of coarticulatory gradience that accords with the acoustic facts to a far greater degree than analyses based on discrete assimilation. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines the experimental procedure, the results of which are presented in §3. The implications of the empirical work for theoretical treatments of the nasal alternations are discussed in §4, and §5 concludes the paper.

.  De Lacy notates the “nasal glottal stop” as [N]; yet for the sake of clarity, I employ [ʔ̃] to denote a [glottal] nasal and [N] for the place-underspecified nasal.

 Michael Ramsammy

2.  Experimental investigation 2.1  Method 2.1.1â•…Participants Two speakers of AS (participants A1 and A2) and two speakers of VS (V1 and V2) were recruited for the experiment; pilot recordings taken prior to completion of the experiment reported on here were used to assess whether each speaker produced [n] or [ŋ] in word-final prevocalic environments. Participant A1 is male, native to Albeos, Galicia; participant A2 is female and a native of Manzanares, Ciudad Real. Participants V1 and V2 are both female and native to Vigo, Galicia, and Monforte de Lemos, Galicia, respectively. None reported any speech or hearing pathologies; participation in the experiments was on a voluntary basis and no remuneration was offered for taking part. 2.1.2  Data Audio recordings were carried out in a sound-attenuated studio in the Phonetics Laboratory at the University of Manchester using a Marantz PMD650 Mini-Disc recorder and a Samson C01 Studio Condenser microphone. Audio data were sampled at 44.1kHz. Acoustic analysis was carried out in Praat and statistical analyses were performed in R (version 2.8.1). 2.1.3â•…Stimuli The stimuli for this experiment consisted of a series of nonce-words embedded in a carrier sentence context: e.g. Mi madre mandó un ____ a su jefe “my mother sent her boss a ____”. Nonce vocabulary was constructed to test the realization of (i) word-final prevocalic nasals and (ii) word-medial preconsonantal nasal codas. Type-(i) test words had the form C1V1C2V́ 2N; type-(ii) test words had the form C1V́ 1NC2V2 (see Table 1).3

.  An anonymous reviewer notes that speakers may resyllabify word-final prevocalic nasals across a word-boundary, in which case type-(i) nonce words test the realization of resyllabified word-final nasal onsets and type-(ii) nonce words test the realization of word-medial nasal codas.



An acoustic investigation of nasal place neutralization in Spanish 

Table 1.╇ Formulation of the test words (i) Word-final prevocalic context

(ii) Word-medial preconsonantal context

Test Sequence

Orthographic Form

N

Test Sequence

Orthographic Form

N

[-íN#]

〈-ín〉

10

〈-nt-〉

25

[-úN#]

[-V́Nt-] [-V́Nd-]

〈-nd-〉

25

〈-nc{i, e}〉, 〈-nz{u, o, a}〉

25

〈-ns-〉

25

〈-ún〉

10

[-éN#]

〈-én〉

10

[-óN#]

〈-ón〉

10

[-V́Nθ-] ́ [-VNs-]

10

[-V́Nk-]

〈-nqu{i, e}〉, 〈-nc{u, o, a}〉 25

[-V́Ng-]

〈-ngu{i, e}〉, 〈-ng{u, o, a}〉 25

[-V́Nx-]

〈-nj-〉

[-úN#]

〈-ún〉

25

In each test condition, target nasals were preceded by a stressed vowel; this was varied systematically between the five phonemic monophthongs of Spanish (hence, /í, ú, é, ó, á/). As shown in Table 1, post-nasal obstruents were varied systematically by place-of-articulation ([cor]~[dor]) and manner-of-articulation ([±cont]) in type-(ii) test words. Extra phonological material (C1, V1 and C2 in type-(i) test words, C1 and V2 in type-(ii) test words) was also varied systematically: unstressed vowels were {i, u, e, o, a} and filler-consonants were all coronal non-nasals, {t, d, θ, s, r, l}. Each participant read a total of 350 sentences comprising the 225 target sentences and additional distracter sentences. 2.1.4â•…Analysis Previous research has shown that, whilst potentially important place cues are present in the nasal murmur,4 formant transitions at closure and release phases provide the listener with crucial information for accurate identification of the place-ofarticulation of nasal sounds (Narayan 2008). In dorso-velar productions, articulation of [ŋ] produces a spectral pattern of F2/F3 convergence (a velar pinch) at the point of dorso-velar closure and at the point of release (Stevens 1998). Nevertheless, the velar pinch pattern is sensitive to vocalic context: examination of [ŋ]-realizations in American English, for example, reveals that velar pinches emerge in [ŋ]-transitions in the context of front vowels, but not in the context of back vowels (Olive et al. 1993:â•›197). In line with this observation, we may expect to observe differences in the transitional phases of [V-ŋ] realizations depending upon the [±back] specification of the vowel.

.  For example, the frequency at which nasal antiresonances occur is known to differ depending upon the place-of-articulation of the nasal (Fujimura 1962).

 Michael Ramsammy

In the case of [n], formant transitions preceding alveolar sounds are also known to vary depending upon the quality of the preceding vowel. Formation of oral closure in the alveolar region produces generally flatter formant contours than velar articulations, although an increase in the acoustic space between F2 and F3 (i.e. the opposite pattern to the velar pinch) may also be observed in front vowel contexts (Stevens 1998:â•›§7.4.3.ff.). By contrast, pre-alveolar transitions may display F2/F3 convergence in back vowel environments; accordingly, we might hypothesize that the acoustic difference between [n] and [ŋ] may only be reliably observable in [–back] vowel environments. In order to determine whether the Spanish [VN] realizations display the expected acoustic cues to nasal alveolarity and nasal velarity respectively, measurements of the first three oral formants were taken over the periods spanning the [V–N] transition in each test-word token. Points of transition were identified by visual inspection of the waveform and spectrogram; as shown in Figure 1, transition loci were often visible as abrupt discontinuities in stable formant structure and waveform distortion patterns (cf. Olive et al. 1993:â•›§7.1.2.ff.). 0.1869 0 –0.2893

Frequency (Hz)

5500

0

Figure 1.╇ A realization of the second syllable of the test word 〈desén〉 (speaker A1). The vertical dashed line marks the visually-identified [V–N] discontinuity; the brace marks the transitional periods over which formant measurements were taken

10 measurements were taken at millisecond intervals over the transitional periods in each test-word token. Raw formant data were manipulated statistically in order to quantify the gradual spectral changes in the critical F2/F3 band and to permit direct comparison between individual tokens. The width of the F2/F3 band was calculated by subtracting the measurement values for F2 at each measurement point from the corresponding F3 values. These figures were then submitted to a linear regression: this permits the changes in the centers of spectral energy over the 10 msec transition-phase to be captured by a single descriptive



An acoustic investigation of nasal place neutralization in Spanish 

value (the β-coefficient). β-values are negative for velar articulations exhibiting a gradual reduction in the spectral space between F2 and F3 preceding dorsovelar closure. Alveolar sounds, by contrast, are expected to show the opposite pattern (in front vowel environments) where gradual separation of F2 and F3 over the [V–N] transition yields positive β-values. The results of the acoustic analysis of word-final prevocalic tokens are presented in §3.1; §3.2 then reports on the preconsonantal tokens.

3.  Results 3.1  Word-final prevocalic contexts The boxplots in Figure 2 show the distribution of β-values for all test-word tokens in each of the five vowel contexts for both dialect groups. Upon initial inspection, comparison of the distributions of word-final prevocalic nasal realizations (Figures 2(a) and 2(b)) reveals a clear split in the data. We see, firstly, that the back vowels, [o] and [u], pattern differently from the front vowels, [a, e, i], both in AS and in VS. In Figure 2(a), observe that the β-coefficients cluster above 0 for AS speakers in the front vowel contexts, whereas the values for [o] and [u] are considerably lower, with the median line falling below 0. In the VS data, however, the opposite picture emerges: β-values for [a, e, i] contexts cluster below 0, yet the values for [o] and [u] cluster above 0. The distribution of β-values in AS is, therefore, the exact mirror image of the VS pattern: where F2 and F3 follow a convergent trajectory in VS, they follow a divergent trajectory in AS, and vice versa. This effect is highly significant: a one-way ANOVA performed on the prevocalic data demonstrates that β-value variance is attributable to inter-speaker differences (F(3,192) = 10.04, p < 0.001). Post-hoc tests confirm that the AS and VS realizations form two homogeneous groups: pairwise comparisons using Tukey’s HSD reveal no significant differences between prevocalic realizations produced by speakers A1 and A2 (adjusted p > 0.1), and no significant differences between speakers V1 and V2 (adjusted p > 0.1). All other comparisons are significant at the 0.001 level. In addition to the front~back asymmetry, observe that β-values also vary with respect to vowel height (particularly in AS). A two-way ANOVA calculated on the AS prevocalic data reveals a significant effect of vowel backness (F(1,95) = 61.59, p < 0.001); but where [i] and [u] were considered high, [e] and [o] were mid, and [a] was low, no significant effect of vowel height was observed. Likewise, a second test confirms that vowel backness is significant prevocalically for VS (F(1,91) = 62.72, p < 0.001), whereas vowel height produces no significant main effect and no significant interaction with backness.

 Michael Ramsammy

The results from analysis of the word-final prevocalic nasal realizations are therefore in agreement with the findings of previous studies on the acoustics of nasal sounds. As noted in §2.1.4, the transitional correlates of nasal alveolarity and of nasal velarity in [VN] productions differ depending upon the backness of the vowel. Thus, whereas intra-group comparisons reveal that [V[–back] N] realizations are significantly different from [V[+back]N] realizations in both dialects, inter-group comparisons allude to a crucial difference in the AS and VS realizations. From the pattern of F2/F3 divergence in [V[–back]N] realizations, we can infer that the place-of-articulation of word-final nasals is alveolar for AS speakers. By contrast, the acoustic signature of nasal velarity is consistently observable in [V[–back]N] realizations produced by VS speakers: this finding therefore confirms that VS speakers articulate a robustly dorso-velar [ŋ] in word-final prevocalic contexts. a. AS: Prevocalic

c. AS: Pre-COR contexts

o

u

–20 a

Vowel context

i

o

u

e. AS: Pre-DOR contexts

i

o

u

Vowel context

i

o

u

f. VS: Pre-DOR contexts 40 –40

b -values

b -values –10 10 –30 e

e

Vowel context

30

30 10 –10 –30 a

a

Vowel context

d. VS: Pre-COR contexts

b -values

e

20

i

0

e

–40

–40 a

0

b -values

10

20 0

b -values

–20

20 0

b -values

–20 –40

30

40

b. VS: Prevocalic

a

e

i

o

Vowel context

u

a

e

i

o

u

Vowel context

Figure 2.╇ Box-plots showing the distribution of β-values in prevocalic and preconsonantal environments for AS and VS groups



An acoustic investigation of nasal place neutralization in Spanish 

3.2  Word-medial preconsonantal contexts

0.04

In comparison to the prevocalic data, preconsonantal nasal realizations are more highly variable. Fig. 3 shows the overlapping distributions of β-coefficient values extracted from pre-coronal and pre-dorsal tokens: whereas we should expect to see evidence of bimodality in the overall distribution, observe that the data from [VNC[COR]] and [VNC[DOR]] realizations pattern almost identically. Accordingly, since β-coefficients extracted from preconsonantal tokens center around a unimodal value of 0, pre-coronal and pre-dorsal realizations cannot be reliably distinguished on the basis of the putative place-of-articulation specification of the nasal coda.5 This finding is confirmed by a one-way ANOVA (F(1,664) = 0.24, n.s.), which demonstrates that [V–N] formant transitions in pre-coronal contexts are not significantly different from [V–N] transitions in pre-dorsal contexts. Thus, given the observation that word-final [n]-realizations differ from word-final [ŋ]-realizations in a highly consistent way (cf. §3.1), it is important to ask whether the surprising absence of a consistent acoustic difference between [V–N] transitions in pre-coronal and pre-dorsal environments may be caused by factors other than place-of-articulation.

0.00

0.01

Density 0.02

0.03

Pre-coronal Pre-dorsal

–40

–20

0 b-value

20

40

Figure 3.╇ Density plots of β-coefficient values extracted from [VNC[COR]] and [VNC[DOR]] realizations

.  Recall that β-coefficient values are expected to be negative for velar articulations and positive for alveolar articulations in front vowel environments.

 Michael Ramsammy

3.2.1  Dialect The data from [VN#] tokens reveal a clear distinction between realizations produced by AS speakers and those produced by VS speakers; it is therefore conceivable that dialectal differences may provide a potential source of variability in pre-coronal and pre-dorsal realizations. Nevertheless, a two-way ANOVA calculated on the preconsonantal data reveals no significant main effect of dialect (AS~VS: F(1,660) = 0.25, n.s.), nor of place-of-articulation ([cor]~[dor]: F(1,660) = 0.38, n.s.), and no significant interaction. Thus, further to the observation that pre-coronal nasal realizations cannot be distinguished from predorsal realizations, we can infer that variance in formant transition measurements extracted from preconsonantal nasal realizations cannot be attributed to a dialectal difference between AS speakers and VS speakers. 3.2.2  Manner-of-articulation and vowel backness Analysis reveals that [V–N] formant transitions are unaffected by the manner-ofarticulation (i.e. the continuancy) of following obstruents. No significant main effects and no significant interactions were found in a series of tests in which consonantal place, manner and anteriority (i.e. [±anterior]) were predictor variables. Furthermore, whereas vowel backness produces a highly significant effect on β-coefficient values in the word-final environment, both for AS speakers and for VS speakers, no significant effects were found in the preconsonantal data. 3.3  Summary Analysis of the data extracted from type-(i) test-word tokens confirms that wordfinal prevocalic nasals produced by VS speakers bear the acoustic signature of velarity in non-back vowel contexts; and AS realizations exhibit the expected acoustic signature of alveolarity in the same environments. Moreover, in agreement with previous research on the acoustics of nasal sounds, we have observed that nasal realizations in back vowel environments display the opposite acoustic patterns to the front vowel realizations in both dialects. Analysis of the preconsonantal nasal realizations reveals that pre-coronal and pre-dorsal [V–N] formant transitions are highly variable. Contrasts in vowel backness, vowel height and obstruent continuancy produce no significant effects on either [VNC[COR]] or [VNC[DOR]] realizations: we have therefore noted that putative [nT] and [ŋK] realizations are acoustically very different from the corresponding word-final [n]AS and [ŋ]VS realizations. In the following section, I discuss an interpretation of these findings which, whilst departing from certain traditional assumptions concerning the Spanish nasal alternations, has important implications both for place-markedness theory and for theoretical models of phonology-phonetics interaction.



An acoustic investigation of nasal place neutralization in Spanish 

4.  Discussion In light of the experimental results, the question of how the empirical observations might be incorporated into a theoretical treatment of the Spanish nasal alternations remains to be addressed. Given that a full formal analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, I focus here on the question of how the patterns arising in the data can best be modeled by assuming interaction between categorical phonological computation and gradient phonetic implementation. In the following discussion, I assume a modular phonology-phonetics interface along the lines of Keating (1990), in which categorical surface representations generated by the phonological module feed into an abstract, gestural planning module. Under this conception of the interface, phonetic implementation involves a process that I refer to as feature translation, by which discrete, feature-based outputs translate into gestural maps composed of continuous articulatory targets. With regard to the word-final prevocalic nasal realizations, we can note, first and foremost, that the default place assignment analysis proposed by Harris (1984) neatly captures the phonetic facts. In AS, word-final epenthesis of [coronal] in the phonology translates into an apico-alveolar articulatory target in phonetic implementation. Likewise, the default [dorsal] feature present in the output representation of word-final nasals in VS dialects is interpreted as a dorso-velar occlusion target. Rather than assuming that word-final neutralization yields [N] or [ʔ̃], therefore, this approach has the advantage of preserving a transparent relationship between phonological surface structure and gestural planning. Figure 4 shows schematic gestural mappings for the three alternative wordfinal nasal realizations that have been proposed for VS. I include the implementation strategy of [ʔ̃] in 4(c) for the sake of completeness; however, assuming that phonological place features, though abstract, bear some relationship to the articulatory execution of speech sounds, it is difficult to conceive of a plausible mechanism for generating a dorso-velar [ŋ] from [nas, glottal] under this model (pace de Lacy 2006). By contrast, the surface representations given in Figure 4(a–b) straightforwardly translate into plausible gestural patterns. In both examples, implementation of [nasal] generates a target for opening of the velo-pharyngeal port; furthermore, implementation of [dorsal] in Figure. 4(a) generates, in the absence of other manner feature specifications (e.g. [+cont]), a parallel target for the formation of full dorso-velar occlusion. Nevertheless, the mapping shown in Figure 4(b) is problematic in that it predicts a phonetic outcome of word-final nasal place neutralization that does not obtain in the current data. In assuming that word-final nasals are underspecified for place on the surface in non-alveolarizing dialects of Spanish, the analysis

 Michael Ramsammy a.

place [dorsal] Velic aperture Tongue dorsum height

b.

o [nas]

c.

o

place (Ø)

[nas]

o

place

[nas]

[glottal]

high low high low

Figure 4.╇ Gestural mapping of output structures [ŋ] (left), [N] (centre), [ʔ̃] (right)

presented in Baković (2000) predicts that production of [N] involves no lingual occlusion target: the closest approximation of the phonetic quality of the placeless nasal is therefore a nasal glide (hence, [-ə̃]̯ ).6 Yet for all speakers who participated in this study, word-final prevocalic nasals are robustly consonantal and robustly noncontinuant: the differences that we have observed in acoustic quality of wordfinal nasal realizations produced by speakers of AS and VS do not arise because of a dialect-particular distinction in continuancy or consonantality. By contrast, the regular pattern of F2/F3 convergence noted in [V[–back]N#] tokens produced by the VS speakers is consistent with an analysis predicting the formation of dorso-velar consonantal occlusion for word-final nasals. Under a phonological model which assumes, if only tacitly, that featural representations have direct articulatory reflexes in phonetic implementation, the output of word-final nasal place neutralization in VS is, therefore, necessarily [dorsal]. The inevitable implication of this finding is that, whereas neutralization favors a [coronal] output in Alveolarizing Spanish, the maximally unmarked place-of-articulation feature in Velarizing dialects cannot be other than [dorsal] (pace Bakovic 2000). Unlike the word-final prevocalic realizations, however, the data extracted from preconsonantal nasal realizations do not lend themselves to such a clearcut interpretation. Nevertheless, whereas the analyses outlined in §1 assume that preconsonantal nasal codas acquire place-of-articulation specifications by autosegmental spreading, an alternative scenario is conceivable which offers a more adequate explanation for the experimental results.

.  Since the glide itself is targetless, its gestural trajectory may be expected to display extensive contextual variation depending upon the targets of surrounding segments.



An acoustic investigation of nasal place neutralization in Spanish 

Figure 5 shows two gestural mappings for [VNC[DOR]]:7 5(a) illustrates an implementation strategy for a place-assimilated [ŋk] sequence, whereas 5(b) illustrates the gestural mapping of the sequence [Nk] in which [k] does not trigger categorical assimilation. In the latter example, the nasal coda does not acquire a place-of-articulation feature by autosegmental spreading; it is, in the sense of Keating (1988), “phonetically underspecified” for place. Crucially, these alternative implementation strategies make different predications about finegrained articulatory coordination and the acoustic features expected to arise in the realization of [NC] sequences (see also Bradley 2005; Colina 2009b). The mapping shown in 5(a) assumes that feature translation generates a tongue dorsum (TD) gesture spanning the two segments which are specified for [dorsal] place in the phonological output. Since the nasal coda in this example is [ŋ], dorso-velar occlusion must be achieved relatively quickly; accordingly, the tongue dorsum rises rapidly from its target position during the prenasal vowel to a point of maximum displacement coinciding with the onset of nasalization. By contrast, since only the syllable-initial [k] is associated with a [dorsal] autosegment in 5(b), the preconsonantal nasal does not receive an articulatory target for dorsal constriction. In this example, the tongue dorsum gesture gradually interpolates over the realization of the preconsonantal nasal before achieving its maximum displacement target for articulation of [k]. In the absence of a place-of-articulation target, the gestural trajectory formed by the tongue-dorsum therefore has more extensive scope for variability, as indicated by the dotted gestural contour lines in 5(b). In contrast to 5(a), implementation of this gestural mapping thus allows for a range of asynchronous coordinations of tongue dorsum raising and velum lowering. Further to the differences in the timing and coordination of articulatory movements, note that realization of the gestural mappings in 5(a–b) will also result in differences in the acoustic dimension. On the one hand, mapping 5(a), in which the tongue dorsum retracts rapidly for articulation of [ŋ], admits only minimal articulatory variability: we should expect to observe clear velar pinches in front vowel environments coinciding with the closure phase of the dorsum gesture. Accordingly, [V–N] transitions in [VNC[DOR]] environments should not differ to any significant extent from realizations of the VS word-final default [ŋ]. In other words, given that the output of word-final neutralization in VS (i.e. [Vŋ]) is featurally identical to the output of categorical nasal place assimilation in [VŋK]

.  Note that implementation of [coronal] assimilations can also be modeled by assuming tongue-tip gestures in place of the tongue-dorsum gestures (cf. Browman & Goldstein 1992).

 Michael Ramsammy a.

[nas]

b.

o

o

place

place

[nas]

[dor] TD-height:

V

ŋ

k

V

o

o

place

place

(Ø)

[dor]

N

k

high

low

Velic aperture: high

low

Figure 5.╇ Alternative gestural mapping of word-medial [VNC[DOR]] sequences

contexts, realizations of mappings 4(a) and 5(a) are predicted to display a high degree of articulatory and acoustic homogeneity. By contrast, we should expect that the acoustic outcome of 5(b) will differ from that of the VS word-final default mapping given in 4(a). Inasmuch as both 4(a) and 5(a) permit only minimal variation in articulatory implementation, the variable, asynchronous coordination of dorsum raising and velum lowering gestures permitted by mapping 5(b) is predicted to induce high levels of acoustic non-uniformity. Given that the formation of dorso-velar closure need not occur simultaneously with the onset of nasalization, we should expect the transitional cues to nasal dorsality to be less robustly observable in pre-dorsal nasals that are underspecified for place on the surface than in realizations of [Vŋ#]. Likewise, whereas word-final epenthesis of [coronal] generates a target for the formation of linguo-alveolar closure in AS dialects, place-underspecified [N] receives no tongue-tip occlusion target in pre-coronal environments; consequently, the expected transitional cues to nasal alveolarity are likely to occur only sporadically in [VN[Ø]C[COR]] realizations. An analysis of preconsonantal nasal place neutralization assuming the phonetic underspecification of word-medial nasal codas therefore accords



An acoustic investigation of nasal place neutralization in Spanish 

with the experimental results much more closely than previous accounts based upon categorical feature spread.8 When a coronal or dorsal obstruent is preceded by a placeless nasal on the surface, there is no phonological instruction to synchronize the lingual occlusion gesture for the obstruent with the onset of velum lowering (cf. Figure 5(a)); consequently, the patterns of F2/F3 convergence and divergence associated, respectively, with consonantal dorsality and consonantal coronality will only arise irregularly in vowel-to-nasal transitions. Thus, although preconsonantal [V–N] transitions display consistent evidence of the onset of nasalization, the extensive variability in the timing of lingual occlusion gestures admitted in implementation of preconsonantal placeless nasals renders their acoustic transitions indistinguishable in pre-coronal and pre-dorsal environments. 5.  Conclusions This paper has questioned existing analyses of the nasal place-of-articulation alternations in Spanish by submitting their claims to empirical testing. The results of acoustic experimentation confirm, firstly, that the realization of word-final nasals differs on a dialect-specific basis. On the one hand, speakers of AS dialects articulate an alveolar [n] word-finally, whereas speakers of VS realize a robustly dorso-velar [ŋ] in this context. This finding entails an important implication for contemporary phonological theory: whereas nasal place neutralization enforces a word-final default to [coronal] in AS, [dorsal], rather than [coronal] or [glottal], functions as the unmarked place-of-articulation feature in VS. Velarizing Spanish therefore stands as an important counter-example to allegedly universal place markedness hierarchies (cf. Hume & Tserdanelis 2002; Rice 1993). Natural sound classes that can be defined on the basis of contrasts in mannerof-articulation features (e.g. nasals and non-nasals) therefore need not exhibit identical behavior with regard to place-markedness. It is this observation that models assuming universal hierarchies, in their current formulation, crucially fail to acknowledge. Analysis of preconsonantal nasal coda realizations has further called into question the previous accounts of nasal place assimilation. Whereas researchers have

.  An anonymous reviewer points out that Caribbean dialects of VS permit velarization in NN-clusters (e.g. E[ŋ]manuel). Although NN-clusters were not examined in this study, Peninsular VS speakers also display velarization word-medially before [m] and [n] (cf. Ramsammy forthcoming).

 Michael Ramsammy

traditionally treated assimilation as a discrete process, the indistinguishability of pre-coronal and pre-dorsal [V–N] transition measurements suggests an alternative interpretation. Rather than assuming that the presence of a place-specified obstruent in the phonological string obligatorily triggers assimilation by autosegmental spreading, permitting preconsonantal nasal codas to exit the categorical phonology underspecified for place predicts the generation of articulatory and acoustic variability in phonetic implementation. Accordingly, the acoustic non-uniformity that emerges in the [VNC] realizations can be neatly accounted for in a model in which surface underspecification predictably induces phonetic gradience.

References Baković, Eric. 2000. “Nasal Place Neutralization in Spanish”. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium 7.1 ed. by Michelle Minnick Fox, Alexander Williams & Elsi Kaiser, 1–12. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia. Bradley, Travis G. 2005. “Sibilant Voicing in Highland Ecuadorian Spanish”. Lingua(gem) 2: 2.9–42. Browman, Catherine P. & Louis M. Goldstein. 1992. “Articulatory Phonology: An overview”. Phonetica 49: 3–4.155–80. Colina, Sonia. 2009a. Spanish Phonology: A syllabic perspective. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Colina, Sonia. 2009b. “Sibilant Voicing in Ecuadorian Spanish”. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 2: 1.3–29. de Lacy, Paul. 2006. Markedness: Reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fujimura, Osamu. 1962. “Analysis of Nasal Consonants”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34: 12.1865–75. Harris, James W. 1984. “Autosegmental Phonology, Lexical Phonology and Spanish Nasals”. Language and Sound Structure ed. by Mark Aronoff & Richard Oehrle, 67–82. Cambridge: MIT Press. Hume, Elizabeth & George Tserdanelis. 2002. “Labial Unmarkedness in Sri Lankan Portuguese Creole”. Phonology 19: 3.441–58. Keating, Patricia A. 1988. “Underspecification in Phonetics”. Phonology 5: 2.275–92. Keating, Patricia A. 1990. “The Window Model of Coarticulation: articulatory evidence”. Papers in Laboratory Phonology I ed. by John Kingston & Mary Beckman, 451–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Narayan, Chandan R. 2008. “The Acoustic-perceptual Salience of Nasal Place Contrasts”. Journal of Phonetics 36: 1.191–217. Olive, Joseph P., Alice Greenwoord & John Coleman. 1993. Acoustics of American English Speech: A dynamic approach. New York: Springer. Penny, Ralph. 1991. A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ramsammy, Michael. forthcoming. “The Realisation of Coda Nasals in Spanish. Doctoral Thesis, University of Manchester. Rice, Keren. 1993. “Default Variability: The Coronal-Velar Relationship”. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 2.97–130. Stevens, Kenneth N. 1998. Acoustic Phonetics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

An acoustic study of rhotics in onset clusters in La Rioja* Christine Weissglass Florida State University

Rhotics in Spanish onset clusters can be realized as taps, trills, or approximants depending on the dialect (Hualde 2005:â•›182–183). However, assibilated [i.e. fricative] pronunciations have been reported in some areas such as the La Rioja region of Spain (Alonso 1925:â•›169; Llorente 1965:â•›296–297; Navarro Tomás 1968:â•›210). The present study examines acoustic data from four participants from La Rioja in order to corroborate these reports. The effects of (i) place of articulation and (ii) voicing of the preceding consonant as well as (iii) the nuclear vowel on rhotic pronunciation are also examined. Rhotic pronunciation is analyzed in terms of (i) manner, (ii) duration, (iii) voicing, (iv) svarabhakti vowel occurrence and (v) svarabhakti vowel duration. The findings show few instances of assibilation; the majority of rhotics were realized as approximants. The results of this study have theoretical implications for the phonological status of rhotics in Spanish.

1.  Introduction In Spanish onset clusters composed of a plosive and the non-lateral liquid /ɾ/ (as in brisa “wind” and prisa “hurry”), the rhotic can be realized as a tap, trill or an approximant depending on the dialect (Hualde 2005:â•›182–183). Although taps are considered to be the most common realization in this context, recent research has shown that approximant rhotics are quite frequent as well (Hualde 2005:â•›183; Blecua 2001:â•›Section 3.1). Trills, on the other hand, are restricted to particular areas such as the Basque Country (Hualde 2005:â•›187–188). Similarly, assibilated [i.e. fricative]

*╇ I would like to thank Carolina González for her guidance and support, Travis Bradley for helpful comments and discussion, Denise Callejas for assistance with data collection and the Statistical Consulting Center at Florida State University for assistance with statistical analyses. I would also like to thank the participants of this study, the audience at the 40th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages and two anonymous reviewers for their questions and feedback. Any error is my responsibility. This research was supported by a Graduate Summer Research Grant (Sigma Delta Pi 2009) and a Summer Research Grant (Winthrop King Institute at Florida State University, 2009).

 Christine Weissglass

pronunciations are not typical but have been reported in some areas including the La Rioja region of Spain (Alonso 1925:â•›169; Llorente 1965:â•›296–297; Navarro Tomás 1968:â•›210). However, acoustic data corroborating this claim is scant. The principal objective of the present study is to provide acoustic corroboration for the reports of assibilated rhotics in onset clusters in La Rioja. Another objective is to examine the effects of various segmental factors (such as (i) place of articulation of the preceding consonant, (ii) voicing of the preceding consonant and (iii) the nuclear vowel) on rhotic pronunciation. Rhotic pronunciation is analyzed in terms of (i) manner, (ii) duration, (iii) voicing, (iv) svarabhakti vowel occurrence and (v) svarabhakti vowel duration. The results of this study have potential implications regarding the multi-phase composition of rhotics proposed by Guitart (2004), the connection to the distribution of voiced obstruents (Baković 1994), and the role of continuancy in both (González 2009). The organization of this paper is as follows. First, the design of the experiment is presented (Section 2). Next, the results are revealed (Section 3) and discussed (Section 4). Then, some theoretical implications of the results are addressed (Section 5). Finally some concluding remarks and suggestions regarding the direction of future related research are presented (Section 6).

2.  Method 2.1  Subjects Four native speakers of Spanish participated in the study. All four participants were born in and had lived most of their lives in La Rioja, Spain where they were residing at the time of recording. Participants from La Rioja were selected because previous research has suggested that speakers from La Rioja assibilate the rhotic in onset clusters (Alonso 1925:â•›169; Llorente 1965:â•›296–297; Navarro Tomás 1968:â•›210). The participants included two males and two females between 30 and 46 years old. Information about the participants is available in Appendix A. 2.2  Stimuli The experimental design involved 18 token words. In order to rule out the number of syllables and location of stress as potential factors, all token words were bisyllabic and had primary stress on the first syllable. Also, the target syllable (i.e. the first syllable) was always open. The words were selected based on the place of articulation (bilabial /b, p/, dental /d, t/, velar /ɡ, k/) and voicing (voiced /b, d, ɡ/, voiceless /p, t, k/) of the consonant preceding the rhotic as well as the nuclear vowel following the rhotic (/a/, /i/ and either /o/ or /u/). The voiced consonants preceding the rhotic were most often realized as the approximants [β̞], [ð̞] and



An acoustic study of rhotics in onset clusters in La Rioja 

[ɣ̞] because they most often emerged after a vowel. For that reason, voicing of the preceding consonant cannot easily be distinguished from manner of articulation of the preceding consonant. This issue is addressed further in Section 5. The token words are presented in Table 1. Table 1.╇ Token words Voiced

Voiceless

Bilabial

/a/ /i/ /o/

Braga ‘Braga’ brisa ‘breeze’ broza ‘dead leaves’

Praga ‘Praga’ prisa ‘hurry’ prosa ‘prose’

Dental

/a/ /i/ /u/

drama ‘drama’ drizas ‘knots’ druidas ‘druids’

trama ‘plot’ trizas ‘shatters’ trueno ‘thunder’

Velar

/a/ /i/ /u/

grasa ‘fat’ grises ‘grays’ gruta ‘cave’

crasa ‘crass’ crisis ‘crisis’ cruda ‘raw’

The token words were embedded in 18 grammatical Spanish sentences, which are listed in Appendix B. Carrier sentences were not used because they appear to encourage careful pronunciation of target words, which could be problematic for the present study given that the target pronunciation (i.e. assibilation) is often stigmatized (Navarro Tomás 1968:â•›120; Hualde, 2005:â•›186). The tokens were embedded in the middle of sentences and the word directly before the token word never carried stress. An example sentence is provided in (1). (1) Me gusta sentir la brisa por la tarde cuando estoy en la costa. “I like to feel the breeze in the afternoon when I am on the coast.”

The order of the sentences was randomized three times to create three distinct lists. Two filler sentences were placed at the beginning and end of each list to avoid effects exhibited when reading from lists. 2.3  Task The participants were instructed to read the sentences with their normal pronunciation and rate of speech. It took participants approximately 5 minutes to complete the task. Each participant produced 54 tokens (18 tokens per list, 3 rounds) yielding a total of 216 tokens. 2.4  Recording The participants were recorded in a quiet room using a Marantz Professional Portable Solid State Recorder (Model PMD660) and a high-quality AKG cardoid

 Christine Weissglass

condenser microphone (Model C 1000 S) with a Presence Boost Adapter (PB 1000) in mono with a sampling rate of 44,100 Hz. The data was recorded in.wav format. 2.5  Variables and data analysis Previous studies have suggested that place of articulation of the preceding consonant (henceforth C1) and C1 voicing influence rhotic pronunciation in onset clusters (e.g. Bradley & Schmeiser 2003; Colantoni & Steele 2007). Additionally, the nuclear vowel has been determined to influence the occurrence of svarabhakti vowels (henceforth SV) as well as SV duration, which may in turn influence rhotic manner (e.g. Ramírez 2006; Schmeiser 2006). Therefore the following factors serve as the independent variables of the study. Potential influences of the independent variables on rhotic manner, the main dependent variable of interest, are addressed in Section 2.6. 1. C1 place of articulation (bilabial, dental, velar) 2. C1 voicing (voiced, voiceless) 3. Nuclear vowel (/i/, /a/, /o, u/) The dependent variables (1–5 below) were analyzed acoustically using Praat (Boersma & Weenink 2010) in the phonetics lab at Florida State University according to the following criteria. 1. Rhotic manner (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996:â•›137, 230; Hualde 2005:â•›181; Martínez Celdrán & Fernández Planas 2007:â•›157) a. Tap: one occlusion b. Trill: two or more occlusions c. Approximant: formant structure, periodicity, glottal pulses, amplitude higher than that of a stop/fricative but not as high as that of a vowel d. Assibilated: spectral noise 2. Rhotic duration was measured from the release of C1 (when not accompanied by a SV) or from the end of the SV to the beginning of the nuclear vowel, which was indicated by strong formant structure and high amplitude (Blecua 2001:â•›Section 2.4). 3. Rhotic voicing (voiced, voiceless) (Martínez Celdrán & Fernández Planas 2007:â•›27; Martínez Celdrán 2007:â•›51) a. Voiced: presence of F0, presence of glottal pulses, periodicity b. Voiceless: absence of F0, absence of glottal pulses, aperiodicity 4. SV occurrence (Martínez Celdrán & Fernández Planas 2007:â•›159)



An acoustic study of rhotics in onset clusters in La Rioja 

a. Present: vocalic structure (i.e. formant structure, periodicity and high amplitude) between C1 and the rhotic. b. Absent: absence of vocalic structure between C1 and the rhotic 5. SV duration was measured from the release of C1 (when realized as a plosive) or from the point at which the amplitude/formant structure of C1 (when realized as an approximant) increased/strengthened to the beginning of the rhotic (Martínez Celdrán & Fernández Planas 2007:â•›159). Figures 1, 2 and 3 below exemplify token segmentation according to the criteria stated above. In Figure 1 the rhotic is realized as the voiceless tap [ɾ] and there is no SV whereas in Figure 2 it is realized as the voiced approximant [ɹ] and an SV is present. In Figure 3 the rhotic is assibilated (transcribed as [â•›ɹ̝]). Trills were not present in the dataset.

[

k

ɾ

i

s

i

s

]

Figure 1.╇ Waveform and spectrogram of crisis ‘crisis’ (Speaker 1)

[

d

u

ɹ

u

i

ð̞

a

Figure 2.╇ Waveform and spectrogram of druidas ‘druids’ (Speaker 1)

s

]

 Christine Weissglass

[

t

ɹ̞

u

e

n

o

]

Figure 3.╇ Waveform and spectrogram of trueno ‘thunder’ (Speaker 3)

2.6  Hypotheses It was hypothesized that assibilated rhotics would be more common after dentals because homorganic clusters (e.g. /tɾ/ and /dɾ/) experience coarticulation, often considered a prerequisite for assibilation, more often than heterorganic clusters (e.g. /pɾ/, /bɾ/, /kɾ/ and /ɡɾ/) (Malmberg 1965:â•›39; Quilis 1993:â•›348; Bradley & Schmeiser 2003:â•›5). Furthermore, assibilated rhotics were expected to be more common after voiceless C1s because this has been observed in previous studies (e.g. Alonso 1925:â•›186, 189; Colantoni & Steele 2007:â•›110). Finally, because sharing of place appears to encourage coarticulation, assibilated rhotics were predicted to be more common before the vowel /i/, which is considered to be coronal and therefore is similar in terms of place of articulation to /ɾ/ (Clements 1991:â•›79). 2.7  Statistics Continuous data (duration measurements) was submitted to a series of three way ANOVAs (with Scheffé’s post hoc analyses) and categorical data (rhotic manner, SV occurrence, voicing) was submitted to a series of Pearson’s Chi-square tests. All data analyses were performed using SPSS version 17.0 (SPSS Inc. 2008) in the phonetics lab at Florida State University. 3.  Results 3.1  Descriptive results Only four instances of assibilated rhotics were present in the dataset and no trills were found. In general, the participants produced more approximants (72%) than taps (26%) or assibilated rhotics (2%). The results are presented in Table 2.



An acoustic study of rhotics in onset clusters in La Rioja 

Table 2.╇ Rhotic manner by speaker (S) Fricative Tap Approximant Total

S1

S2

S3

0 (0%) 13 (24%) 41 (76%) 54 (100%)

0 (0%) 35 (65%) 19 (35%) 54 (100%)

1 (2%) 6 (11%) 47 (87%) 54 (100%)

S4

Total

4 (2%) 3 (5%) 55 (26%) 1 (2%) 50 (93%) 157 (72%) 54 (100%) 216 (100%)

Additionally, rhotics exhibited an average duration of 23 ms and were voiced 92% of the time. SVs were present 87% of the time and exhibited an average duration of 28 ms. 3.2  Inferential results 3.2.1  C1 place of articulation There were no significant findings relating C1 place of articulation and rhotic manner. However, taps tended to follow bilabials and dentals whereas approximants tended to follow velars as shown in Table 3. Table 3.╇ Rhotic manner by C1 place of articulation Bilabial C1

Dental C1

Velar C1

Total

Fricative Tap Approximant

0 (0%) 22 (31%) 50 (69%)

2 (3%) 20 (28%) 50 (69%)

2 (3%) 13 (18%) 57 (79%)

4 (2%) 55 (26%) 157 (72%)

Total

72 (100%)

72 (100%)

72 (100%)

216 (100%)

Rhotics were longer after velars than after bilabials (22 ms vs. 19 ms) (pâ•›=â•›.04) and tokens in which SVs were not present involved velars (59%) more often than dentals (10 %) or bilabials (31%) (pâ•›=â•›.003). There were no significant findings regarding C1 place of articulation and rhotic voicing (pâ•›=â•›.436) or SV duration (pâ•›=â•›.221). 3.2.2  C1 voicing Assibilated rhotics followed voiceless C1s 100% of the time although this finding was not significant due to the paucity of assibilated rhotics. Taps followed voiceless C1s more often and approximants followed voiced C1s more often (pâ•›=â•›.04) as depicted in Table 4.1 .  Exclusion of the four assibilated items validated the Chi-square test because there were then no cells with an expected count of less than 5.

 Christine Weissglass

Table 4.╇ Rhotic manner by C1 voicing Fricative Tap Approximant Total

Voiced C1

Voiceless C1

Total

0 (0%) 21 (19%) 87 (81%)

4 (3%) 34 (32%) 70 (65%)

4 (2%) 55 (26%) 157 (72%)

108 (100%)

108 (100%)

216 (100%)

Rhotics following voiced C1s were longer than those following voiceless C1s (22 ms vs. 20 ms) (pâ•›=â•›.038) and voiceless rhotics (which only appeared 8% of the time) followed voiceless C1s more often than voiced C1s (82% vs 18%) (pâ•›=â•›.005). Tokens in which SVs were not present involved voiceless C1s more often than voiced C1s (83% vs. 17%) (pâ•›<â•›.001). Additionally, SVs were longer after voiced C1s than after voiceless C1s (32 ms vs. 22 ms) (pâ•›<â•›.001). 3.2.3  Nuclear vowel There were no significant findings relating the nuclear vowel and rhotic manner. However, taps tended to precede /a/ whereas approximants tended to precede /o, u/ as depicted in Table 5. Table 5.╇ Rhotic manner by nuclear vowel /a/

/i/

/o, u/

Total

Fricative Tap Approximant

1 (1%) 22 (31%) 49 (68%)

1 (1%) 18 (25%) 53 (74%)

2 (3%) 15 (21%) 55 (76%)

4 (2%) 55 (26%) 157 (72%)

Total

72 (100%)

72 (100%)

72 (100%)

216 (100%)

Rhotics preceding /i/ were longer than those preceding /a/ (23 ms vs. 18 ms) (pâ•›=â•›.001) and tokens in which SVs were not present involved /i/ more often than /a/ or /o, u/ (62% vs. 14% and 24%) (pâ•›=â•›.002). Also, SVs preceding /i/ were shorter than those preceding /a/ (23 ms vs. 30 ms) (pâ•›=â•›.004) and those preceding /o, u/ (23 ms for /i/ vs. 29 ms for /o u/) (pâ•›=â•›.012). No significant effect of the nuclear vowel was found for rhotic voicing (pâ•›=â•›.138). 4.  Discussion The main findings of this study revealed that taps followed voiceless consonants more often whereas approximants followed voiced consonants more often. Additionally, rhotics were longer after velars, after voiced consonants and before /i/ and shorter in other contexts. Svarabhakti vowels were more frequently found after dentals, after voiced consonants and before /a/ and were longer after voiced



An acoustic study of rhotics in onset clusters in La Rioja 

consonants and before /a/ and /o, u/. The majority of the findings appear to corroborate those of previous studies. For instance, Blecua (2001) also found that rhotics were longer after velars and after voiced consonants and that svarabhakti vowels were more common after voiced consonants. Additionally, Ramírez (2006) found that svarabhakti vowels were more common after dentals and before /a/ and longer after voiced consonants. Only four assibilated rhotics appeared in this study; rhotics appeared as approximants 72% of the time and taps 26% of the time. This was unexpected because assibilated rhotics have previously been documented in this region (Alonso 1925:â•›169; Llorente 1965:â•›296–297; Navarro Tomás 1968:â•›210). Four possible reasons for this unexpected outcome are presented here. First, because participants were reading from a script in a semi-formal setting, they could have unintentionally modified their pronunciation in order to avoid the often-stigmatized assibilated form. If this were the case, recordings of informal, unscripted interviews should yield more instances of assibilation. Second, assibilated rhotics may have become less common in the region. In this respect, recordings of older participants (e.g. 60+ years) may yield more instances of assibilation. Third, the paucity of assibilated rhotics may reflect the fact that the tokens in this study involved onset clusters following open syllables (i.e. la brisa “the breeze”) as opposed to closed syllables (i.e. nuestro “our”). It has been suggested that assibilated rhotics are more common after closed syllables (Alonso 1925:â•›189). For this reason, future studies should incorporate tokens involving closed syllables. Finally, Alonso (1925) could have simply overestimated the occurrence of assibilated rhotics. Perhaps approximants were incorrectly interpreted as assibilation: the distinction between approximants and fricatives dates only as far back as Ladefoged (1982:â•›148).2 5.  Theoretical implications Acoustic investigation of rhotics in La Rioja Spanish has potential implications for the theoretical understanding of this class of sounds in Spanish phonology. Two of them are discussed here. The first concerns the acoustic composition of rhotics. The second relates the distribution of rhotics to that of the voiced obstruents in Spanish. Both consider the potential role of continuancy in the distribution exhibited. First, it has been suggested that the acoustic composition of the tap consists of two phases (i.e. an occlusion and an approximant phase) in a way similar to

.  Alonso (1925) employed palatography, which is not very useful in distinguishing between manners of articulation (Ladefoged 2003:â•›54).

 Christine Weissglass

that in which affricates involve two phases (i.e. an occlusion and a fricative phase) (Guitart 2004:â•›61). Assuming that this is the case, it is possible that, depending on context, either (a) both phases are pronounced or (b) one phase is pronounced while the other is not. Regarding the second option, the results obtained in the present study suggest that the first phase of the rhotic (i.e. the occlusion) tends to be pronounced more often following [–continuant] sounds such as voiceless plosives, whereas the second phase (i.e. the approximant phase) tends to be pronounced more often after [+continuant] sounds such as approximants. To be specific, 62% of rhotic realizations that were [–continuant], which were classified as taps, followed voiceless consonants. On the other hand, 55% of rhotic realizations that were [+continuant], which were classified as approximants, followed voiced consonants. This suggests a possible assimilation of continuancy in the realization of rhotics in onset clusters (cf. González 2009). The second theoretical implication regards a possible connection between the rhotic realization and the distribution of voiced obstruents in Spanish (Baković 1994). The voiced stops [b], [d] and [ɡ] are [–continuant] whereas their approximant counterparts [β̞], [ð̞] and [ɣ̞] are [+continuant]. The former occur in strong positions (i.e. utterance initially and after homorganic noncontinuant consonants) whereas the latter occur in weak positions (i.e. elsewhere) (Harris 1969; Lozano 1979; Mascaró 1984, among others). It has been suggested that rhotics are distributed in a similar manner: trills ([–continuant]) appear in strong positions whereas taps, which pattern like approximants and are classified as ([+continuant]), appear in weak positions (Baković 1994). The results of the present study provide evidence that, at least in onset clusters, rhotics are widely pronounced as approximants. The fact that this pronunciation is more widespread after voiced obstruents, which were realized as approximants most of the time, points to similarities in the role of continuancy in the distribution of rhotics and voiced obstruents (Baković 1994). However, the acoustic analysis of the manner of articulation of the voiced obstruents preceding the rhotics is needed in order to further validate either potential implication. 6.  Conclusion The main objectives of the present study were to (i) corroborate claims of assibilated rhotics in onset clusters in La Rioja and (ii) determine if/how place of articulation and voicing of the preceding consonant as well as the nuclear vowel influence rhotic pronunciation (i.e. manner, duration, voicing, svarabhakti vowel occurrence and svarabhakti vowel duration) in onset clusters. Few instances of assibilated rhotics were found in this study; the majority of rhotics examined were



An acoustic study of rhotics in onset clusters in La Rioja 

realized as approximants. Four possible explanations for this unexpected outcome include the semi-formal setting, assibilated rhotics becoming less common, the use of onset clusters following open syllables and overestimation. Regarding the independent variables, results suggest that voicing of the consonant preceding the rhotic has the most influence, affecting all of the dependent variables. This paper examines some possible theoretical implications for Spanish phonology, including the possibility that rhotics have two acoustic phases (Guitart 2004), evidence for the patterning of /ɾ/ as an approximant (Baković 1994) and the potential role of continuancy (González 2009). Future studies should examine the pronunciation of rhotics in other contexts in light of these proposed implications. Additionally, an in-depth examination of the potential role of continuancy should be considered. Finally, dialectal variation should be explored further to ascertain whether approximant pronunciations of rhotics in clusters are widespread across dialects or just a characteristic of certain areas. It is hoped that a study currently underway on the pronunciation of rhotics in onset clusters in the Basque Country will shed further light on rhotic pronunciation and the potential impact of continuancy on rhotics in Spanish.

References Alonso, Amado. 1925. “El grupo tr en España y América”. Homenaje a Menéndez Pidal, vol. II, 167–191. Madrid: Casa Editorial Hernando. Baković, Eric. 1994. “Strong Onsets and Spanish Fortition”. Proceedings of the Sixth Student Conference in Linguistics (SCIL VI), University of Rochester, 8–9 May 1994. ed. by Daniel Ardron & Chris Giordano (=MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 23), 21–39. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Blecua, Beatriz. 2001. Las vibrantes en español: Manifestaciones acústicas y procesos fonéticos. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona. Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2010. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.1.39, http://www.praat.org. Bradley, Travis & Benjamin Schmeiser. 2003. “On the Phonetic Reality of /ɾ/ in Spanish Complex Onsets”. Theory, Practice, and Acquisition: Papers from the 6th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (HLS VI) and the 5th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese (CASP V), University of Iowa, 18–20 October 2002. ed. by Paula Kempchinsky & Carlos-Eduardo Piñeros, 1–20. Somerville: Cascadilla. Clements, George. 1991. “Place of Articulation in Consonants and Vowels: A unified theory”. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 5.77–123. Colantoni, Laura & Jeffrey Steele. 2007. “Voicing-dependent Cluster Simplification Asymmetries in Spanish and French”. Segmental and Prosodic Issues in Romance Phonology ed. by Pilar Prieto, Joan Mascaró & Maria-Josep Solé, 109–129. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. González, Carolina. 2009. “Continuancy and Resonance in Spanish”. Selected Proceedings of The 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (HLS XI), University of Texas at San Antonio, 1–4

 Christine Weissglass November 2007. ed. by Joseph Collentine, Maryellen García, Barbara Lafford & Francisco Marcos Marín, 196–206. Somerville: Cascadilla. Guitart, Jorge. 2004. Sonido y sentido. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Harris, James. 1969. Spanish Phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Hualde, José Ignacio. 2005. The Sounds of Spanish. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University. Ladefoged, Peter. 1982. A Course in Phonetics, 2nd ed. San Diego, Calif.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Ladefoged, Peter. 2003. Phonetic Data Analysis: An introduction to fieldwork and instrumental techniques. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. Llorente, Antonio. 1965. “Algunas características lingüísticas de La Rioja en el marco de las hablas del valle del Ebro y de las comarcas vecinas de Castilla y Vasconia”. Revista de Filología Española 56: 287–315. Lozano, María del Carmen. 1979. Stop and spirant alternations: Fortition and spirantization processes in Spanish phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University. Malmberg, Bertil. 1965. Estudios de fonética hispánica. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicos. Martínez Celdrán, Eugenio. 2007. Análisis espectrográfico de los sonidos del habla. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística. Martínez Celdrán, Eugenio & Ana Maria Fernández Planas. 2007. Manual de fonética española: Articulaciones y sonidos del español. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística. Mascaró, Joan. 1984. “Continuant Spreading in Basque, Catalan, and Spanish”. Language Sound Structure ed. by Mark Aronoff, Richard Oehrle, Frances Kelley & Bonnie Wilker Stephens, 287–298. Cambridge: MIT Press. Navarro Tomás, Tomás. 1968. Manual de pronunciación española. Madrid: Editorial Gredos. Quilis, Antonio. 1993. Tratado de fonología y fonética españolas. Madrid: Editorial Gredos. Ramírez, Carlos Julio. 2006. “Acoustic and Perceptual Characterization of the Epenthetic Vowel between Clusters Formed by Consonant + Liquid in Spanish”. Selected Proceedings of the Second Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonetics and Phonology (LASP II), Indiana University, 17–19 September 2004. ed. by Manuel Díaz-Campos, 48–61. Somerville: Cascadilla. Schmeiser, Benjamin. 2006. On the Durational Variability of Svarabhakti Vowels in Spanish Consonant Clusters. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis. SPSS Inc. 2008. SPSS Base 17.0 for Windows User’s Guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill.

Appendix A.╇ Participant information Speaker

Age

Gender

Native city in La Rioja

Time abroad (place)

1

35

Female

El Redal

2 3 4

35 46 30

Female Male Male

Arnedo Arnedo Arnedo

3 months (France), 1 year (England) N/A N/A 10 months (Austria)



An acoustic study of rhotics in onset clusters in La Rioja 

Appendix B.╇ Target sentences (token words are in bold) ╇1. Creo que ellos van a Praga para estudiar pero yo no. “I think that they are going to Prague to study but I am not.” ╇2. Quiero comer a toda prisa porque tengo mucha hambre. “I want to eat soon because I am very hungry.” ╇3. El alumno estudia la prosa y la poesía en su clase de literatura. “The student studies prose and poetry in his literature class.” ╇4. Este curso se enfoca en la trama y los personajes de Don Quijote. “This course focuses on the plot and characters of Don Quijote.” ╇5. Cuando esté en Portugal, pienso ir a Braga para visitar a mis abuelos. “When I am in Portugal, I plan to go to Braga to visit my grandparents.” ╇6. El vaso muy caro se hizo trizas después de caer al suelo. “The very expensive glass shattered after falling to the floor.” ╇7. La niña no teme el trueno tanto como los relámpagos. “The girl is not as afraid of thunder as she is of lightening.” ╇8. Los irlandeses buscaban a los druidas para saber del futuro. “The Irish used to look for druids to learn about the future.” ╇9. Me gusta sentir la brisa por la tarde cuando estoy en la costa. “I like to feel the breeze in the afternoon when I am on the coast.” 10.

No respeto la crasa ignorancia de ese grupo de personas. “I do not respect the crass ignorance of that group of people.”

11.

Los hombres barren toda la broza de la entrada cada mañana. “The men sweep all of the dead leaves from the entrance every morning.”

12.

Los marineros usan las drizas para unir las velas del barco. “The sailors use the ropes to tie the sails of the boat.”

13.

Sin duda, hay una crisis económica en los EEUU ahora. “Without as doubt, there is an economic crisis in the US now.”

14.

La pareja va a ver un drama en el teatro para su aniversario. “The couple is going to see a drama in the theater for their anniversary.”

15.

El cielo refleja varios tonos grises después de una tormenta. “The sky reflects various gray tones after a storm.”

16.

A mí no me gusta comprar la carne cruda porque es malo para la salud. “I do not like to buy raw meat because it is bad for my health.”

17.

Se debe hacer ejercicio y evitar la grasa para adelgazar. “One should exercise and avoid fat in order to lose weight.”

18.

Debemos guarecernos en esa gruta hasta que deje de llover. “We should hide in that cave until it stops raining.”

Mid front vowel lowering before rhotics in Ibero-Romance* Travis G. Bradley

University of California, Davis This paper surveys the distribution of mid front vowels before rhotics in five Â�different varieties of Ibero-Romance and identifies typological patterns of vowel lowering. An analysis is proposed in Optimality Theory that employs a fixed ranking of phonetically grounded markedness constraints against closed mid front /e↜/ in different pre-rhotic contexts, organized in an implicational hierarchy. Faithfulness constraints on vowel place features interact with this ranking to generate a factorial typology of /e↜/-lowering that matches the distribution observed in the data and makes predictions about possible and impossible languages. The paper also discusses theoretical implications for the status of intervocalic trills in Ibero-Romance as singleton versus geminate segments.

1.  Introduction Across languages, liquids can interact with an adjacent vocalic nucleus in different types of phonological processes or sound changes, e.g. deletion of coda liquids with coloring, lowering, or lengthening of the preceding vowel. In recent experimental work based on ultrasound imaging, Proctor (2009) shows that Â�coronal liquids in Spanish and Russian involve the coordination of a primary consonant-like tongue tip gesture with a secondary vowel-like tongue body gesture. For example, the Spanish tap /ɾ/, trill /r↜/, and lateral /l↜/ have in common a dorsal articulatory component whereas the stop /d↜/ is produced with a tongue tip gesture alone. A characterization of the class of liquids in terms of the coordination of articulatory gestures (Browman & Goldstein 1989) provides a phonetically motivated explanation of vowel-liquid interactions, which can be understood as

*╇ For questions and feedback leading to the improvement of this paper, I would like to thank the LSRL40 audience members and two anonymous reviewers. I am responsible for any �shortcomings that remain.

 Travis G. Bradley

the consequence of overlap and blending of the adjacent tongue body gestures of the vowel and the liquid. This paper investigates a particular case of vowel lowering in Ibero-Romance, whereby closed mid front /e↜/ becomes open /ɛ/ or low /a↜/ before rhotics in different phonological contexts. I survey the distribution of mid front vowels in Castilian Spanish, Aragonese, Astur-Leonese, Judeo-Spanish, and Central Catalan. The data reveal an implicational hierarchy of contexts, shown in (1), where lowering in position x entails lowering in position y iff y < x.

(1) _ rV < _ ɾ[+cor] < _ ɾ[–cor] < _ ɾV

Drawing upon laboratory work on Ibero-Romance rhotics, I show how the hierarchy in (1) is phonetically grounded in the articulatory properties of vowel-rhotic sequences. In the framework of Optimality Theory (OT; Prince & Smolensky 1993/2004), this hierarchy is formalized as a fixed ranking of markedness constraints against the adjacent tongue body gestures of closed mid front /e↜/ and a following rhotic in different contexts. These constraints interact with faithfulness constraints on vowel place features to generate patterns of mid front vowel lowering, which match the distribution presented in the empirical survey. The OT analysis of vowel lowering has theoretical implications for the phonological representation of the intervocalic tap-trill contrast in IberoRomance. Some researchers analyze the trill in [VrV] sequences as an underlying singleton, /VrV/, while others propose a geminate structure, /VɾɾV/. In accordance with OT’s Richness of The Base, the present analysis is compatible with either input representation. An alternative account of Catalan by Wheeler (2005) assumes the geminate but cannot account for all of the languages in the typological survey. 2.  Mid front vowel lowering in Ibero-Romance 2.1  Data Castilian Spanish (CS) has a five-vowel inventory /i,e,a,o,u↜/ which includes the closed mid vowels /e,o↜/ but not open /ɛ,ɔ/. In the early 1900s, the renowned Spanish phonetician Tomás Navarro Tomás claimed that nonlow vowels in CS exhibit open allophones in contact with [r], before [x], and in certain types of closed syllables and diphthongs (Navarro Tomás 1918:â•›§52). Since then, experimental studies using spectrographic analysis have shown mid vowel realizations to be much more variable and less systematic than originally claimed. In an acoustic study of mid vowel production by two CS speakers from Madrid,



Mid front vowel lowering before rhotics in Ibero-Romance 

Morrison (2004) finds little statistical support for Navarro Tomás’s distribution of open versus closed Â�allophones of /e↜/ and /o↜/. However, /e↜/ is found to have an open-retracted Â�allophone before prevocalic trills and after wordinitial trills (e.g. /pera↜/ “bitch” and /reta↜/ “s↜/he challenges”), which Morrison (2004:â•›34) attributes to coarticulation: “the tip of the tongue is raised and the tongue dorsum lowered in order to articulate the apicoalveolar trill, and this tongue configuration affects the articulation of the vowel.” Using articulatory measurements from electropalatography, Martínez Celdrán & Fernández Â�Planas (2007:â•›183–188) find that CS /e↜/ does involve greater palatal contact in those contexts described by Navarro Tomás as favoring the closed allophones. However, these articulatory differences are not reflected in the acoustic record, which may explain the failure of previous spectrographic studies to confirm his description of mid vowel allophony.1 Aragonese and Astur-Leonese developed as Ibero-Romance languages in the eastern and western regions, respectively, of the northern dialect continuum of the Iberian Peninsula (Hualde 2005:â•›281–293). Both languages share the five-vowel inventory of CS. Quintana (2001:â•›168, 2006:â•›67) cites examples from Aragonese of /e↜/ lowering to /a↜/ before prevocalic trills in several lexical items (2a) and toponyms (2b). (2) Aragonese CS a. tarraza, tarriego, tarrau terraza “terrace” zarralla cerrojo “bolt” b. Sarrato, Sarato, Sarratón, Sarrambiana, Sarrataz, Sarratello, Sarratolito

Also attested in Aragonese is the tendency, most likely of Basque origin, to insert /a↜/ before word-initial trills (Quintana 2001:â•›170). This tendency was carried through in many varieties of Judeo-Spanish (JS), as shown by the examples in (3). It is significant that epenthesis favors /a↜/ in this context, since otherwise /e↜/ is the preferred epenthetic vowel: JS esfuelto, esfuegro, esfuelo versus CS suelto “loose”, suegro “father-in-law”, suelo “ground” (see Bradley 2009 on JS /e↜/-epenthesis).

.  The lowering of mid vowels is attested in Southern Peninsular Spanish before word-final /s↜/, which is frequently deleted in popular speech (Hualde 2005:â•›130). There are also alternations between mid and low vowels in Italian (Lepschy & Lepschy 1977). A full treatment of these cases is beyond the scope of the present paper, whose focus is on /e↜/-lowering in Â�pre-rhotic contexts in Ibero-Romance.

 Travis G. Bradley

(3) JS CS arrasgar rasgar arraskar rascar arredondear redondear arrefreskar refrescar arregar regar arrepozar reposar

“to tear, rip” “to scratch” “to round up” “to cool” “to water” “to rest”

Examples of /e↜/-lowering before prevocalic trills are observed in Astur-Leonese (4). Quintana (2006:â•›67) cites only two examples of lowering before taps followed by noncoronal consonants, i.e. sarbilleta “napkin”, xargón “straw mattress” (cf. CS servilleta, jergón), and none illustrating precoronal contexts. To be sure, more data are needed to know the fuller distribution of /e↜/-lowering in this variety. (4) Astur-Leonese sarrianu tarrén tarrón zarrár

CS serrano “mountain” terreno “land” terrón “lump” cerrar “to close”

Like CS, Aragonese, and Astur-Leonese, the JS dialect spoken in early 20th century Bosnia had a five-vowel system. According to Baruch’s (1930:â•›123) description, stressed mid vowels in Bosnian JS had a closed timbre, which may have been influenced by the raising of /e,o↜/ to /i,u↜/ in word-final position. In this dialect, as well as the JS spoken in Kastoria (Greece), the lowering of /e↜/ to /a↜/ is attested before prevocalic trills (5) and before taps followed by coronals (6a–e), but /e↜/ is maintained before taps followed by noncoronals (7) and before prevocalic taps (8) (data from Baruch 1930:â•›123–125,143,145,148; Kovačec 1972–73:â•›513–514, 1986– 87:â•›159; Quintana 2001:â•›168–169, 2006:â•›61–69).2 As shown in (5), intervocalic trills eventually neutralized to taps in Bosnian JS after the preceding mid vowel had already lowered to /a↜/ (Quintana 2006:â•›64). Regular sound correspondences with CS show /e↜/ in all of the contexts in (5)–(8).

.  An anonymous reviewer asks how we know that what has been transcribed as [a] is really a low as opposed to a mid vowel in Bosnian JS. Based on recorded oral interviews with three remaining JS speakers from Dubrovnik, the narrow phonetic transcriptions presented by Kovačec (1972–73, 1986–87) are quite detailed and include the symbol [a] in contexts of /e↜/-lowering. Although primarily a feature of the spoken language, use of the low vowel was the subject of metalinguistic commentary in the costumbrista literature of early 20th century Sarajevo and is also attested orthographically in subsequent JS publications (Quintana 2006:â•›65–66).



Mid front vowel lowering before rhotics in Ibero-Romance 

(5) JS CS [paru] (>[paɾu]) perro “dog” [ɡara] (>[ɡaɾa]) guerra “war” [saraɾ] (>[saɾaɾ]) cerrar “to close” [ɟaru] (>[ɟaɾu]) yerro “mistake” [fjaru] (>[fjaɾu]) hierro “iron” [tjara] (>[tjaɾa]) tierra “earth” (6) JS

CS

a. [avjaɾtu] abierto “open” [dispaɾtaɾ] despertar “to wake up” [fwaɾti] fuerte “strong” [mwaɾtu] muerto “dead” [twaɾtu] tuerto “twisted” [ɡwaɾta] huerta “garden” b. [ɟaɾnu] yerno “son-in-law” [pjaɾna] pierna “leg” [vjaɾnis] viernes “Friday” [kwaɾnu] cuerno “horn” c. [vaɾda] verdad “truth” [kwaɾda] cuerda “rope” [paɾdeɾ] perder “to lose” d. [fwaɾsa] fuerza “force” [paɾsona] persona “person” e. [paɾla]

perla “pearl”

(7) JS CS [kweɾpu] cuerpo “body” [eɾmozuɾa] hermosura “beatuy” [eɾmanikja] hermanita “little sister” [pweɾku] puerco “pig” (8) JS CS [afweɾa] afuera “outside” [vinjeɾon] vinieron “they came” [deɾeʧu] derecho “straight” [tɾuʃeɾun] trajeron “they brought”

Unlike the five-vowel inventory of the languages surveyed thus far, Central Catalan has a seven-vowel inventory in stressed syllables /i,e,ɛ,a,ɔ,o,u↜/ that includes open mid vowels along with their closed counterparts. Wheeler (2005:â•›38–39,50) observes a restriction on the lexical distribution of mid front vowels whereby only /ɛ/ appears before prevocalic trills (9) and before rhotics

 Travis G. Bradley

followed by coronals (10). Otherwise, /e↜/ and /ɛ/ contrast before rhotics followed by noncoronals (11) and before prevocalic taps (12).3 (9) _ RRV

* /tɛRRa↜/ terra “earth”

(10) _ R[+cor] * /obɛRt↜/ obert “open” (11) _ R[–cor] /eRba↜/ /bɛRba↜/ herba “grass” verba “jest” /teRme↜/ /izotɛRm↜/ terme “boundary” isoterm “isotherm” /seRkle↜/ /tubɛRkle↜/ cercle “circle” tubercle “tuber” /beRɡa↜/ /bɛRɡa↜/ Berga (toponym) verga “stick” (12) _ RV /estRatosfeRa↜/ /ʃɛRa↜/ estratosfera “stratosphere” xera “spree”

In a study of the pronunciation of unfamiliar neologisms (i.e. borrowings and acronyms) by Central Catalan speakers, Pi-Mallarach (1997) mostly confirms the distribution of mid front vowels described by Wheeler (2005). There is a contrast between [e] and [ɛ] before prevocalic taps (12), and only [ɛ] is found before prevocalic trills (9) and before rhotics followed by coronals (10). However, [ɛ] is also found categorically before rhotics followed by noncoronals, e.g. iceberg “iceberg” and paquiderm “pachyderm” (cf. the contrast in (11)). See Kenstowicz (to appear) on the general preference for open mid vowels over closed ones in stressed position in Catalan, Brazilian Portuguese, and Italian, based on evidence from loanwords and morphologically derived words, among other forms. Table 1 summarizes the patterns of mid front vowel lowering in different pre-rhotic contexts in Ibero-Romance and provides confirmation of the implicational hierarchy in (1). The outlined area indicates the contexts in which lowering neutralizes the contrast between /e↜/ and a lower vowel. Before prevocalic trills, lowering is allophonic in CS (transcribed here as [e̞]) but neutralizing in all other varieties. /e↜/ is most resistant to change before prevocalic taps.

.  Wheeler considers the intervocalic trill to be a geminate /RR/, which allows him to unify the phonological contexts _RRV and _R[+cor]. The realization of coda rhotics in Central Catalan varies between a tap [ɾ] and a short trill consisting of two lingual contacts Â�(Recasens & Espinosa 2007:â•›20–22; Wheeler 2005:â•›25). In the underlying forms presented here, preconsonantal /R/ abstracts away from such phonetic variation.



Mid front vowel lowering before rhotics in Ibero-Romance 

Table 1.╇ Implicational typology of /e↜/-lowering before rhotics in Ibero-Romance Ibero-Romance variety

_rV

_ɾ[+cor]

_ɾ[–cor]

_ɾV

CS

e̞

e

e

e

Aragonese, Astur-Leonese

a

e

e

e

Bosnian JS

a

a

e

e

Central Catalan (lexicon)

ɛ

ɛ

e

e

Central Catalan (neologisms)

ɛ

ɛ

ɛ

e

2.2  Phonetic grounding I argue that the implicational typology of /e↜/-lowering in Table 1 is phonetically grounded in the articulatory properties of vowel-rhotic sequences across different contexts. The aerodynamic requirements of lingual trilling in /r↜/ necessitate tongue dorsum lowering and retraction (Recasens 1991; Recasens & Pallarès 1999; Solé 2002), which are antagonistic with the dorsal articulation of closed mid front /e↜/. As explained by Morrison (2004:â•›34), conflicting articulatory requirements are responsible for the open-retracted allophone of /e↜/ found in contact with trills in CS. In an ultrasound imaging study of lingual articulation involving five speakers of Latin American Spanish varieties, Proctor (2009) finds that controlled tongue dorsum activity is not limited to trills but is an articulatory property shared by the entire class of coronal liquids, including the tap /ɾ/ and the lateral /l↜/.4 Figure 1 (adapted from Proctor 2009:â•›90) shows the midsagittal lingual profiles of a female speaker of Puerto Rican Spanish pronouncing /d↜/, /ɾ/, and /r↜/ in three vowel contexts: [e_e], [a_a], and [u_u]. The highest points of each curve are connected by a triangle, whose area serves “as a means of quantifying gross dorsal positional differences between vocalic contexts for each consonant” (Proctor 2009:â•›90). Figure 1 demonstrates three important points. First, the area of the triangle is greater for /d↜/ than for either rhotic (107.35mm2 versus 8.39mm2 and 6.49mm2). This suggests that /ɾ/ and /r↜/ are produced with a controlled dorsal gesture that is less susceptible to coarticulatory effects exerted by adjacent vowels. /d↜/ is produced with a tongue tip gesture alone, which allows the tongue dorsum to vary as

.  The secondary dorsal gesture has remained unacknowledged in studies of Spanish rhotics based on acoustic data (e.g. Bradley 2004, 2006; Willis & Bradley 2008) and electropalatography (e.g. Martínez Celdrán & Fernández Planas 2007), as neither type of measurement is well suited for investigating dorsal articulation.

 Travis G. Bradley

[udu]

–30 [ede] –40

[ada] –50 A(e−a−u) = 107.35 mm2

–30

[uru]

[ere]

–40 [ara] –50 A(e−a−u) = 8.39 mm2 [urru]

[erre]

–30

[arra]

–40 –50 A(e−a−u) = 6.49 mm2 20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 1.╇ Midsagittal lingual articulation of /d↜/, /ɾ/, and /r↜/ in three intervocalic contexts, with values indicating spatial displacement in millimeters (adapted from Proctor 2009:â•›90)

a function of vowel context. Second, the lingual profiles for /r↜/ in both the [e_e] and [a_a] contexts are nearly identical in shape, which suggests that the affinity between /e↜/ and /a↜/ in patterns of mid front vowel lowering has an articulatory basis. Third, the mean location of dorsal targets is more retracted for the trill than for the tap, which implies that trills are more antagonistic with a preceding /e↜/ than are taps. Figure 2 (adapted from Proctor 2009:â•›104–116) shows articulatory specifications for the tongue tip and tongue body gestures of Spanish stops and rhotics, using the gestural representations of Articulatory Phonology (Browman & Goldstein 1989; see Hall 2010 for a recent introduction to the theory). /d↜/ and /ɡ/ have a single oral closure gesture, while both /ɾ/ and /r↜/ have a primary tongue tip narrowing gesture coupled with a secondary tongue body widening gesture. The tongue body constriction location is more posterior for the trill than for the tap (uvular-pharyngeal versus uvular). Although not indicated in the figure, the tongue tip gesture is specified for a faster movement in /ɾ/ than in /r↜/.



Mid front vowel lowering before rhotics in Ibero-Romance  /d/ Tongue tip

Tongue body

//

Dental closed

Velar closed

/ɾ/

/r/

Alveolar narrow

Alveolar narrow

Uvular wide

Uv-phar wide

Figure 2.╇ Tongue tip and tongue body gestures in Spanish stops and rhotics (adapted from Â�Proctor 2009:â•› 104–116)

Figure 3 (adapted from Proctor 2009:â•›99–100) shows the acoustic image and midsagittal lingual articulation of /ɾ/ and /d↜/ in [a_ma] contexts as produced by a female speaker of Miami Cuban Spanish. Lingual profiles are shown at three points in time, as indicated by the vertical lines in the acoustic image. In coda taps, the secondary tongue body gesture begins prior to its associated tongue tip gesture and continues throughout the production of the tap, giving rise to the svarabhakti vowel fragment that is visible in the acoustic image after the tap’s contact (Proctor 2009:â•›102). In contrast, the coda stop in [adma] lacks a secondary tongue body gesture, so dorsal position during the stop is influenced by the adjacent vowels. Coda laterals (not shown here) lack svarabhakti but show the same controlled dorsal movement as coda taps. Why should /e↜/-lowering be least common before /ɾV/ sequences and more common before /ɾ[+cor]/ than before /ɾ[–cor]/? Wheeler (2005:â•›39–40) suggests that the articulatory conflict between closed front vowels and a following rhotic is more acute with trills and in preconsonantal contexts than it is with intervocalic taps, since intervocalic position allows a fast targeting and withdrawal of the tongue tip whatever the position required for the adjacent vowels; for the trill or for a rhotic before another consonant involving the front of the tongue, a preceding [high or closed mid – TGB] front vowel allows rather little space for organizing the controlled vibration of the tongue tip. (Wheeler 2005:â•›39–40)

Svarabhakti vowels are known to appear more commonly with /ɾ/ in heterorganic clusters than in homorganic ones (see Bradley 2004, 2006 for Spanish and Â�Recasens & Espinosa 2007 for Catalan; see Hall 2006 for a cross-linguistic survey). This suggests that heterorganic clusters involve an open transition between the tongue tip gesture of /ɾ/ and the lips or tongue body gesture of the following consonant, whereas homorganic clusters have a close transition between two tongue tip gestures (Catford 1988:â•›116–117; Gafos 2002:â•›283–287). It stands to reason that the ballistic tongue tip movement of /ɾ/ is facilitated by the open transition,

Frequency (Hz)

1.45 1.5 Time (sec) 1.55

1.6

1.65

3

3.05

3.1

3.15

3.2

3.25 3.3

3.05 3.1 3.15 Time (sec)

3.2

3.25 3.3

–60 10

–55

–40

–35

1000

3

a]

–50

2.95

m

2000

2.9

d –45

2.85

[a

3000

4000

5000

–30

2.95

–1

2.85 2.9

–25

–20

0

1

–60 10

–55

–40

–35

1000

1.4

a]

1.65

–50

m

1.6

2000

1.35

r

1.55

–45

1.3

[a

1.5

3000

4000

5000

1.45

–30

1.4

–1

1.35

–25

0

1.3

–20

V2

V2

ɾ

20

d

20

V1

a– –d– –a

50 60 30 40 Horizontal displacement (mm)

V1

30 40 50 60 Horizontal displacement (mm)

a– –r– –a

Figure 3.╇ Acoustic analysis and midsagittal lingual articulation of /ɾ/ and /d↜/ in [a_ma] (adapted from Proctor 2009:â•›99–100)

Frequency (Hz)

1

70

70

 Travis G. Bradley



Mid front vowel lowering before rhotics in Ibero-Romance 

which decreases the likelihood of /e↜/-lowering in /ɾ[–cor]/ contexts as compared to /ɾ[+cor]/. 3.  An OT analysis of mid front vowel lowering before rhotics The implicational hierarchy of /e↜/-lowering in Table 1 can be formalized in OT as a universal ranking of articulatory markedness constraints. Inspired by Boersma (1998:â•›150) and Hamann (2003:â•›180), the constraint in (13a) penalizes the spatial displacement of the tongue body in sequences containing the closed mid front vowel followed by a rhotic. The fixed ranking of positional constraints in (13b) is phonetically grounded in the articulatory differences observed across different pre-rhotic contexts, as argued in Section 2.2. (Note: T and P stand for coronal and noncoronal consonants, respectively.) (13) a. *Distance(e-R) The tongue body does not move from the position for [e] to the Â�position for a following rhotic. b. *Dist(e-rV) » *Dist(e-ɾT) » *Dist(e-ɾP) » *Dist(e-ɾV)

Two anonymous reviewers ask whether the present account applies only to front as opposed to back vowels and whether the analysis would still be relevant for a language with approximant or fricative rhotics instead of trills. While the constraints in (13) refer specifically to /e↜/, /r↜/ and /ɾ/, *Distance constraints in other languages and↜/or dialects could target different vowels and consonants, provided that the relevant configurations involve antagonistic articulatory requirements.5 Cross-linguistically, trills are often realized as approximants or fricatives (Solé 2002). If these variants possess the same secondary tongue body gesture as the trill, then *Dist(e-rV) is still a relevant constraint. Faithfulness constraints on vowel place features can be ranked at different points along (13b) to generate a factorial typology of /e↜/-lowering patterns. For the purposes of this paper, and due to space limitations, the inventory of mid Â�vowels in each language can simply be stipulated. Following Kenstowicz (to appear), I employ the feature [open] as a way of distinguishing between closed and open mid vowels in seven-vowel systems like Central Catalan. The faithfulness constraints in (14) are relevant to the analysis proposed here.

.  Central Catalan /ɛ/ appears to the exclusion of /e↜/ before velarized coda laterals, e.g. /sɛl↜/ cel “sky” (Wheeler 2005:â•›39), which suggests an additional *Distance constraint on tongue body displacement.

 Travis G. Bradley

(14) a. Ident(low) Corresponding input and output segments have identical values for the feature [low]. b. Ident(open) Corresponding input and output segments have identical values for the feature [open].

In CS, /e↜/ has an open-retracted allophone in contact with a following or a preceding trill, but there is no neutralization with the low vowel /a↜/. As shown in Tableau 1, Ident(low) ranks above the highest constraint of the markedness hierarchy, which selects candidates (a) and (c) over (b) and (d), respectively. Tableau 1.╇ Lowered allophones of mid front /e↜/ in contact with trill in CS [pe̞ra] “bitch” and [re̞ta] “s↜/he challenges” Ident(low) F a.

/pera↜/

para

F c.

re̞ta

/reta↜/

d.

*

pe̞ra

b.

rata

*Dist(e-rV)

*! *!

The Aragonese and Astur-Leonese pattern is generated by ranking faithfulness just below the markedness constraint against [erV] sequences. In Tableau 2, this ranking maps input /e↜/ to [a] before the prevocalic trill in candidate (b). Tableau 2.╇ Lowering of mid front /e↜/ to [a] before prevocalic trill in Aragonese [sarato] (toponym) *Dist(e-rV)

a.

/serato↜/

F b.

se̞rato sarato

Ident(low)

*! *

Space limitations preclude a full account of /a↜/-epenthesis before word-�initial trills in Aragonese and JS (3), which would involve an additional markedness constraint against word-initial rhotics and a faithfulness constraint against vowel epenthesis. In conjunction with other markedness constraints on vowel place �features, *Dist(e-rV) would favor [a] in this context. In Bosnian JS, Ident(low) ranks below the top two constraints of the markedness hierarchy. Tableau 3 shows that /e↜/ maps to [a] before both the prevocalic trill in candidate (b) and the precoronal tap in (d). The faithfulness constraint Ident(open) is necessary to account for patterns of /e↜/-lowering in Central Catalan. To prevent lowering of /e↜/ all the way to [a], Ident(low) is assumed to be high ranking and is not shown in the



Mid front vowel lowering before rhotics in Ibero-Romance 

Tableau 3.╇ Lowering of mid front /e↜/ to [a] before prevocalic trill and before /ɾt↜/ in Â�Bosnian JS [paru] “dog” and [avjaɾtu] “open” *Dist(e-rV)

a.

/peru↜/

pe̞ru

F b.

paru

c. /avjeɾtu↜/

avjeɾtu

F d.

avjaɾtu

*Dist(e-ɾT)

Ident(low)

*! * *! *

following tableau. As in Bosnian JS, the relevant faithfulness constraint ranks just below *Dist(e-ɾT). Tableau 4 accounts for the lexical restriction in Central Catalan whereby only /ɛ/ appears before precoronal rhotics, as in candidate (b). /e↜/ is maintained before rhotics followed by noncoronals, as in candidate (c). Lowering in the latter context in neologisms suggests a re-ranking of Ident(open) below *Dist(e-ɾP), favoring candidate (d) instead of (c). Tableau 4.╇ Lowering of mid front /e↜/ to [ɛ] before /ɾt↜/ but not before /ɾb↜/ in Central Catalan [obɛɾt] “open” and [eɾba] “grass” *Dist(e-ɾT) a. /obeɾt↜/

obeɾt

F b.

obɛɾt

F c. /eɾba↜/

eɾba

d.

ɛɾba

Ident(open)

*Dist(e-ɾP)

*! * * *!

The factorial typology of constraint rankings for Ibero-Romance is summarized in Table 2. In each variety, the highest ranked markedness constraints correspond to the contexts of /e↜/-lowering shown in the implicational hierarchy in Table 1. This analysis correctly predicts the impossibility of a language in which /e↜/-lowering targets a less marked context without also targeting the more marked contexts. For example, if /e↜/ lowers before taps followed by coronals, then it also lowers before prevocalic trills, but the opposite does not hold. Table 2.╇ Factorial typology of constraint rankings: (a) CS, (b) Aragonese and Astur-�Leonese, (c) Bosnian JS and Central Catalan (lexicon), and (d) Central Catalan �(neologisms) a.

Ident » *Dist(e-rV) » *Dist(e-ɾT) » *Dist(e-ɾP) » *Dist(e-ɾV)

b.

*Dist(e-rV) » Ident » *Dist(e-ɾT) » *Dist(e-ɾP) » *Dist(e-ɾV)

c.

*Dist(e-rV) » *Dist(e-ɾT) » Ident » *Dist(e-ɾP) » *Dist(e-ɾV)

d.

*Dist(e-rV) » *Dist(e-ɾT) » *Dist(e-ɾP) » Ident » *Dist(e-ɾV)

 Travis G. Bradley

4.  Theoretical implications The OT analysis of mid front vowel lowering in Ibero-Romance has iÂ� mplications for the phonological representation of the contrast between taps and trills in word-medial intervocalic position, e.g. CS [peɾo] pero “but” versus [pero] perro “dog”, Central Catalan [sɛɾa] cera “wax” versus [sɛra] serra “saw”. Some researchers analyze the trill as an underlying singleton, /VrV/, while others propose a geminate structure, /VɾɾV/. With respect to the absence of /e↜/ before prevocalic trills and before rhotics followed by coronals in Central Catalan, Wheeler (2005:â•›39) argues that “[i]f one interprets /r↜/ as geminate /RR/ … these two contexts become one and the same.” This interpretation allows Wheeler to formulate a single markedness constraint responsible for vowel lowering in both contexts. On the assumption that /i,e↜/ are [+high] and [–back], the constraint *[+hi,–bk]R[+cor] is ranked below faithfulness to the place features of /i↜/ but above faithfulness to other vowel place features. This ranking prevents lowering in forms like mirra “myrrh” and herba “grass” but favors lowering in terra “earth” and obert “open”. There are some problems with this approach. The geminate representation of intervocalic trills is questionable, at least in Spanish (see Baković 2009 for a recent summary and critique of the arguments for and against geminates). In OT, Richness of The Base forbids placing any language-specific constraints on the input. Rather, the interaction of markedness and faithfulness constraints in the grammar determines how inputs are mapped to outputs in a given language (see Prince & Smolensky 1993/2004). This forces an OT analysis to consider nongeminate /r↜/ in any event. However, /e↜/ before a singleton prevocalic trill cannot violate the constraint *[+hi,–bk]R[+cor], so the analysis would undergenerate in this context. Furthermore, there are Ibero-Romance varieties that show lowering of /e↜/ before prevocalic trills but not before taps followed by coronals, which suggests that the two contexts do not always pattern together. The constraint *[+hi,–bk]R[+cor] would overgenerate in precoronal contexts in Aragonese and Astur-Leonese. The analysis proposed in this paper is consistent with Richness of The Base. *Dist(e-rV) accounts for /e↜/-lowering before prevocalic trills in the output regardless of whether intervocalic [r] is represented as a singleton /r↜/ or as a geminate /ɾɾ/ in the input. Furthermore, recall Morrison’s (2004) finding that CS /e↜/ has an open-retracted allophone not only before prevocalic trills but also after word-Â�initial trills (see Section 2.1). Since the geminate structure is posited only for word-medial contexts, the fact that /e↜/ is affected after word-initial trills suggests that mid front vowel lowering does not depend on the presence of a geminate structure but is rather a property of singleton trills.



Mid front vowel lowering before rhotics in Ibero-Romance 

5.  Conclusion This paper has documented empirical patterns of mid front vowel lowering before rhotics in several Ibero-Romance varieties. A phonetically grounded OT analysis was proposed to account for /e↜/-lowering across different phonological contexts. The analysis makes the correct typological predictions about possible versus impossible languages and is compatible with a nongeminate representation of intervocalic surface trills, in accordance with OT’s Richness of The Base.

References Baković, Eric. 2009. “Abstractness and Motivation in Phonological Theory”. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 2.183–198. Baruch, Kalmi. 1930. “El judeo-español de Bosnia”. Revista de filología española 17.113–154. Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional Phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. (= LOT International Series 11.) The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Bradley, Travis G. 2004. “Gestural Timing and Rhotic Variation in Spanish Codas”. Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology ed. by Timothy Face, 197–224. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bradley, Travis G. 2006. “Spanish Complex Onsets and the Phonetics-Phonology Interface”. Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology ed. by Fernando Martínez-Gil & Sonia Colina, 15–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bradley, Travis G. 2009. “On the Syllabification of Prevocalic /w↜/ in Judeo-Spanish”. Romance Linguistics 2007. Selected papers from the 37th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) ed. by Pascual J. Masullo, Erin O’Rourke & Chia-Hui Huang, 51–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Browman, Catherine & Louis Goldstein. 1989. “Articulatory Gestures as Phonological Units”. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, SR-99/100.69–101. Catford, John. 1988. A Practical Introduction to Phonetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gafos, Adamantios. 2002. “A Grammar of Gestural Coordination”. Natural Language & Linguistic Inquiry 20.269–337. Hall, Nancy. 2006. “Cross-linguistic Patterns of Vowel Intrusion”. Phonology 23.387–429. Hall, Nancy. 2010. “Articulatory Phonology”. Language and Linguistics Compass 4.818–830. Hamann, Silke. 2003. The Phonetics and Phonology of Retroflexes. Utrecht: LOT. Hualde, José Ignacio. 2005. The Sounds of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kenstowicz, Michael. To appear. “Vocale Incerta, Vocale Aperta”. To appear in Studi e Saggi Linguistici 48. Kovačec, August. 1972–1973. “Un texto judeoespañol de Dubrovnik”. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia 33–36.501–531. Kovačec, August. 1986–1987. “Sobre el valor de las unidades [t]̬ ([ḱ, kˈ, ć, ki ̯]) y [d̬] ([ɡ́, ɡˈ, đ, ɡi̯]) en el judeo-español de Sarajevo y Dubrovnik”. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia 31–32.156–169.

 Travis G. Bradley Lepschy, Anna Laura & Giulio Lepschy. 1977. La lingua italiana: storia, varietaÌ• dell’uso, grammatica. Milano: Bompiani. Martínez Celdrán, Eugenio & Ana María Fernández Planas. 2007. Manual de fonética española: articulaciones y sonidos del español. Barcelona: Ariel. Morrison, Geoffrey-Stewart. 2004. “An Acoustic and Statistical Analysis of Spanish Mid-vowel Allophones”. Estudios de fonética experimental 13.11–37. Navarro Tomás, Tomás. 1918. Manual de pronunciación española. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Pi-Mallarach, Josep. 1997. L’â•›obertura de les vocals mitjanes en una mostra de neologismes del català. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. “Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar”. Unpub. Ms., Rutgers University & University of Colorado. Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Proctor, Michael Ian. 2009. Gestural Characterization of a Phonological Class: the liquids. Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University. Quintana, Aldina. 2001. “Concomitancias lingüísticas entre el aragonés y el ladino (judeoespañol)”. Archivo de Filología Aragonesa 57–58.163–192. Quintana, Aldina. 2006. Geografía lingüística del judeoespañol. Bern: Peter Lang. Recasens, Daniel. 1991. “On the Production Characteristics of Apico-alveolar Taps and Trills”. Journal of Phonetics 19.267–280. Recasens, Daniel & Aina Espinosa. 2007. “Phonetic Typology and Positional Allophones for Alveolar Rhotics in Catalan”. Phonetica 64.1–28. Recasens, Daniel & Maria Dolors Pallarès. 1999. “A Study of /ɾ/ and /r↜/ in the Light of the ‘DAC’ Coarticulation Model”. Journal of Phonetics 27.143–169. Solé, Maria-Josep. 2002. “Aerodynamic Characteristics of Trills and Phonological Patterning”. Journal of Phonetics 30.655–688. Wheeler, Max. 2005. The Phonology of Catalan. Oxford: Oxford University. Willis, Erik W. & Travis G. Bradley. 2008. “Contrast Maintenance of Taps and Trills in Dominican Spanish: Data and analysis”. Selected Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology ed. by Laura Colantoni & Jeffrey Steele, 87–100. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Plural formation in Galician* Sonia Colina

University of Arizona This paper offers an optimality-theoretic analysis of synchronic Galician plural formation that explains the distribution of allomorphs in the standard dialect as well as the patterns of dialectal variation. Gliding serves to parse a nasal or lateral coda in the nucleus, thus avoiding the complex cluster that would have resulted from plural attachment. Epenthesis takes place in the plural of l-final singulars when gliding would otherwise result in an unstressed extra heavy coda or a violation of minimality. The plurals of singulars ending in a nasal avoid epenthesis if this requires parsing of a velar nasal in the onset. Non-normative dialects such as the Eastern varieties also repair clusters through vocalization of the singular-final nasal, but a front nasal is preferred to the back unrounded one of normative Galician; Southern dialects resort to nasal and lateral deletion in the plural.

1.  Introduction Plural formation has been the object of extensive research in languages like Spanish (Foley 1967; Saltarelli 1970; Contreras 1977; Harris 1980, 1991, 1999; Colina 1995, 2006; Moyna & Wiltshire 2000) and Portuguese (St. Clair 1971; Lipski 1973a; Girelli 1988; Morales-Front & Holt 1997); yet in Galician, a closelyrelated language, pluralization is mostly absent from the synchronic generative literature.1 Lipski (1973b) presents a diachronic account in which he obtains the current forms from their Latin correspondents by means of ordered rules. Also, taking the Latin forms as the point of departure, Prieto Alonso (1986) argues that the -as, -ans plurals result from hiatus reduction, in which [aes] becomes [as] and /anes/ [aŋs].

*╇ I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions. My gratitude also goes to Xosé Luís Regueira and Francisco Dubert of the Instituo da Lingua Galega and Fernando Martínez-Gil for numerous discussions on Galician and Galician phonology. .  Romance language spoken in the Northwestern region of Spain.

 Sonia Colina

This paper offers an optimality-theoretic analysis of synchronic Galician plural formation that explains the distribution of allomorphs in the standard dialect as well as the patterns of dialectal variation; it also sheds light into the nature of codas and coda clusters in this language (including velar nasals, /l/ and /r/), on the process of gliding (aka vocalization), and on the opportunistic syllabification of glides. Finally, it offers insights on related languages with similar processes (e.g. Spanish & Portuguese). This chapter is organized as follows: after the introduction, Section 2 presents the data for codas and plural formation in Galician. The analysis of the normative dialect appears in Section 3, and Section 4 contains the account of the dialectal patterns of variation. Finally, some conclusions are offered in Section 5.

 ata (Real Academia Galega 2003; Carballo Calero 1966; 2.  D Freixeiro Mato 1998) 2.1  Codas and coda clusters Galician is a Romance language with rather strict restrictions on coda consonants. The only consonants acceptable in the coda are /l, r, s/ and /n/, usually realized as a velar; /θ/ is possible only in word-final position in some dialects (1). (1) Codas alma “soul” mel “honey” once “eleven” xove[ŋ] “young” orde “order” fogar “home” ostras “oysters” lápis “pencil” rapa[θ] “child”

Coda clusters are generally prohibited; some exceptions, however, exist in learned words and in word-internal position in which /s/ is the second member of the cluster (2). (2) No coda clusters allowed. Exceptions: some learned words perspectiva “perspective” solsticio “solstice” transporte “transport”

2.2  Plural formation Plurals in Galician are formed by adding the allomorph /s/ to the singular; this phenomenon is of interest because the attachment of the plural morpheme /s/ to consonant-final words can result in illegal clusters. For instance, despite the ban



Plural formation in Galician 

on consonant clusters, in many dialects, including the normative dialect, words ending in a nasal consonant form their plural by adding /s/, thus creating a /ns/ coda cluster (3a), in spite of the fact that other sonorant + /s/ plural clusters, such /ls/ and /rs/, are repaired through vocalization or epenthesis (3b) (Carballo Calero 1966; álvarez et al. 1986; Fernández Rei 1990; Freixeiro Mato 1998). 2 (3) a. man can camión verán

ma[ŋs] ca[ŋs] camió[ŋs] verá[ŋs]

“hand, hands” “dog, dogs” “truck, truck” “summer, summers”

b. hotel hot[éj]s *hotels “hotel, hotels” mal males *mals “evil, evils” mar mares *mars “sea, seas”

The behavior of /ns/ clusters also seems quite unexpected, if one considers similar facts in a closely related language, such as Spanish. Spanish has looser restrictions than Galician on coda clusters. For instance, some dialects (Peninsular) allow coda obstruents in the coda (often fricativized) (Hualde 1989:â•›32–33; Colina 2009) (4); yet /ns/ plural clusters are repaired through e-epenthesis (5) (Saltarelli 1970; Contreras 1977; Harris 1980, 1991, 1999; Colina 1995; Moyna & Wiltshire 2000). 3 (4) obsoleto o[β]soleto ~o[Φ]soleto “obsolete” adquirir a[ð]quirir ~a[θ]quirir “acquire” fútbol fú[t]bol ~fú[ð]bol “soccer” digno di[k]no ~di[x]no “worthy” (5) pan panes “bread, breads” camión camiones “truck, trucks”

In other cases, potentially ill-formed plural outputs in Galician are avoided through a variety of repair mechanisms depending on various phonological factors, and on dialect, thus becoming a perfect testing ground for the optimality-theoretic notion of factorial typology (McCarthy 2002). In the standard, normative and literary dialect, as described in textbooks and by the Real Academia Galega (2003), nouns ending in [l] have two plural allomorphs, depending on stress location: [es] is added to paroxytones (6b) and [s], with vocalization of [l] to [j], to oxytones (6a);

.  For reasons of space and scope, I do not include pluralization patterns that also involve a gender distinction, e.g. irmaos/ irmás “brothers, sisters”. See Holt (2000) for an optimalitytheory (OT) account. .  A few accounts have in fact argued for deletion of -e in the singular (Foley 1967; Harris 1970; Roca 1996). See Colina (2006) and the references therein for arguments against this position.

 Sonia Colina

monosyllables take [es] (6c). Nouns ending in [r] in the singular always form the plural with [es], regardless of stress location and number of syllables (6d–h). (6) Normative dialect Plural of l-final singulars a. hotél hot[éj]s “hotel, hotels” b. cónsul cónsules “consul, consuls” c. mal males “evil, evils” Plural of r-final singulars d. calor calores e. húsar húsares f. dólar dólares g. mar mares h. dor dores

“heat, heat” “hussar, hussars” “dollars, dollars” “sea, seas” “pain, pains”

2.3  Plurals in Eastern, Central and Southern dialects Eastern varieties exhibit vocalization and fronting of the nasal, as well as the lateral (7a–b), for singulars that end in a nasal and a lateral respectively, whereas Central and Southern dialects (7c–d) (Carballo Calero 1966; Freixeiro Mato 1998; Pérez Bouza 1996) undergo deletion of the nasal and lateral. Singulars in [r] behave as in the normative dialects.4 (7) Eastern varieties a. can [kajs] “dog, dogs” b. animal anim[ájs] “animal, animals” Central and Southern varieties c. can [kas] “dog, dogs” d. animal anim[ás] “animal, animals”

Historically, this variation is the result of the deletion of intervocalic laterals and nasals, a type of lenition, followed by gliding of an epenthetic [e], and glide deletion in some dialects: animales > animaes > animais > animás (Lipski 1973a; García de Diego 1984; Fernández Rei 1990; Ferreiro 1996; Holt 2000). One can surmise that, after intervocalic deletion became inactive, correspondence between the plural

.  The description of the data presented here is a simplification of a complex dialectal situation. Some Western dialects behave like the normative variety, but exhibit no lateral vocalization, e.g. hoteles “hotels”, papeles “papers”. Other areas have mixed pluralization patterns. For the purposes of this analysis, and until more extensive descriptive studies are available, I focus on the dialects most commonly discussed in the literature.



Plural formation in Galician 

and the base (e.g. anima/l/ ~ anima[j]s) would have led to reanalysis, so that a singular /l/ is interpreted as vocalized and then deleted in a plural cluster. Historical accounts, however, do not offer an explanation for why nasals do not undergo deletion in the same context: canes > caes> cais, *cas, ~ cans. Some authors (Prieto Alonso 1986) have proposed a synchronic rule of pluralization that matches the diachronic developments: nasal and lateral deletion and raising of epenthetic [e]. Yet, if one is to assume a process of pluralization (rather than separately listing the singular and the plural allomorphs on the lexicon), the evidence is clearly in favor of gliding: modern Galician has sonorant gliding, but there is no independent evidence for intervocalic /l/ or /n/ deletion. As part of an account of nasal alternations (including gender alternations) in various dialects of Galician and Ibero-Romance, Holt (2000) examines the variation in Galician plurals that involves a nasal. He explains nasal deletion as part of the wider process of lenition that affected intervocalic consonants of Late Latin. To avoid the very marked continuant nasal that would result from lenition, the nasal is deleted with transfer of nasality to the preceding vowel. Since a nasal vowel is also a marked segment, nasality is eventually deleted or the nasal consonant is recovered, often inserting a default point of articulation or sharing that of the neighboring segments. A non-consonantal nasal (i.e. a nasal glide) is also a possible outcome and the one this paper will argue for. 3.  Optimality-Theoretic account of the plural: Normative dialect 3.1  Basic constraints The proposed constraints are in (8): (8) Basic Constraints * Complex Coda (CompCoda): No more than one segment parsed in the coda. *Complex n (CompNuc.): No more than one segment parsed in the nucleus. Max-oo: All segments in the output of the singular must have a correspondent in the plural (i.e. no plural deletion). Dep-oo: All segments in the output of the plural must have a correspondent in the output of the singular (i.e. no plural epenthesis). Ident (cons)/(cont)/(back): The specification for the feature (cons)/(cont)/ (back) in the singular must match its specification in the plural.

The faithfulness constraints (e.g. Max-oo, Dep-oo) proposed here are of the output-to-output type (OO): given that the nasal is velar ([+back]) in the output of the singular (i.e. not in the input/underlying representation), the relevant correspondence relation must be output-to-output, as it is between the output of the

 Sonia Colina

singular with the output of the plural.5 That plural formation entails an output-tooutput correspondence relation has also been argued for Spanish plurals (Colina 2006; see 3.4 for additional evidence related to minimality). 3.2  n- and l-final singulars: Gliding The present analysis contends that the nasal that appears in the plural forms is in fact a glide as proposed by Colina (2007). The evidence in favor of this proposal is phonological and phonetic: (i) Historically, coda nasals in Portuguese went through a similar process as they became nasal diphthongs through nucleation (see Morales & Holt 1997 for an optimality-theory (OT) analysis); (ii) Piñeros (2006) convincingly argues that, in some dialects of Spanish with velarization and nasal absorption, the nasal consonant is incorporated into the structure of the nuclear segment in an larger-scale process that tries to improve upon the alignment of the nasal consonant with the left edge of the syllable, by deleting consonantal features or parsing them through the features of the preceding vowel (place, in velarized nasals; stricture, in a velar fricative or approximant [ɤ̃]/ [Z]; place and stricture, in placeless nasals [N], all features in an absorbed/deleted nasal); thus, some Spanish dialects appear to resort to a similar process by which coda violations are reduced through left alignment/parsing of some features in the vocalic/ nuclear position; (iii) Unlike other NC clusters, nasal + /s/ clusters show no place assimilation. That velar nasals do not exhibit this behavior can be easily understood under the account that they are in fact glides parsed in the nucleus and thus the coda licensing conditions on point of articulation responsible for place assimilation are vacuously satisfied. This explains deletion of /n/ instead of /s/ in word internal clusters, transporte [trasporte] “transport”, as deletion of the nasal, which shares point of articulation and at times nasality with the preceding vowel, entails the elimination of fewer features than that of a fully specified /s/. With regards to the phonetic evidence, one can mention that: (i) The nasalized glides proposed for Galician have to this date been classified as velar nasals by many speakers and scholars alike. Yet, nasals glides are often perceived as velar nasals and may also alternate with nasalized vowels or glides (Ohala & Ohala 1993) because of their phonetic characteristics; (ii) The two principal cues for

.  Some authors have argued that the velar nasal in word-final position in velarizing varieties of Spanish is in fact a placeless nasal (Trigo 1988; Baković 2001). Recent experimental evidence (Ramsammy 2010) suggests the velar point of articulation in Spanish may be the result of default insertion. For the current analysis, a placeless nasal would obviate the need for Ident (back); yet, the connection between plurals and vocalization and the cross-dialectal variation that affects the quality of the glide would be less obvious.



Plural formation in Galician 

consonantality (acoustic energy and abrupt change in amplitude and spectrum with respect to neighboring segments) are weakened in velar nasals making them less consonant, i.e. poor consonants. The further back a nasal consonant is articulated, the less ‘consonantal’ it is; the further back the oral constriction, the higher its antiresonances. When the antiresonances fall in the high end of the spectrum, which has very little salient acoustic energy, the auditory effects of the antiresonance may be weakened, and the spectrum that remains will be dominated by the resonances of the pharyngeal-nasal airway and will resemble a simple nasalized vowel. A back articulated nasal consonant will therefore not be too dissimilar from a flanking nasalized vowel. Good consonants have an abrupt change in amplitude and spectrum with respect to neighboring segments; back consonants, however, by having the massive dorsum as an articulator, have longer, slower transitions (Ohala & Ohala 1993:â•›235).6 (9) Gliding/nucleation to avoid coda clusters in the plural /beran/ + /s/[beráZ « )s] “summer/s” [beráŋ] Ident(cont)

d. beráŋes

Ident(cons)

c. berás

*CompnNuc.

Ident(ba)

Dep-oo

Max-oo

*CompCoda

a.☞beráZ «s b. beráŋs

*

*

*

*

*

*

*!

*! *!

e. berájs

*!

[Z « ]= high, back, unrounded nasalized glide

Rather than deleting the entire segment (Max-oo) (9c), Galician modifies some of the features of the nasal consonant (continuant, consonantal) (Ident

.  One may wonder why Galician nasal glides are perceived as velar consonants, while Portuguese nasal glides are not. Additional perception and production studies are needed to answer this question. However, one could speculate that one reason for the difference in perception lies in articulatory differences between the Portuguese nasal glides and the nasal glide proposed for Galician: the Portuguese glides are either front and unrounded or back and rounded, while their Galician counterpart must be back and unrounded in order for it to be faithful to the featural specification of the velar nasal.

 Sonia Colina

(continuant), Ident (consonant) violations) (9a) to avoid a /ns/ cluster -a violation of *Complex Coda (9b). The resulting output glide ([–cont., –cons.]) can thus be parsed in the nucleus (*Complex n violation) (9a). This is preferred to epenthesis (violations of high ranking Dep-oo) (9d). That a back glide is preferred to a front one suggests that Ident(ba) is highly ranked (9e). (9e) also violates a constraint requiring identity (preservation) of nasality (not shown here). This leads to the conclusion that the correct ranking and the relevant constraints are those seen in (9) and that therefore the optimal candidate and the output is that with a nasalized velar glide, as in (9a). Holt (2000) argues that the low ranking of Coda Condition (only one PA allowed per coda) is responsible for nasal + /s/ clusters, e.g. cans [káŋs]; yet, this cannot explain the ill-formedness of non-nasal clusters, *hotels, *mars. Similarly, formulating the Coda Condition as *Complex Coda would leave non-nasal clusters unaccounted for. Some plurals that end in a lateral in the singular have vocalization, while others have plural epenthesis. The account for [j] is parallel to that of nasal + /s/, with the exception that nasality is not relevant (10). In addition, candidates with a glide also incur a violation of a low-ranked Ident(lateral) constraint (not shown here).7 (10) Gliding/nucleation to avoid coda clusters in the plural /otel/ [otéjs] “hotel/s” [otél]

d. otéles

e. otéZ «s

Ident(cont)

c. otés

Ident(cons)

b. otéls

*CompNuc.

Ident(ba)

Dep-oo

Max-oo

*CompCoda

a.☞otéjs

*

*

*

*

*

*

*! *! *! *!

.  As mentioned earlier, there is a group of dialects (Western dialects) that exhibit gliding in the plural of n-final singulars, and epenthesis for l-final bases. This difference in behavior with respect to the normative dialects can be explained through the high ranking of the constraints responsible for gliding (i.e. no gliding), along with a nasal glide in the output of the nasal-final singulars.



Plural formation in Galician 

3.3â•… l-final singulars with penultimate stress: Epenthesis Not all l-final singulars have vocalization. Those with penultimate stress resort to epenthesis (12c) to avoid an unstressed heavy syllable *[kónsujs] (12a) or stress shift *[konsújs] (12b), indicating the domination of the relevant stress constraints, Weight-To-Stress and IdentStress (11), over Dep-oo. The high ranking of these constraints requires that stress remain in the same position and that heavy codas (rather than light ones) receive stress. (11) Weight-To-Stress (WTS): (Extra) Heavy syllables are stressed. IdentStress: Stress must remain in the same location as in the singular. (12) Plural epenthesis with l-final paroxytones /konsul/ [kónsules] [kónsul] *CompNuc.

Ident(cons)

Ident(cont)

*!

c.☞kónsules

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*! *!

e. kónsus f. kónsuZs

Ident (ba)

*!

b. konsújs d. kónsuls

Dep-oo

Max-oo

*CompCoda

IdentStress

WTS

a. kónsujs

*! *!

*!

*

The crucial difference between forms with vocalization and those with epenthesis lies in the location of stress. Forms with vocalization have stress on the last syllable, while those with epenthesis are stressed on the penultimate. An output that is stressed on the penultimate in the singular and has vocalization in the plural would violate WTS (12a), whereas one with stress shift and vocalization would incur a violation of IdentStress. Violations of the stress constraints rule out all candidates in (12), except for (12e), which incurs a violation of a highly-ranked constraint (Max-oo), and the winner (12c).8

.  A word is needed here regarding the quantity-sensitive status of Galician. Like Spanish, Galician exhibits certain preferences typical of quantity-sensitive languages: e.g. stress is penultimate if the penultimate syllable is heavy; stress goes on the last syllable if the last syllable is

 Sonia Colina

3.4  Monosyllables in -n and -l Monosyllables ending in a nasal behave as expected (13). (13) Monosyllables ending in a nasal: gliding /kan/ + /s/ [kaŋ]

Ident(cont)

*!

Ident(cons)

*!

*CompNuc.

Ident(ba)

*!

Ident(nas)

Dep-oo

*!

Max-oo

*CompCoda

a.☞kaZ «s b. kaNs c. kas d. kaNes e. kajs

[kaZ « s] “dogs”

*

*

*

*

*

*

However, unlike singulars ending in nasals, some l-final singulars (monosyllables) have an epenthetic [e], e.g. mal, males “evil(s)”. (14) l-final monosyllables have plural epenthesis /mal/ + /s/ [males] “evils” [mal] *CompNuc.

Ident(cons)

Ident(cont)

Ident(ba)

*!

Dep-oo

*!

Max-oo

*CompCoda

a. ☞majs b. mals c. mas d. Dmales e. maZs

*

*

*!

*

*

*

*! *!

heavy, etc. However, also like Spanish, and unlike quantity-sensitive languages, Galician seems to have a preference for bisyllabic feet (rather than bimoraic) and thus bisyllabic minimal words. Under an OT model, it is possible to explain mixed-type languages that may exhibit some features typical of quantity-sensitive languages, as well as others found in quantityinsensitive languages. The outcome depends on the ranking of the relevant metrical constraints with respect to other constraints in the phonology.



Plural formation in Galician 

Minimality requirements on the word (disyllabic word) are responsible for the selection of the epenthetic form that has two syllables (15d) and therefore satisfies the highly ranked Minwd constraint that requires that all words are disyllabic. All other candidates in (15) are ruled out due to minwd violations. (15) Minimality requirements: l-final monosyllables have plural epenthesis /mal/ + /s/ [mal]

[males] “evils”

e. maZ «s

*

*

*

Max-oo

d.☞males

Ident(cont)

*!

Ident(cons)

c. mas

*CompNuc.

*!

Ident(ba)

b. mals

Dep-oo

*!

*CompCoda

Minwd

a. majs

*

* *

*!

*

*

*

*

The behavior of the plural of monosyllable bases constitutes one more piece of evidence in favor of the proposal that plural formation involves an output-to-output correspondence relationship. Since monosyllables are well-formed in the singular, e.g. mais “more”, Dep-io must dominate Minwd, so that a candidate with epenthesis is not the winner. In the plural, however, being that the relevant relation is output-to-output, epenthesis can be explained as a consequence of the domination of Minwd over Dep-oo. Going back to monosyllables in the plural, one may wonder what rules out *[kaŋes] in (13) considering that Minwd dominates *Comp coda. I argue that a phonetically-motivated constraint that bans nasalized velar glides from the onset «â•› /onset can be justified is responsible for the ill-formedness of *[kaŋes]. *ŋ, Z because velar nasals (as well as the velar glides they alternate with) are rare in the onset position. They make poor consonants because of their acoustic characteristics (Ohala & Ohala 1993). On the other hand, the alveolar lateral in [mal] [males] is a good onset consonant. Galician, unlike some varieties of Portuguese, does not normally velarize coda laterals, but coda nasals are velars.

 Sonia Colina

(16) Monosyllables ending in a nasal: gliding /kan/ + /s/ [kaŋ]

* *

Ident(cont)

*!

Ident(ons)

* *

*CompNuc.

Ident(ba)

Ident(nas)

Dep-oo

b. kaŋs

e. kajs

Max-oo

*

c. kas d.kaŋes

*CompCoda

Minwd

*ŋ/Onset a.☞kaZ «s

[kaZ « s] “dogs”

*

*

*

*

*

*

*! *! * *!

An additional candidate to rule out is one in which the velar nasal becomes alveolar, as in velarizing dialects of Spanish, i.e. [kaŋ] [ka.nes] (Piñeros 2006 and many others). Recall that the coda nasal does not have its own point of articulation, which it shares with the preceding vowel. Galician, unlike Spanish, cannot insert the point of articulation needed by the onset nasal, due to the high ranking of Dep-PA (or Ident-pa). The lateral is alveolar in the output of l-final singulars, as needed for the plural [otél] [otéles]. This explanation is further supported by the behavior of n-final words stressed on the penultimate, [dólmeŋ], [dólmeŋs]; [kánoŋ], [kánoŋs], [kóloŋ], [kóloŋs]. Just like monosyllabic words, the plural does not behave like that of l-final words, i.e. no epenthesis: [dólmeŋ], [dólmeŋs]; [kánoŋ], [kánoŋs], [kóloŋ], [kóloŋs]. As above, the high ranking of Dep-PA (or Ident-pa) accounts for the lack of epenthesis: Dep-PA (or Ident-pa) >> WTS. The plurals of glide-final singulars (i.e. ending in a falling diphthong) also reflect the fact that a glide that is part of a diphthong cannot be parsed as an onset, even if this results in a violation of minwd, e.g. [lej] [lejs] [*le.jes] “law(s)”, [paj] [pajs] [*pa.jes] “fathers”. The relevant constraint must be one against parsing part of a diphthong in the onset (i.e. a constraint that requires identity of an output diphthong, Ident-oo-Diph), because intervocalic glides are possible onset segments, [májo] ~ [má.ʝo]. Ident-oo-Diph must dominate Minwd (17). Additional evidence in favor of the presence and ranking of Ident-ooDiph in Galician will be shown with regard to Eastern dialects, where complex clusters are normally avoided through deletion, except for glide + /s/ clusters (see 4.2).



Plural formation in Galician 

(17) /lei/ + /s/ [lejs] “laws”

[lej]

Ident(cont)

Ident(cons)

*CompNuc.

Ident(ba)

*

Dep-oo

b. les

Max-oo

*

*CompCoda

Minwd

Id-oo-Diph a. ☞lejs

* *!

c. lejes

*!

*

d. leʝes

*!

*

3.5  r-final singulars (18) Plural epenthesis in all r-final singulars: rhotic feature must be preserved /dolor/ [dolóres] “pain(s)” [dolór]

*

*

*

*

Ident(cont)

Ident(cons)

*

*! *!

d.☞dolóres e. dolójs

*CompNuc.

*!

Ident(ba)

c. dolós

Dep-oo

b. dolórs

Ident (r)

Max-oo

*CompCoda

a. dolóZs

*! *!

Rhotic-final singulars always form the plural by means of epenthesis, regardless of stress location or number of syllables. I argue that rhotics are more resistant to faithfulness violations than laterals or nasals, a generalization that can be formalized as the high ranking of a constraint requiring faithfulness to the features that distinguish laterals from rhotics (Ident (r)). Although more research is needed to understand this difference in behavior (other than rhotics being [–lateral]), this proposal is not unjustified, especially if one looks at degree of vocalization of sonorants in Galician and Portuguese. While Portuguese and Galician differ as to nucleation of nasals and laterals, with Portuguese showing higher degree of

 Sonia Colina

nucleation overall, nasal gliding is more common than lateral nucleation in both languages; coda rhotics show no nucleation in Galician or in Portuguese. 3.6  Conclusion: Vocalization in Galician vs. Portuguese The analysis presented in Section  3 leads us to some comparative conclusions regarding nucleation of sonorants in three closely related languages: Galician, Portuguese and Spanish. From the analysis of the data, one can surmise that the degree of nucleation in these languages depends on manner of articulation, with the nasals exhibiting the most nucleation, and rhotics, the least. As mentioned above, word-final nasals in Portuguese became nasalized vowels or glides (Mateus & D’Andrade 2000), while in Galician, nasals appear as glides in coda clusters only, as seen in the current analysis; laterals do not glide in Galician codas, other than in some plural clusters (oxytones), but they are realized as glides in the coda in Portuguese.9 There is no rhotic nucleation in Galician or Portuguese. From a cross-linguistic perspective, Galician is in an intermediate stage between the full absorption of word-final nasal consonants in Portuguese and the partial absorption of velar nasals that is found in some dialects of Spanish and that can be considered [+consonantal] (Piñeros 2006). 4.  Dialectal variation The above proposal is supported by cross-dialectal variation affecting Galician plurals; the same basic set of constraints, with different ranking, serves to account for the variation encountered, illustrating the notion of factorial typology (McCarthy 2002). 4.1  Eastern dialects In order to account for the fact that in Eastern varieties of Galician, a front glide is preferred to a back velar glide, even with the plurals of n-final singulars, one has to assume the high ranking of a constraint against the glide counterpart of a velar nasal, [–consonant] [+continuant], probably due to the fact that such a glide would differ from the more common, unmarked [w] in its [–round] specification. *Z in (19) rules out (20a), selecting instead a candidate with a front unrounded glide, (20e), despite the fact that it violates Ident(ba). In the normative dialects

.  This is a front or back glide depending on the dialect (European or Brazilian) (Mateus & D’Andrade 2000).



Plural formation in Galician 

Ident(ba) dominates *Z. As seen in (21), the same constraints and constraint ranking account for l-final singulars. (19) *Z: No high, back unrounded glide (20) Eastern dialects: vocalization and fronting of the nasal /kan/ + /s/ [kajs] “dogs” [kaŋ] *CompNuc.

Ident(cons)

Ident(cont)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Ident(ba)

Ident(ba)

b. kaŋs

*Z

Dep-oo

Max-oo

*CompCoda

a. kaZ «s

*! *!

c. kas

*!

d. kaŋes

*!

e.☞kajs (21) Eastern dialects: /otel/ + /s/ [otéjs] “hotels” [hotél]

d. otéles

Ident(cont)

c. otés

Ident(cons)

b. otéls

*CompNuc.

*Z

Dep-oo

Max-oo

*CompCoda a.☞otéjs

*

*

*

*

*

*

*! *! *!

e. otéZ «s

*!

*

4.2  Central and Southern dialects Central and Southern dialects avoid the ill-formed clusters that would result from attaching the plural allomorph /s/ to nasal- and lateral-final singulars by deleting

 Sonia Colina

the nasal and lateral, (7c–d); this is an indication that in these dialects Max-oo is dominated by Ident constraints. As seen in (22c) and (23c), the candidates with deletion (Max-oo violations) are the optimal ones because Max-oo is the lowest ranked constraint. The candidates with gliding of the nasal and lateral, (22a&23a), (22e&23e), all incur violations of Ident constraints, which dominate Max-oo. Outputs with a consonant cluster (22b&23b) and epenthesis (22d&23d) are ruled out for the same reason as in the other dialects: the high ranking of *CompCoda and *Dep-oo. (22) Central and Southern: nasal deletion /kan/ + /s/ [kas] “dogs” [kaŋ] Ident(cont)

*

*

*!

Max-oo

Ident(cons)

b. kaŋs

*CompNuc.

Ident(ba)

Dep-oo

*CompCoda

a. kaZ «â•› s *!

c. ☞kas

*

d. kaŋes



*!

e. kãjs

*!

*

*

*

*

(23) Central and Southern: lateral deletion /animal/ + /s/ [animás] “animals” [animál] Ident(cons)

Ident(cont)

*!

*

*

*

*!

c. ☞ animás d. animáles e. animájs

Max-oo

*CompNuc.

b. animáls

Ident(ba)

Dep-oo

*CompCoda

a. animáZ «s

* *! *

*

*!



Plural formation in Galician 

Note, however, that consonants in the output of the singular are deleted, but glides are not, e.g. [animál] *[animáls] [animás] vs. [lej] [lejs] *[lés]. This suggests that, at least in this dialect, it is possible to sacrifice a consonant in the output of the singular, but not a diphthong, reflecting the high ranking of the constraint against the monophthongization of a diphthong (Ident-oo-Diph). (24) Central and Southern: lateral deletion /lei/ + /s/ [lejs] “laws” [lej] Max-oo

Ident(cont)

Ident(cons)

*CompNuc.

Ident-Diph

Ident(ba)

Dep-oo

*CompCoda

a. ☞lejs

*

b. les

*!

c. lejes

*!

d. leʝes

*!

As expected, rhotics do not undergo deletion. This suggests that the constraint requiring preservation of rhotics may be more of a general faithfulness constraint that bans unfaithfulness to rhotics, be it through feature modification or outright deletion, than a matter of modification of one particular feature. It is unclear at this point what exactly in the phonetic nature of rhotics makes them more resistant to deletion and feature modification than laterals or nasals. (25) Central and Southern: no rhotic deletion /dolor/ + /s/ [dolores] “animals” [dolór] Ident(cont)

*

*

*

*! *!

*

d.☞dolóres e. dolójs

Max-oo

Ident(cons)

*!

*CompNuc.

*

Dep-oo

c. dolós

Ident(ba)

b. dolórs

Faith(r)

*CompCoda

a. dolóZs

*!

*

*

*

 Sonia Colina

5.  Conclusions The OT analysis of plural formation in Galician proposed in this chapter explains the distribution of allomorphs in the standard dialect and the patterns of dialectal variation. Gliding (i.e. Ident violations) serves to parse a nasal or lateral coda in the nucleus, thus avoiding the complex cluster (i.e. *Complex Coda violation) that would have resulted from plural attachment. Epenthesis takes place in the plural of l-final singulars when gliding would otherwise result in an unstressed extra heavy coda or a violation of minimality. The plurals of singulars ending in a nasal avoid epenthesis if this requires parsing of a velar nasal in the onset. Non-normative dialects such as the Eastern varieties also avoid clusters through vocalization of the singular-final nasal; however, a front nasal is preferred to the back unrounded one of normative Galician; Southern dialects resort to nasal and lateral deletion in the plural. Despite differences with regard to nasals and laterals, all dialects exhibit the same behavior with regard to rhotics, which are unaffected by deletion or featural modification. This suggests that rhotic behavior is related to their phonetic nature, rather than to phonological causes. In addition to accounting for plural formation in Galician, including dialectal variation, the analysis proposed sheds light on the nature of codas and coda clusters in Galician, as it explains the unexpected behavior of coda nasals, which cluster with /s/ in the coda, due to their non-consonantal nature (i.e. they are glides). In addition, a contribution is made in regards to the process of vocalization, shown to be a strategy to reduce coda markedness related to various degrees of coda restrictions, as exemplified by Spanish, Galician and Portuguese, and to consonant type. In this regard, normative Galician, the dialect with the highest vocalization, appears to be the Galician dialect that is closest to modern Portuguese. Finally, the analysis argues for the opportunistic nature of glides, which can be parsed in the nucleus to avoid a coda violation, despite its more common coda parse.

References Álvarez, Rosario, Xosé Luís Regueira & Henrique Monteagudo. 1986. Gramática galega. Vigo, Spain: Galaxia. Baković, Eric. 2001. “Nasal Place Neutralization in Spanish”. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 7.1–12. Carballo Calero, Ramón. 1966. Gramática elemental del gallego común. Vigo, Spain: Galaxia. Colina, Sonia. 1995. A Constraint-Based Approach to Syllabification in Spanish, Galician and Catalan. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Colina, Sonia. 2006. “Output-to-output Correspondence and the Emergence of the Unmarked in Spanish Plural Formation”. New Analyses in Romance Linguistics ed. by Jean-Pierre Montreuil, 49–63. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.



Plural formation in Galician 

Colina, Sonia. 2007. “Galician Coda Restrictions: Accounting for plural clusters”. Paper presented at the 37th LSRL, University of Pittsburgh, 2007. Colina, Sonia. 2009. Spanish Phonology: A syllabic perspective. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Contreras, Heles. 1977. “Spanish Epenthesis and Stress”. Working Papers in Linguistics 3.9–33. Seattle: University of Washington. Fernández Rei, Francisco. 1990. Dialectoloxía da lingua galega. Vigo, Spain: Edicións Xeráis. Foley, James. 1967. “Spanish Plural Formation”. Language 43.486–493. Ferreiro, Manuel. 1996. Gramática histórica galega. Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Laiovento. Freixeiro Mato, Xosé Ramón. 1998. Gramática da lingua galega. (Volumen I: Fonética e fonoloxía). Vigo, Spain: Nosa Terra. García de Diego, Vicente. 1984. Elementos de gramática histórica gallega (Fonética-Morfología 1909). (= Verba Anexo 23.) Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Girelli, Carl Anthony. 1988. Brazilian Portuguese Syllable Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut. Harris, James W. 1970. “A Note on Spanish Plural Formation”. Language 46.928–930. Harris, James W. 1980. “Nonconcatenative Morphology and Spanish Plurals”. Journal of Linguistic Research 1.15–31. Harris, James W. 1991. “The Exponence of Gender in Spanish”. Linguistic Inquiry 22.27–62. Harris, James W. 1999. “Nasal Depalatalization no, Morphological Well-Formedness sí: The structure of Spanish word classes”. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 3.47–82. Holt, Eric D. 2000. “Comparative Optimality-Theoretic Dialectology: Singular/plural nasal alternations in Galician, Mirandese (Leonese) and Spanish”. Hispanic Linguistics at the Turn of the Millennium: Papers from the Third Hispanic Linguistics Symposium ed. by Héctor Campos, Elena Herburger, Alfonso Morales-Front & Thomas J. Walsh, 125–143. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press. Hualde, José I. 1989. “Procesos consonánticos y estructuras geométricas en español”. Lingüística 1.7–44. Lipski, John. 1973a. “The Surface Structure of Portuguese: Plurals and other things”. Linguistics: An International Review 111.67–82. Lipski, John. 1973b. “Diachronic Phonology as Rule Complication: A Galician example”. Lingua 32.47–60. Mateus, Maria Helena & Ernesto D’Andrade. 2000. The Phonology of Portuguese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCarthy, John. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Morales-Front, Alfonso & Eric Holt. 1997. “The Interplay of Morphology, Prosody and Faithfulness in Portuguese Pluralization”. Issues in the Phonology and Morphology of the Major Iberian Languages ed. by Fernando Martínez-Gil & Alfonso Morales-Front, 393–437. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Moyna, Irene & Caroline Wiltshire. 2000. “Spanish Plurals: Why [s] Isn’t Always Optimal”. Hispanic Linguistics at the Turn of the Millenium. Papers from the 3rd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium ed. by Héctor Campos, Elena Herburger, Alfonso Morales-Front & Thomas J. Walsh, 31–48. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press. Ohala, John & Manjari Ohala. 1993. “The Phonetics of Nasal Phonology: Theorems and data”. Nasals, Nasalization and the Velum, ed. by Marie Huffman & Rena Krakow, 225–249. San Diego: Academic Press.

 Sonia Colina Pérez Bouza, José A. 1996. El gallego. Münich, Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Piñeros, Carlos Eduardo. 2006. “The Phonology of Nasals Consonants in Five Spanish Dialects”. Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology ed. by Fernando Martínez-Gil & Sonia Colina, 146–171. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Prieto Alonso, Domingo. 1986. “Fonoloxía e morfoloxía das formas dialectais en ‘-as’ e ‘-ans’”. Grial 91.102–106. Ramsammy, Michael. 2010. The Realization of Coda Nasals in Spanish. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Manchester. Real Academia Galega. 2003. Normas ortográficas e morfolóxicas. Santiago: Instituto da lingua galega. http://www.scribd.com/doc/5937954/Normas-ortograficas-e-morfoloxicasdo-idioma-galego-2003#document_metadata. Roca, Iggy. 1996. “Phonology-Morphology Interface in Spanish Plural Formation: An optimality analysis”. Interfaces in Phonology ed. by Ursula Kleinhenz, 210–230. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Saltarelli, Mario. 1970. “Spanish Plural Formation: Apocope or epenthesis”. Language 46.89–9. St. Clair, Robert. 1971. “The Portuguese Plural Formation”. Linguistics 68.90–102. Trigo, R. Lorenza. 1988. The Phonological Behavior and Derivation of Nasal Glides. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.

part ii

Syntax

On bare subject relative clauses in Old French* Deborah Arteaga

University of Nevada, Las Vegas This paper considers restrictive relatives in OF, of the type Car ne voi tertre nen soeit rases “For I see no small hill (that) is not razed to the ground”. We note that unlike MF, in OF, the relative pronoun qui could be unexpressed in such structures. OF bare subject relatives, we argue, are not instances of parataxis, or a juxtaposition of two independent clauses, because the syntactic characteristics which such an analysis presumes are lacking in OF. For similar reasons (cf. Arteaga 2009), we also reject a CP analysis of bare subject restrictive relative clauses in favor of an IP analysis in which no null relative is proposed. Following (Trihn 2009), we adopt a copy account of these constructions, part of a general rule of syntactic derivation. This, combined with feature checking, required within Minimalism, allows us to derive bare subject relatives in OF.

1.  Introduction OF had several syntactic characteristics that differed from those in Modern French (MF). For example, OF had verb second word order, as illustrated by (1):

(1) OF V2 Word Order-matrix clause:

Bon consel aroie je cier good-m-sg-obl advice-m-sg-obl would.have-1-sg I dear-m-sg-obl “I would appreciate good advice”. (Aucassin 20.18), (Jensen 1990 §1018)

In (1), the verb aroie is in second position. It is preceded by the fronted DP bon consel and is followed by the subject pronoun je. Another feature of OF was the fact that the subject pronoun of main clause could be unexpressed, in part, because the verbal endings were pronounced until

*╇ I would like to thank Julia Herschensohn and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. Errors are of course my own responsibility.

 Deborah Arteaga

the 14th century. (see, inter alia Jensen 1990; Ménard 1988; Moignet 1988). Consider the example below: (2) Or si vos ai dite now then you-obl-pl have-1-sg (I) said-f-sg-obl la verité the-f-sg-obl truth-f-sg-obl “Now then (I) have told you the truth.”

(La Queste 86, L33)

In (2) above, the subject pronoun je is unexpressed. Compare (1) above, in which je has been spelled out. Another characteristic relevant to our study is that OF was a dual case language (nominative, oblique) as seen from the following examples: (3) Bons fut li secles, good-m-sg-nom was-3-sg the-m-sg-nom world-m-sg-nom al tens ancienor at.the-m-sg-obl times-m-sg-obl ancient-m-sg-obl “The world was good in the old times.”

(La vie de Saint Alexis L 1)

(4) An ices[t] secle nen at in this-m-sg-obl world-m-sg-obl not has-3-sg parfit amor perfect-m-sg -obl love-m-sg-obl “In this word there is no perfect love.”

(La vie de saint Alexis L 68)

In (3), li secles is in the nominative case, as indicated by the article li (as opposed to le) and the final s. The example in (4), however, shows us that icest secle (nominative icist secles) appears as the object of the preposition an, which explains its oblique case. The final aspect of OF which we will consider is the morphological manifestation of the present indicative mood vis à vis the present subjunctive. In OF, verbs of all conjugation classes generally exhibited morphological difference between the indicative and subjunctive (Einhorn 1974:â•›42–48): (5) er verbs present indicative endings: present subjunctive endings 1-sg – 1-pl 2-sg es 2-pl 3-sg et 3-pl

ons 1-sg – 1-pl ons ez 2-sg s 2-pl ez ent 3-sg t 3-pl ent



On bare subject relative clauses in Old French 

(6) ir verbs present indicative endings: present subjunctive endings 1-sg is 1-pl issons 1-sg isse 1-pl issons 2-sg is 2-pl issez 2-sg isses 2-pl issez 3-sg ist 3-pl issent 3-sg isset 3-pl issent (7) re verbs present indicative endings: present subjunctive endings 1-sg – 1-pl ons 1-sg – 1-pl ons 2-sg es 2-pl ez 2-sg s 2-pl ez 3-sg et 3-pl ent 3-sg t 3-pl ent

(8) suppletive verbs (e.g. avoir)

present indicative endings: present subjunctive endings 1-sg ai 1-pl avons 1-sg aie 1-pl aiiens/aiions 2-sg as 2-pl avez 2-sg aies 2-pl aiiez 3-sg at 3-pl ont 3-sg aiet/ait 3-pl aient

As shown by the above morphological data, the different verb classes in OF, including er verbs, which was by far the most numerous, showed a difference in morphology between the present indicative and the present subjunctive for singular subjects, the exception being the first person singular for the er verbs. Suppletive verbs, such as avoir, had a completely different paradigm for the two moods. Given that verbal endings were pronounced in OF, this difference allowed the speaker to identify the mood. The triggers for the subjunctive mood in OF generally mirrored those of MF (i.e. volition, doubt, nonexistence; see Arteaga 1990). The focus of this paper is restrictive subject relative clauses. Old French, like Modern French, evinced such structures, both with animate and inanimate reference, with the expression of qui “who/that”: (9) Et par tote la ville and through all-f-sg-obl the-f-sg-obl city-f-sg-obl crient les janz [qui plorent] shout-3-pl the-m-sg-nom people m/f-nom who cry-3-pl “And throughout all the city the people who are crying are shouting.”  (Charr. 2835) (Fabriek 1924:â•›158) (10) Tex paroles disoient les letres such-f-pl-obl words-f-pl-obl said-3-pl the-f-pl-nom letters-f-pl-nom [qui estoient par desus la lame] that were-3-pl on top.of the-f-sg-obl tomb-f-sg-obl “Such words said the inscription that was engraved on the tomb.”  (Mort Artu, 63, 14) (Ménard 1988:â•›88)

 Deborah Arteaga

In (9), the antecedent of qui is les janz, an animate noun, whereas in (10), it is les letres, which is inanimate. In both cases, the verb in the relative clause agrees with its DP antecedent in number. However, there is one striking difference between OF restrictive relative clauses and those in MF, namely the fact that the relative pronoun qui could be omitted in the earlier stage of the language. Consider the following: (11) N’ i a celui [ n’ ait not there has-3-sg the.one-m-sg-obl (who) not has-3-sg-subj son puiot] his-m-sg-obl crutch-m-sg-obl “There is not a one (who) doesn’t have a crutch.”  (Béroul 1232), (Togeby 1974:â•›128) (12) Ne l’ ’orrat hume [ ne t’ not it will.have man-m-sg-obl (who) not you-sg-obl en tienget por fol] of.it takes-3-sg-subj for crazy-m-sg-obl “There will be no one (who) won’t take you for a crazy person.”  (Roland 2294) (Stempel 1964:â•›444)

The examples in (11)–(12) show that unlike in the modern language, the subject relative pronoun qui could be lacking in OF restrictive relative clauses referring to animate nouns. As is the case in MF, there is subject/verb agreement between the antecedents (celui and hume) and the verb (ait/tienget, both 3sg) in the restrictive relative clause. We also note that the verb in the restrictive clause does not occupy the second position, as negative ne is not in the spec of CP.1 In other words, V2 word order is not found.2 Finally, as in MF, the verb in the bare subject restrictive relative clause in OF is in the subjunctive ait/tiengent (vs. indicative at/tient), as the antecedent does not exist.3

.  We will return to theoretical implication of these issues below in Section 4.2. in our discussion of Arteaga (2009). .  An anonymous reviewer notes that there are counterexamples to this generalization, such as (i) Ni ad celoi a l’altre ne paroit not has-3sg the.one-m-sg-obl to the-m-sg-obl other-m-sg-OBL not resembles-3-sg “There is no one who does not resemble another.” (Roland 1803) (Segre 2003:â•›125). Following Mathieu (2011), we consider these as cases of Stylistic Fronting. Mathieu argues that there are four special topic positions within CP in Old French. He claims that in SF constructions, true V2 word order is not found. .  It is impossible to declare any utterances ungrammatical in a dead language like OF. Therefore, we do not mean to claim that in only these types of clauses the subject relative



On bare subject relative clauses in Old French 

A similar pattern is shown below:4 (13) Il n’ ont elme they-m-sg-nom not have-3-pl helmet-m-sg-obl [ ne soit quassez] (that) not is-3-sg-subj broken-m-sg-nom] “They have no helmet (that) is not broken.” 

(Montreuil 5298) (Jensen 1990:â•›498)

(14) Car ne voi tertre for not see-1-sg pro hillock-m-sg-obl [n’ en soeit rases] not of it be-3-sg-subj razed-m-sg-nom “For I see no small hill (that) is not razed to the ground.”  (Alisc 528) (Ettmayer 1930:â•›160)

In the examples (13) and (14) above, the restrictive relative clauses ne soit quassez (referring to elme) and n’en soiet rases, which refers to tertre, are not headed by qui. As in (11)–(12) above, the verb in the relative clause in these examples is in the subjunctive (i.e. soit vs est), as there is no presupposition of existence of either elme nor tertre. The tense of the verb in the relative clauses in the above examples is in the present perfect (cf. present in (11)–(12) above. Morever, while the verbs in these restrictive clauses agree in p/n with their antecedents (3sg), there can be a case clash between the antecedent and the past participle of the relative clause. For example, in (13), elme is in the oblique case, while the past participle cassez is in the nominative singular case (oblique casse). Similarly, in (10) tertre is oblique, while rases is in the nominative singular (oblique rase). Again, in neither sentence does the verb occupy the second position. To recap our data, we have seen that in OF subject restrictive relative clauses, qui may be expressed or not, regardless of whether the antecedent is animate or inanimate. In cases where it is unexpressed, the verb in the relative clause is in the subjunctive, the trigger being the fact that the existence of higher DP is not presumed to exist. The verb following the bare subject relative clause shows subjectverb agreement with its antecedent. The tense in the relative clause can vary. There can be a difference of case between the antecedent and the past participle. Finally, V2 word order is not found in bare subject relative clauses. pronoun could be lacking and that the others are impossible or ungrammatical. However, the examples that we have culled all show this pattern. .  An anonymous reviewer asks if there is any pattern in Modern French regarding the expression of pas in examples like (13)–(14). There does not appear to be.

 Deborah Arteaga

In order to provide a synchronic account of bare subject relatives in OF, the above data brings us to the following research questions, which we will answer in the sections that follow: 1. Are bare subject relatives instances of parataxis (cf. English)? 2. What is the structure of bare subject relative clauses in Old French? 3. Why were bare subject relatives possible in OF? In the next section, we turn to our theoretical framework and previous syntactic analyses of bare subject relatives.

2.  Theoretical framework The Principles and Parameters (P & P) framework of the 1980s (e.g. Chomsky 1982), was a precursor to Minimalism (Chomsky 2001, 2006). In the former approach, it was assumed that languages shared the same underlying universal principles. Where they differed, such as the fact that Old French, as compared to MF, was a pro-drop language (cf. above (1)), was in turn attributed to parameters, which had different settings, so that a seemingly minor syntactic characteristic bespoke a clustering of features. What is especially important for the present work is P & P’s approach to empty categories. For example, the element pro (for null subject) was postulated in examples like (1) above. Empty categories had to be properly governed by a head, which was necessary for their licensing, captured by the Empty Category Principle (e.g. Rizzi 1990). The cornerstone of the Minimalist program, the theoretical framework which we adopt for the present work, is the view that a limited amount of operations, such as Merge and Agree, can account for the derivation of syntactic elements. In the former, two syntactic items are combined, whereas the latter motivates movement by the need to check features, of which there are two types: uninterpretable (e.g. grammatical features), and interpretable (those which are necessary for semantic interpretation). In this way, feature-checking accounts for the syntactic derivation because uninterpretable features must be “valued” and “checked off.” For example, the determiner on nouns in both OF and MF (cf. li in (3) above) carries the uninterpretable feature, [ugender] whereas on the noun itself, this feature is interpretable, as it is an inherent feature (e.g. secles, which is masculine, in the same example). Such a distribution of features explains why the determiner agrees in gender with the noun (e.g. li agrees with secles), instead of the reverse. With respect to the feature [case] however, a different feature array is seen. As the case of nouns varies with respect to their syntactic function (in other words, they carry uninterpretable ucase), it is believed to be assigned



On bare subject relative clauses in Old French 

by the verb (e.g. fut in (3) above, more specifically by T (cf. Pesetsky & Torrego 2004, 2009) yielding nominative case on li secles), or by a preposition (an in (4) above, which assigns oblique case to secle). One final note regarding the Minimalist program: within this framework, the notion of government does not exist. This means that there is no general mechanism for the licensing of empty categories, or traces, rendering them problematic. In Minimalism, generally, copies of elements are assumed instead, although the circumstances in which their deletion is possible have not been generally addressed. Trinh (2009) tackles this problem, linking the pronunciation (or lack thereof) of copies to prosodic factors. He makes a sweeping proposal regarding all deleted elements, proposing a single PF rule to account for cases of apparent deletion within a chain (Trinh 2009:â•›225): (15) Prosodic Constraint on Copy Deletion (α,β) is deletable only if β ends (is at the right edge of) a phonological phrase (α,β ) is deletable only if β begins (is at the left edge of) a phonological phrase

Therefore, in the following sequence, the lower DP can be deleted (Trihn 2009:â•›184): (16) [TP[DP[the man] will [VP[DP the man] kick the ball]]

In his view, within a chain, any XP that ends a phonological phrase must always be deleted, and only the first member of a chain is pronounced. If these prosodic criteria are not met, the element cannot be deleted. XP movement, in this view, always results in deletable chains. We next consider previous analyses of bare subject relative clauses.

3.  Previous analyses 3.1  Is the relationship between both clauses an instance of parataxis? Philologists have considered bare subject relatives to be instances of parataxis, or the juxtaposition of two independent clauses (e.g. Jensen 1990; Moignet 1988; Ménard 1988; Buridant 2000, among others). In this way, they make the generalization that bare subject relatives such as (11)–(14) above, mirror those like the following (Arteaga 2009:â•›21): (17) Je cuit [plus sot de ti n’ i a] I believe-1-sg more stupid-m-sg-obl of you not there has-3-sg “I think (that) there isn’t anyone more stupid than you.”  (Feuillée 341), (Togeby 1974 § 151)

 Deborah Arteaga

In the above example, the complementizer que “that”, like the relative pronoun qui in (11)–(14), is unexpressed. Similarly, Harris & Vincent (1980:805), in a seminal paper on bare subject relatives in English consider examples like the following, which they also consider to be instances of parataxis: (18) a. It was John [said it]. b. There’s a woman [wants to see you]. c. There’s lots of people [waiting to see you]. d. There’s two cars [(have) left already]. e. There’s lots of people [(have) tried to help him]. f. It was John actually did it. g. *I discovered the criteria evidently I had not been meeting.

However, unlike the philologists cited above, these authors make a clear distinction between null subject relatives and null object relatives in English. They note that the introducing clause in the former structures does not inflect for person/ number in the former case as evinced by (11c)–(11d), where there’s is used with a plural object there’s lots of people/there’s two cars. There is a tendency, furthermore, to only use a simple tense in the relative clause (11d)–(11e) in bare subject relatives. They further point out that null subject relatives allow adverb fronting (11f), whereas null object relatives do not (11g). Based on this data, they conclude that bare subject relatives, but not object relatives, are instances of parataxis, and that the main clause is in reality an “existential particle” (Harris & Vincent 1980:â•›806). 3.2  Clauses without the expression of a complementizer: CP or IP? One point of disagreement among previous analyses of relative clauses has to do with their structure. Sag (1997:â•›34) argues against the positing of null complementizers in relative clauses in general: “Invisible complementizers, like wh-traces, have been widely assumed in the syntactic literature, but there have been (to my knowledge) no analogous attempts to offer independent justification for their existence.” He bases his argument on data from Korean, noting that the verb in relative clauses in Korean carries a special morphological marker, un, as illustrated by the following Sag (1997:â•›434): (19) John-i chayk-ul ku sangca-ey neh-ess-ta. John-nom book-acc that box-loc put-past-decl “John put the book in the box.” (20) [[John-I chayk-ul neh-un] sangca-ka] khu-ta. John-nom book-acc put-rel box-nom big-decl “The box in which John put the book is big.”



On bare subject relative clauses in Old French 

In (19) above, the verb ‘to put’, neh, is followed by morphological markers of tense (essa) and declension (ta). However, in (20), the verb neh carries the morphological marker un, identifying it as the head of the relative clause. This leads him to posit the verb as the head of the relative clause cross-linguistically. He argues that in Korean, due to this special morphological marking, the expression of the relative pronoun is unnecessary, as the listener can interpret the relative clause without it. Other scholars such as Bošković (1997), Doherty (1997), Webelhuth (1992), Bowers (1987), and Weisler (1980), have proposed a similar analysis, arguing that bare (object) relatives are, in fact, IPs, which explains why the complementizer is lacking. However, Bošković & Lasnik (2003), Epstein et al. (2005), and Kishimoto (2006), take an opposing view, proposing instead that the subordinate clause is a CP, and that the null complementizer undergoes a PF merger.5 As an example of a CP analysis of subject relative clauses, consider Bianchi (1999), who, in a study of relative clauses, notes that in most dialects of English, only the deletion of the object relative is allowed. Consider the following (Bianchi 1999:â•›176): (21) a. [DP the [CP[DP DREL thing] [CP that [IP ti happened]]]] b. [DP the [CP[DP thing]i [which tNP] [CP Ø [IP ti happened]]]] c. *[DP the [CP[DP DREL thing]i [CP Ø [IP ti happened]]]]

She notes that proposing the same structure for both (21b) and (21c) (cf. Kayne 1994) is therefore untenable, because there is no obvious explanation for deletion to be impossible in (21c), as opposed to (21b). Despite this fact, she does, however, consider both subject relatives and object relatives in English to be projections of CP. As we have seen above in Section 2.0. above, empty categories, such as the empty relative pronoun given in (21c), cannot be licensed within Minimalism. Arteaga (2009:â•›21–22), in an analysis of subordinate clauses with no complementizer in Old French, marries these opposing views. She considers apparent instances of parataxis in Old French, arguing that they are, in fact, CPs, but posits no null complementizer. Consider the examples below: (22) Je cuit [plus sot de ti n’ i a] I believe-1-sg more stupid-m-sg-obl of you not there has-3-sg “I think (that) there isn’t anyone more stupid than you.”  (Feuillée 341), (Togeby 1974 § 151)

.  See Arteaga (2009) for a complete discussion of these opposing analyses.

 Deborah Arteaga

(23) De loin sanbloit [ce fust chastiaus] from afar seemed-3-sg pro it was-3-sg-subj castle-m-sg-nom “From afar it seemed (that) it was a castle.” (Enéas 7301) (Jensen 1990 §957) (24) Gardez [ne vos i fiez ja]. be-wary-2-pl neg-expl you-nom there trust-2-pl-subj now “Now be wary of trusting it.” (Perceval §3622) (Foulet 1982 §491) (25) Gardez [sans lui ne retornez] watch-2-pl-impf without him not return-2-pl-subj “See (that) you don’t come back without him.”  (Le Roman de Renart 950) (Einhorn 1974 §156)

She notes that in the subordinate clause in all of the above examples, there is V2 word order (cf. (2) above. In (22), the AdjP plus sot has fronted; in (23), the neuter demonstrative ce maintains V2 word order. In (24), the element ne is expletive, so that it can maintain V2 word order, whereas in (25), ne is negative, triggering the fronting of an XP (sans lui). These facts lead her, following Webelhuth (1992) for German, to posit a CP for the subordinate clauses where the complementizer is absent in OF. However, this does not mean, in her view, that the above examples are paratactic. Note that the verb in (23)–(25) is in the subjunctive, which argues for lexical selection. To motivate both V2 word order and the mood of the subordinate clause, she proposes that in cases without an overt complementizer, the verb lexically selects for an EPP feature, which triggers movement of an XP to the lower SPEC, CP (cf. Arteaga & Herschensohn 2006). Crucially, Arteaga posits no empty complementizer. Consider (26) below, which gives her proposed structure for (22) above: (26) Je cuit [BCPBU plus sot de ti [C n’i a [IP pro [I t [VP [Vt [AP t]]]]]]]

In (26), the subordinate clause is a CP; the EPP feature, lexically selected for by the verb cuidier ‘to think’ triggers XP movement of plus sot de ti. In this case, the mood in the subordinate clause is in the indicative, evidence, in Arteaga’s view, that such examples cannot be paratactic as the mood is selected for by the main verb (cf. the subjunctive in (23)). In the next section, we provide answers to the research questions in Section 1.0. 4.  A synchronic analysis of Old French bare subject relatives 4.1  R  esearch question #1: Are bare subject restrictive relatives instances of parataxis? As we have seen in Section 2.2., Harris & Vincent motivate a paratactic analysis of bare subject relatives in English for the following reasons: (1) Typically, an



On bare subject relative clauses in Old French 

existential particle introduces such clauses (2) There is no p/n agreement between the DP and the verb of the relative clause (3) The verb in the relative clause may lack tense marking (4) Adverb fronting is possible in such clauses. Crucially, these criteria do not hold for bare subject relative clauses in OF. An inflected verb not part of an existential construction (i.e. ont-pl in (13) and voi1sg in (14) can introduce the relative clause. There is p/n agreement between the DP and the relative clause. Moreover, adverb fronting, which would trigger V2 word order, is not found in these structures in OF. Note further that there can be a case clash between the upper DP and the lower unexpressed relative, which could not be explained in a paratactic analysis, because it is unclear how the nominative case in the subordinate clause could be assigned. Finally, the fact that the relative clause is in the subjunctive argues for a syntactic relationship between both clauses (cf. Arteaga 2009).

 esearch question #2: What is the structure of bare subject relative 4.2  R clauses in Old French? As discussed above in Section 4.1., Arteaga (2009) motivates a CP structure of subordinate clauses lacking que in Old French, given that they show V2 effects, which is also found in main clauses in OF. She assumes that the verb subcategorizes for both mood (subjunctive or indicative) and, following Arteaga & Herschensohn (2006), an EPP feature, which triggers movement of an XP to the SPEC of the lower CP. Further, if an empty category is postulated, it is impossible to motivate within the Minimalist program. However, given that V2 effects are not found in OF bare subject restrictive relative clauses, there is no overriding reason to posit a CP structure. The simplest analysis, then, is to assume that bare subject relative relatives in OF are, in fact, IPs and that no null relative pronoun exists. While our proposal has the added benefit of not positing a null relative pronoun, which would require a special mechanism for its licensing, it also poses a potential problem. As we have seen in examples (13)–(14), there can be difference in case between that of the upper DP and that of the past participle. Specifically, we have seen that the antecedent of the introducing clause may carry oblique case, while the past participle in the relative clause is marked for nominative case. One advantage of a proposal positing a null relative subject pronoun is that it could account for this case mismatch, presumably because T would assign nominative case both to the null relative and the past participle. Notwithstanding this complication, we believe that the IP analysis of bare Â�subject relatives in which no null relative pronoun exists, can, in fact, be maintained, provided that we adopt Trinh’s (2009) very general copy/deletion analysis

 Deborah Arteaga

((15) above) for these constructions. We therefore propose the following structure of bare subject relative clauses in OF: (27) (Il n’y a) [DP [D elme]] [IP elmes ne soit quasséz]]]

In (27) above, the upper and lower elme(s) form a chain. Following Trinh’s analysis, the lower elmes, which matches quasséz in gender, number, and case, remains unpronounced. Given the structure in (27), the feature checking in OF, required within the Minimalist Program, is straightforward. Lower elme has interpretable gender [masculine] and number [singular]. The lower past participle gets its uninterpretable gender [ugender] and number [unumber] valued and checked by elmes. Both elmes and quassez get their uninterpretable case (ucase) checked and valued by T. Our proposal has several advantages over both a parataxis analysis and a CP analysis with a null subject relative pronoun. With respect to the former, we have seen that OF bare subject restrictive relatives show p/n agreement, tense and mood marking, while disallowing adverb fronting, which have been considered to be diagnostics of parataxis (cf. Harris & Vincent 1980). Our proposal accounts for this, because we do not consider these structures to be independent clauses. A CP analysis cannot be maintained for these structures in OF because they do not have V2 word order. A further reason to assume that bare subject relative clauses are instances of IP is that no empty category need be posited, avoiding the pitfalls related to their licensing. Adopting Trinh’s (2009) proposal allows us to account for the apparent case clash in examples like (13)–(14) above without a null subject relative pronoun.6 In our analysis, the deletion of the lower copy (i.e. elmes in (27) at PF, which is part of a general rule of syntactic derivation, instead of an ad-hoc one specific to relative clauses, along with feature-checking, can account for the derivation of these constructions. Finally, our analysis is supported by the fact that a subject relative clause can be introduced by a subject pronoun when it is coordinated (Moignet 1988:â•›168):7 (28) Et si les verroiz bien a cels and if them-m-sg-obl saw-2-pl-cond well at those-m-pl-obl meïsmes qui nos ont deguerpiz same-m-pl-obl who us-m-sg-obl have-3-pl left-m-pl

.  Our analysis also suggests that a phase-based approach is needed, as proposed in Aboh (2009). .  I want to thank an anonymous reviewer for this point and for the example in (28).



On bare subject relative clauses in Old French 

et ils sont alé and they are-3-pl gone-m-sg-nom as autres porz. to.the-m-pl-obl other-m-pl-obl ports-m-pl-obl “You will see those who have left us and they are gone to other ports.”  (Villehardouin 96)

In such a construction, MF would repeat the relative (i.e. qui nos ont deguerpiz et qui sont alé … ). The fact that OF does not indicates that qui and ils were interchangeable in such structures. 4.3  Research question #3: Why were bare subject relatives possible in OF? We have argued that bare subject restrictive relative clauses in OF should be analyzed as IPs. We have not postulated a null relative pronoun. We must assume, therefore, that (at least some types of) OF relative clauses could optionally be IPs instead of CPs. While a complete explanation for this is outside the scope of the present paper, and the subject for future research, we believe that one factor is that there were several clues to the listener that the clause in question was a relative clause. For example, the verb was invariably in the subjunctive, which we assume, following Jensen (1990), among others, to express a syntactic relationship of subordination, thereby rendering the expression of the relative pronoun unnecessary.8 The reason for the subjunctive mood in the relative clause structures that we have considered is that the existence of the introducing DP is negated, which further tips the listener off to the existence of a relative clause. Finally, as we have seen, morphological endings differentiating the indicative from the subjunctive, as well as nominative vs. oblique case, were pronounced in OF.9

.  An anonymous reviewer asked about the status of main clause subjunctives in Old French. Arteaga (2009) discusses such structures, and notes that the relative que can be omitted, which again supports the notion that the subjunctive indicates subordination. This can be seen in the following example (Arteaga 2009:â•›26) (ii) Or ait Dieus merchi de l’ame de li now has-3-sg-sub God-m-sg-nom mercy-m-sg-obl of the-f-sg-obl soul-f-sg-obl of her “May God have mercy on her soul!” (La Comtesse de Ponthieu 220) (Sebenthall 1876: 44) .  While a discussion of the evolution of such structures from Old French to Modern French is outside the scope of this paper, and the subject of future research, our analysis hints at a possible answer. Given that morphological endings ceased to be pronounced in Middle French, it seems to us that the expression of the relative pronoun became obligatory. Case on nouns, for example, was no longer marked. Similarly, for all er verbs, the subjunctive and the indicative were identical (e.g. Je sais que tu parles, ‘I know that you speak-ind vs. Je veux que tu parles “I want that you speak-subj”), which was not the case in OF, as seen above in (5)–(8).

 Deborah Arteaga

5.  Conclusion This paper has considered bare subject restrictive relatives in OF, of the type Car ne voi tertre nen soeit rases ‘For I see no small hill (that) is not razed to the ground.’ We noted that unlike MF, OF allowed subject restrictive relative clauses that are not introduced by the relative pronoun qui. Our discussion has centered around the synchronic structure of such syntactic structures as well as their derivation. We have argued against a parataxis analysis (Harris & Vincent Â� 1980) of bare subject restrictive relative clauses in OF, because the verb introducing the relative clause is not always existential. Moreover, the verb of the relative clause is inflected not only for p/n, but also for tense. Adverb fronting, which would yield V2 word order in OF, is similarly not found in such constructions. We further noted that a parataxis analysis cannot account for cases of apparent case clash between the DP introducing the relative clause and the past participle within it. Finally, the verb in the relative clause is in the subjunctive, suggesting that there is a syntactic link between the main and relative clauses (cf. Arteaga 2009). We have also argued against a CP analysis of bare subject restrictive clauses, as the evidence widely assumed to motivate such clauses does not exist in these cases in OF (Arteaga 2009). Crucially, V2 word order is not found. We proposed instead, following Bošković (1997), Doherty (1997), Webelhuth (1992), Bowers (1987), and Weisler (1980 for English, and Sag (1997) for Korean, an IP analysis. Our analysis has a further advantage, in that it does not posit a null relative pronoun. We noted that within the Minimalist framework which we adopt, the status of empty categories is problematic (Aboh 2009) as there is no provision for their licensing. We instead adopted a copy account of bare subject restrictive clauses, in which the noun is repeated in both the main and relative clauses (cf. Trihn 2009). The lower copy is then deleted at PF, which is part of a general rule of syntactic derivation, instead of one specific to relative clauses. This general process, combined with the feature checking which is obligatory within Minimalism, can derive the bare restrictive relative structures under consideration. Further, such a copy analysis allows us to account for instances of cash mismatch. We assume that even without an overt relative pronoun, the OF listener could recognize that the clause in question was a relative clause, because in all such structures the existence of the lower DP is negated, triggering the subjunctive (in which endings were pronounced in OF), which has been generally assumed to be a marker of subordination (Jensen 1990).



On bare subject relative clauses in Old French 

References Aboh, Enoch. 2009. “Deletion: A phase-level property”. Theoretical Linguistics 35.229–237. Arteaga, Deborah. 1990. Obviation in Romance: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Lanham: University Press of America. Arteaga, Deborah. 2009. “On the Existence of Null Complementizers in Old French”. In Romance Linguistics: Structure, interfaces, and microparametric variation, ed. by Pascual Masullo, Erin O’Rourke, & Chia-Hui Huang, 17–32. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Arteaga, Deborah & Julia Herschensohn. 2006. “Il était une fois: Diachronic development of expletives, case, and agreement from Latin to Modern French”. Historical Romance Linguistics: Retrospectives and perspectives ed. by Randall Gess & Deborah Arteaga, 267–288. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bošković, Zěljko. 1997. The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bošković, Zěljko and & Howard Lasnik. 2003. “On the Distribution of Null Complementizers”. Linguistic Inquiry 34.527–546. Bowers, John. 1987. “Extended X-bar Theory, the ECP, and the Left Branch Condition”. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics ed. by Megan Crowhurst, 47–62. Stanford: CSLR publications. Buridant, Claude. 2000. Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français. Paris: Sedes. Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase.” Ken Hale: A Life in Language ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2006. “Approaching UG from Below”. Unpublished Manuscript, MIT. Doherty, Cathal. 1997. “Clauses without Complementizers: Finite IP complements.” The Linguistic Review 14.197–220. Einhorn, Elsabe Carmen. 1974. Old French: A concise handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Epstein, David, Acrisio Pires, & T. Daniel Seely. 2005. “EPP in T: More controversial subjects”. Syntax 8.65–80. Ettmayer, Karl. 1930. Analytische Syntax der Französischen Sprache. Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Fabriek, Pieter. 1924. La construction relative dans Chrétien de Troyes. Amsterdam: H.J. Paris. Foulet, Lucien. 1982. Petite syntaxe de l’ancien français. Paris: Éditions Champion. Harris, Martin & Nigel Vincent. 1980. “On Zero Relatives”. Linguistic Inquiry 11.805–807. Jensen, Frede. 1990. Old French and Comparative Gallo-Romance Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kishimoto, Hideki. 2006. “On the Existence of Null Complementizers in Syntax”. Linguistic Inquiry 37.339–345. Mathieu, Éric. 2011. “The Left Periphery in Old French”. Unpublished Manuscript: University of Ottawa. Ménard, Philippe. 1988. Syntaxe de l’ancien français. Paris: Bordeaux Éditions Bière. Moignet, Gérard. 1988. Grammaire de l’ancien français. Paris: Klincksieck.

 Deborah Arteaga Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2004. “Tense, Case and the Nature of Syntactic Categories”. The Syntax of Time ed. by Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme, 495–537, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2009. “Probes, Goals and Syntactic Categories”. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics ed. by Y. Otsu. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing Company. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Sag, Ivan. 1997. “English Relative Clause Constructions”. Journal of Linguistics 33.431–485. Sebenthall, R.E. 1876. Über die Wortstellung in der französische Prosaliteratur des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Göttingen. Segre, Cesare. 2003. La chanson de Roland: Textes littéraires français. Geneva: Droz. Stempel, Wolf-Dieter. 1964. Untersuchungen zur Satzverknüpfung im Altfranzösischen. Braunschweig: George Westermann Verlag. Togeby, Knud. 1974. Précis historique de grammaire française. Odense: Akademisk Forlag. Trinh, Tue. 2009. “A Constraint on Copy Deletion”. Theoretical Linguistics 35.183–227. Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press. Weisler, Steven. 1980. “The Syntax of That-Less Relatives”. Linguistic Inquiry 11.624–631.

Directed motion in Medieval French* Michelle Troberg

University of Toronto

This paper introduces new data showing that Medieval French patterns like a satellite-framed language in that directed motion events can be expressed via a manner verb and a PP complement denoting a telic goal. This contrasts sharply with contemporary French, a typical verb-framed language, in which directed motion is encoded via path verbs with manner as a separate adjunct phrase. Typologically, the data is consistent with a number of other argument structure properties that characterise Medieval French as satellite-framed much like English and Dutch. I argue that the source of variation between Medieval and present-day French resides in a difference in the extended functional projection of prepositional elements. While Medieval French has an active functional projection that permits simple prepositions to encode path, present-day French does not. The analysis diverges from recent accounts of the directed motion construction in which the locus of variation is situated in a macro-parameter.

1.  Introduction Medieval French (henceforth MF) presents a number of argument structure properties often associated with Germanic languages: verb particles, preverbs, the double object construction, dative objects with verbs of helping and hindering, and adjectival resultatives (see Herslund 1980; Dufresne et al. 2001; Â�Tremblay et al. 2003; Burnett & Tremblay 2009; Burnett 2010; Troberg Forthcoming;). In this paper, I present new data that demonstrate that Medieval French allows another construction characteristic of argument structure realisation in the Â�Germanic languages: the directed-motion construction (DMC). I show that the DMC in Medieval French patterns much like that in Dutch and English and I argue that

*╇ For questions and comments on this paper, I would like to thank Diane Massam, Yves Roberge, and Sarah Cummins. I would also like to thank the audience at the 40th session of the LSRL, in particular Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta. Finally, the two anonymous reviewers are warmly thanked for their helpful comments.

 Michelle Troberg

the source of variation between MF and present-day French resides in a difference in the extended functional projection of prepositional elements. While MF has an active functional projection that permits simple prepositions to encode Path, present-day French does not. The analysis diverges from accounts of the DMC in which the locus of variation is situated in a macro-parameter associated with syntactic compounding such as that argued for in Snyder (1995, 2001) and Beck & Snyder (2001). While this macro-parameter captures a number of cross-linguistic tendencies, MF presents an important counterexample to the approach. Alternatively, a micro-parametric analysis of the DMC in Medieval French, in which the source of variation resides in the particular properties of lexical items, offers an accurate account of the facts and captures several correlates between the DMC and other argument structure possibilities in Medieval French. 2.  Directed motion Following Talmy’s (1975, 1985, 2000) influential two-way typology regarding motion events, languages are characterised in terms of how two major semantic components – path and manner of motion – are encoded and combined in a single clause. Satellite-framed languages encode manner in the main verb while path is encoded in a satellite to the verb (particles, verb affixes, and prepositional phrases). Verb-framed languages, on the other hand, encode path in the meaning of the main verb with manner encoded in a separate adjunct phrase. 2.1  Germanic and Romance languages Germanic languages have come to exemplify satellite-framed languages, allowing any intransitive manner-of-motion verb to express either an activity or an accomplishment (i.e. movement toward a goal). Thus, in Dutch, the verb meaning “walk” can express an activity, in which case its auxiliary in the perfect tense is hebben and its syntactic properties are that of an unergative verb (1a). This verb may also express directed motion, in which case its auxiliary in the perfect tense is zijn and its syntactic properties are those of an unaccusative verb (1b); examples from Zubizarreta & Oh (2007:â•›2–3). (1) a. dat Jan naar Groningen twee uur lang heft gewandeld. that Jan to Groningen two hour long aux walk.pst.ptcp “…Jan walked in the direction of Groningen for two hours.” b. dat Jan in twee uur naar Groningen is gewandeld. that Jan in two hour to Groningen aux walk.pst.ptcp “…Jan walked to Groningen in two hours.”



Directed motion in Medieval French 

In contrast, the Romance languages have come to typify verb-framed languages, in which manner-of-motion verbs tend only to express activities, not directed motion, as shown in (2) for French. (2) a. Jean a marché à Paris pendant tout l’après-midi. Jean aux walk.pst.ptcp at Paris for all the’after-noon “Jean walked around in Paris for the whole afternoon.” b. *Jean a/est marché à Paris en deux heures. Jean aux/aux walk.pst.ptcp at Paris in two hours

In French, the expression of directed motion is limited to the set of inherently directional verbs such as aller “go”, venir “come”, and entrer “enter” and a small subclass of manner-of-motion verbs. As discussed in Cummins (1996), some less agentive manner-of-motion verbs that express fluid translative motion like rouler “roll”, glisser “slide”, and couler “flow” may also express directed motion: (3) a. La balle a roulé dans le trou. the ball aux roll.pst.ptcp in the hole “The ball rolled into the hole.”

Certain agentive verbs can also express directed motion but this interpretation shows variable acceptability depending on context. For example, some speakers accept directed motion readings with voler and courir but only with goals introduced by the preposition à, as the contrast between (4a) and (4b) shows. Note that the Dutch equivalents of these, given in (4c,d) are perfectly acceptable. (4) a. ?Le pigeon a volé à son nid. the pigeon aux fly.pst.ptcp to its nest “The pigeon flew to its nest.” b. *Le pigeon a volé dans son nid/ sur mon épaule. he pigeon aux fly.pst.ptcp in its nest/ on my shoulder c. De duif is naar het nest gevlogen. “The pigeon flew to its nest.” d. De duif is in het nest/ op mijn schouder gevlogen. “The pigeon flew into its nest/ onto my shoulder.”

Verbs like sauter “jump”, marcher “walk”, and ramper “crawl” can also express directed motion but only in their non-iterative interpretation. (5a) for example, can have a directed motion reading if it is understood that Paul takes only one step, moving from outside of the puddle into it. (5b) on the other hand, only has an iterative reading involving a series of steps. Here, the directed motion interpretation is not available; the sentence denotes an activity and is thus compatible with the durative PP pendant une demi-heure but not with the telic phrase en une

 Michelle Troberg

demi-heure.1 Again, note that the Dutch equivalent of (5b) is entirely acceptable, shown in (5c). (5) a. Paul a marché dans la flaque d’eau. Paul aux walk.pst.ptcp in the puddle of ’water “Paul stepped into the puddle of water.” b. Paul a marché à l’école (pendant/*en) Paul aux walk.pst.ptcp at the’school (for/*in) une demi-heure. a half-hour

“Paul walked at school (for/*in) a half-hour.”

c. Paul is naar school gewandeld in een half uur. “Paul walked to school in a half-hour.”

In sum, all manner-of-motion intransitive verbs in languages like Dutch and English present variable behaviour; they can express both activities with unergative syntax and directed motion with unaccusative syntax. Equivalent verbs in languages like French tend only to express activities. 2.2  Directed motion in Medieval French Unlike contemporary French but much like Dutch, manner-of-motion verbs in Medieval French can express both activities and directed motion, showing unergative syntax for the former and unaccusative syntax for the latter. This fact, which has not been previously noted in the literature, offers further evidence of the structural similarities between MF and the Germanic languages. The examples of the DMC in Medieval French provided in (6) to (9) are taken from the DMF2009 corpus (Dictionnaire du Moyen Français 2009, ATILF), and the TFA corpus (Textes du Français Ancien, ARTFL). They contain typical agentive manner-of-motion verbs used with a variety of path-denoting PPs. Note that examples of auxiliary alternation like we see in (1a,b) for Dutch were not found for all of the manner-ofmotion verbs shown below. Since perfect tenses are uncommon in MF texts, the alternation is undocumented in the corpus for all but the two most common verbs: voler and courir. We nevertheless assume the alternation is productive. Finally, and crucially, all of the MF examples are ungrammatical or do not express directed motion in present-day French. The manner-of-motion verb voler “fly” is used with a variety of goal-PPs in the corpus, clearly exceeding the restrictions it presents in contemporary French; .  Cf. Beavers (2008) and references therein for a discussion of similar manner verbs, which also have goal semantics, in other verb-framed languages.



Directed motion in Medieval French 

compare the examples in (6) with those in (4). Note also that with a directedmotion interpretation, voler takes the auxiliary être in the perfect tense (6c), characteristic of unaccusative syntax and contrasting with the unergative auxiliary avoir, which appears when voler expresses an activity (6d). (6) a. et [l’] acoustumez […] a voler a vous sur vostre poing and him accustom to fly to you on your fist “and […] have it become used to flying to you onto your fist” (Le Menagier de Paris, c.1392–1394, 152; DMF2009) b. quant il soit pris, il vole sur les rainceaulx ou when he be.subj caught he flies on the small.branches or

sur les branches. on the branches

“when it is caught, it flies onto small tree limbs or branches.” (Le Menagier de Paris, c.1392–1394, 163; DMF2009) c. Les aeles de vertus avoit […]. Donc Marie est volee the wings of virtue had so Marie aux fly.pst.ptcp

en haut, En la region ou est chaut in high in the region where is hot

“She had wings of virtue […]. So Mary flew up into the region where it is hot” (Bestiaire marial, c.1333, 181; TFA) d. Et quant il avoit tant volé que toz li and when he aux much fly. pst.ptcp that all the monz le tenoit a merveille world him held at wonder “And once he had flown around enough so that everyone held him in wonder” (Queste del Saint Graal, 1225, 131; TFA)

Courir also presents auxiliary alternation in the perfect tense according to whether it expresses directed motion (7a) or an activity (7b). (7) a. Mais tot li chevalier ensamble i sont coru but soon the knights together there aux run.pst.ptcp por lui rescorre. for him rescue “But together the knights quickly ran there in order to rescue him.” (Vengeance Raguidel, 33; TFA) b. Tant a coru et porchacié much aux run.pst.ptcp and pursue.pst.ptcp. “So much did he run and chase” (Saint-Cloud, Roman de Renart Branche 7, line 5835; TFA)

 Michelle Troberg

Marcher “walk, march” also provides numerous examples of directed motion with a variety of PPs. Note that the examples in (8) show marcher in its iterative interpretation, contrasting with the ungrammatical example in (5b). (8) a. le duc marcha droit au pont de Vie Seiche the duke marched straight to.the bridge of Vie Seiche “the duke marched straight to the Vie Seiche bridge” (Bouchart, Grandes chroniques de Bretaigne, 1514, 420; DMF2009) b. Tantost après le conte de Salbry marcha en Beaulce Soon after the count of Salsbury marched in Beauce

et print Yenville and took Yenville

“Soon after, the count of Salsbury marched into Beauce and took Yenville” (Tringant, Commentaire du “Jouvencel”, 1477–1483, 276; DMF2009) c. le chevallier se leva […], et marcha hors de son pavillon the knight refl raised and walked out of his tent “the knight got up […] and walked out of his tent”  (de la Marche, Mémoires t. 2, c.1470, 183; DMF2009)

Other examples of manner-of-motion verbs that occur with a directed-motion interpretation are given in (9). (9) a. que nous nos departirons de chi dedens quatre jours, et that we refl separate from here inside four days and chevaucerons en France will.ride in France “that we will leave here within four days and ride into France” (Froissart, Chroniques, 1400, 317; DMF2009) b. Il monta tantost à cheval, […] Et chevaucha dedens he mounted immediately at horse and rode inside la ville. the city “He immediately mounted his horse […] and rode into the city.” (Machaut, Prise d’Alexandrie, 1369, 107; DMF2009) c. en passant par la chambre et cheminant aux nopces in passing by the chamber and walking to.the wedding “while passing by the bedroom and making his way to the wedding” (Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles, c.1456–1467, 122; DMF2009) d. qui dansoient par la ville who were.dancing through the city “who were dancing through the city” (Baye, Journal, t.1, 1400–1410, 48; DMF2009)



Directed motion in Medieval French 

MF is thus very different from contemporary French in that it appears to permit directed motion interpretations with a broad range of manner-of-motion verbs, favoring an analysis in line with other satellite-framed languages such as Dutch and English. 3.  Analysis The various formalisations of Talmy’s original typology regarding the lexicalisation patterns of motion events can be grouped into two main camps: the macroparametric approach and the micro-parametric approach. Medieval French poses a problem for a macro-parametric approach, but finds a natural analysis in a micro-parametric approach. 3.1  The macro-parametric approach Variation in the expression of directed motion has been taken to arise via a morphological, syntactic or semantic macro-parameter setting that, during language acquisition, determines the possibility of being able to say something like “walk to the store”. A number of approaches have adopted the proposal advanced in Snyder (1995, 2001) and Beck & Snyder (2001) in which complex predicates like DMCs depend on what Snyder calls the compounding parameter, a single parametric property that makes productive syntactic compounding possible in the grammar. 2 (10) Compounding parameter (Snyder 2001:â•›328) The grammar {*disallows, allows} formation of endocentric compounds during thesyntactic derivation [*unmarked value].

Some of the complex predicates Snyder and Beck & Snyder correlate with the compounding parameter are listed in (11). (11) Complex predicate formation a. Resultatives i. Adjectival: John hammered the metal flat. ii. DMC: John walked to the store. b. Verb-NP-particle: Mary picked the book up. c. Double object: Alice sent Sue the letter.

Snyder’s compounding parameter essentially determines if root compounding is available in the syntax. In so far as this concerns DMCs, this parameter has been

.  Cf. Zubizarreta & Oh (2007), McIntyre (2004), and Matea & Rigau (2002).

 Michelle Troberg

interpreted in subsequent studies to mean that a functional verb denoting change can form a V–V compound with manner-of-motion verbs. Roeper, Snyder & Hiramatsu (2002) propose that a reliable reflex of this parameter is the presence of productive, recursive N–N compounding that produces combinations such as nursery school book or peanut butter sandwich. The prediction is that if a language has productive N–N compounding, then the complex predicates in (11) – including the DMC – should in principle also be possible. This prediction is tested in two separate studies: Snyder (1995, 2001) and Beck & Snyder (2001) involving a cross-linguistic survey and child acquisition data. The cross-linguistic results are summarized in Table 1. Table 1.╇ Correlation between N–N compounds and resultatives N–N compounding

Adj. resulatives. & DMCs

yes

yes

English, German, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin

yes

no

Basque

no

no

French, Spanish, Hebrew, Russian

Snyder and Beck & Snyder cite a number of languages that appear to support the correlation between the presence of productive N–N compounding and the DMC, including English, German, Japanese, Korean, and Mandarin (Basque is exceptional and a sub-parameter is proposed to account for the lack of resultatives in that language). Conversely, if a language does not have productive N–N compounding, it should not permit adjectival resultatives and DMCs. This is reported to be the case for French, Spanish, Hebrew, and Russian. MF however, presents a counterexample to these predictions since it permits the DMC but does not have productive, recursive N–N compounding. N–N compounds in Medieval French are uncommon and their meanings tend not to be transparently compositional (cf. Darmesteter 1875; Nyrop 1936; Brunot & Bruneau 1949; Bourciez 1967) and no instance of recursive N–N compounding is documented in MF. A similar counterexample is discussed in Son (2007) in which it is demonstrated that Hebrew also allows DMCs – contrary to what has been reported in previous literature – without productive N–N compounding. 3.2  The micro-parametric approach to the directed-motion construction A micro-parametric approach situates sources of cross-linguistic variation in the properties of vocabulary items. Specifically, I suggest that the variation in the expression of directed motion between Medieval French and present-day French



Directed motion in Medieval French 

reduces to the presence of a prepositional element that encodes path. I thus do not assume an a priori correlation between directed-motion interpretations with manner-of-motion verbs and productive root compounding or any other complex predicates. Rather, I only expect correlations among structures dependent on a lexical item that encodes path. I adopt the small clause approach to the formation of the DMC, similar to that proposed in Hoekstra (1984 et seq.) and advocated in Folli & Harley (2006), among others. Specifically, the small clause results from the merger of a directional PP and a DP, which is embedded under a (verbal) root and a verbal functional head denoting change. (12) Directed motion construction for the bottle floated in the cave vP VP

vGO V float

SC DP

the bottle P in

PPdir DP the cave

According to this view, the unaccusative functional verb encodes a dynamic, non-agentive event expressing change, it licenses an auxiliary distinct from that licensed by an unergative functional verb, and it does not license the presence an external argument. The verbal root V denotes the manner of change, a particular kind of motion in this case. Finally, the small clause predicate measures out the event via a path relation between a Figure and Ground, while the choice of preposition determines the type of path: a telic or atelic goal, or a source. This construction allows languages like English and Dutch to productively use any manner-of-motion verb to express directed motion. Note that the crucial element of the DMC is the presence of prepositions that can denote a type of path. The lexical inventory of contemporary French, for instance, does not contain directional prepositions and it is for this reason that manner-of-motion verbs cannot be productively used to express directed motion. As discussed in Section 2, there exists a small class of verbs that may do so, but here the path interpretation is supplied by the meaning of the verb in conjunction with contextual factors, not the preposition (which is locative). The structure for the directional interpretation of

 Michelle Troberg

la balle roule dans le trou in (13) is thus distinct from the DMC in (12); while both are unaccusative, only the DMC encodes directionality within the small clause.3 (13) La balle roule dans le trou “the ball rolls into the hole” vP VP

vGO V roule [+dir]

SC PPloc

DP

la balle P dans

DP le trou

Assuming the syntax of the DMC is universal, cross-linguistic variation depends on the inventory of prepositional elements in a given language and their specific properties. A more fine-grained view of the PP is thus useful to the analysis. 4.  Directed motion in French 4.1  Path A decompositional approach to spatial prepositional elements following Svenonius (2010) naturally lends itself to an account of the variation and change observed in the history of French. Svenonius’s proposal assumes spatial prepositional elements can be further decomposed in the syntax into (at least) Path and Place with Place embedded under Path as shown in (14). PathP

(14) Path

PlaceP Place

DP

.  Constituency tests such as VP-elision, movement, and extraction suggest that the PP is complement to V, supporting an unaccusative analysis for cases like (13).



Directed motion in Medieval French 

While Place elements give information about the physical configuration of the relationship between a Figure and a Ground, Path elements give information about a trajectory and specify whether a Place is to be interpreted as a goal or a source. In English, the preposition to has been argued to be a (telic) Path head (Koopman 2000; Svenonius 2010) while at lexicalises Place. One diagnostic that illustrates this contrast is shown in (15). Place heads can be selected by stative verbs, but the dynamic preposition to cannot. (15) a. John is at the store. b. *John is to the store.

Svenonius also proposes that there exists a null Path head in English, equivalent to to, which permits P-elements to alternate between a place and a path interpretation. This is the case for in in Example (16a); the corresponding structural representation for the path reading follows. (16) a. The bottle floated in the cave. “The bottle floated around inside the cave” (place interpretation) “The bottle floated into the cave” (path interpretation) PathP

b. Path Ø



PlaceP Place in

DP the cave

In contrast to English for instance, Vandeloise (1991) and Cummins (1996) argue that present-day French lacks simple prepositional elements that express a path meaning. Even the preposition à, often translated as “to” in English, unambiguously denotes place as it is compatible with the stative verb être in (17a). Note that when a PP headed by à occurs as the complement of verbs like aller “go” in (17b), it is the inherent directionality of the verb that supplies the path interpretation, not the preposition. (17) a. Jean est à la plage. “Jean is at the beach.” b. Jean va à la plage. “Jean is going to the beach.”

Furthermore, the Modern French equivalent of (16a), shown in (18), presents no ambiguity; the preposition dans has only one interpretation here: place. The fact that English allows a DMC interpretation of (16a) but present-day French does not reduces to a question of lexical inventory. There is no element in contemporary

 Michelle Troberg

French like to or null to that lexicalises the Path head to give a telic interpretation to the event. (18) La bouteille a flotté dans la grotte. the bottle aux float.pst.ptcp in the cave “The bottle floated around inside the cave.”

The sentence in (18) corresponds to a standard unergative structure along the lines of that given in (19) whereby the non-directional PP dans la grotte is an adjunct, not an argument of the verb. vP

(19) DP

v′

la bouteille v′ vDO

PlaceP VP

flotte

Place dans

DP la grotte

Turning now to Medieval French, it patterns much like English and Dutch in that there exists a lexical item that builds a telic path interpretation into prepositions that would otherwise express place. As we propose in (12) for English, the directed-motion interpretations in Examples (6) to (9) from MF are obtained by associating a manner-of-motion verb with a small clause that expresses path, an example of which is given in (20) for concreteness. Note in particular, in contrast with (19), that the structure in (20) is unaccusative and that the null telic Path head is responsible for the directional interpretation of sur “on” as “onto”. (20) il vole sur vostre poing “it flies onto your fist” vP VP

vGO vole

SC DP il

PathP Path Ø

PathP Place sur



DP votre poing



Directed motion in Medieval French 

In support of the idea that Path is syntactically derived in MF, it can be demonstrated that the various prepositions that appear in Examples (6) to (9) are not restricted to a directional meaning. They clearly alternate between having a path or a place interpretation; the examples in (21) exemplify their possible place meanings in MF. (21) a. Ne qu’on puet au firmament Sans eles voler nor that’one can at.the firmament without wings fly “Nor can one fly in the heavens without wings”  (Guillaume de Machaut, Les Lays, 1377, 388; DMF2009) b. si aucun oysel vole sur icelui endroit, incontinent if certain bird flies on this place immediately

chet mort à terre. falls dead to earth



“if any bird flies over this place, it immediately falls dead to the ground.” (Simon de Phares, Astrologues, c.1494–1498, 87; DMF2009)

c. et cevauçans en France nuit et jour and riding in France night and day “and riding in France day and night” (Froissart, Chroniques, c.1400, 569; DMF2009) d. un droit dyable A veoir courir par leens a straight devil to see run by there “a real devil to see running in these parts” (Pizan, Mutacion de Fortune, t.1, 1400–1403, 71; DMF2009) e. chevauchierent devant hors de l’avant-garde rode.3-pl ahead out of the’vanguard “they rode ahead, apart from the vanguard” (Froissart, Chroniques, c.1400, 329; DMF2009) f. qui par devant estoient hors de la cité, sont who by front was out of the fortress are maintenant dedens now inside “who before were outside of the fortress, are now inside” (Pizan, Mutacion de Fortune, t.2, 1400–1403, 170; DMF2009)

4.2  Inactive PathP in present-day French In the previous section it was proposed that the relevant difference between present-day French and languages like English, Dutch, and MF is the presence of a vocabulary item like to or null to that denotes telic path. It follows that without such a lexical item, bounded DMCs are not available in present-day French. In

 Michelle Troberg

this section, I further argue that in fact there exists no simple vocabulary item in contemporary French that lexicalises PathP. As a consequence, no manifestation of the DMC, be it bounded or unbounded, is available. In order to do so, we must account for two prepositional elements in French, vers “toward” and jusque “up to, until”, which may freely occur with manner verbs giving the event a directed motion reading, shown in (22). (22) Pierre a marché vers/jusqu’à la maison. Pierre aux walk.pst.ptcp toward/up.to the house “Pierre walked toward/up to the house.”

Now, if these prepositions had goal semantics and occurred as complements to the verb, then the sentences in (22) would be examples of the DMC and, under the present analysis the prepositions would have to be associated with PathP. Typically however, verb-framed languages like contemporary French do not encode path in any satellite element and so it would be surprising that vers and jusque would do so. In this light, I demonstrate that neither is a path-denoting preposition and that neither gives rise to the DMC. As discussed in Zubizarreta & Oh (2007:â•›176–178), jusque does not pattern as an argument of the verb; when preposed, it gives rise to an unbounded, mannerof-motion interpretation typical of unergative structures as shown in (23). If jusque were an argument of the verb, preposing in this way would break up a syntactic constituent and give rise to an ungrammatical utterance. (23) Jusqu’à la maison, Pierre a beaucoup marché. “Up to the house, Pierre walked a lot.”

Zubizarreta & Oh propose that jusqu’à is in fact part of a complex PP with a covert deictic source that specifies a silent object classifier denoting distance (24). Its directional reading arises via the meaning of the entire complex PP, which denotes the initial point of the motion and its endpoint. Path is thus implied, but not grammatically represented. (24) Pierre a couru (la distance) d’ici jusqu’à la maison en trente minutes. “Pierre ran (the distance) from here up to the house in thirty minutes.”

Similarly, the preposition vers “towards” patterns as an adjunct, not an argument of manner verbs. Examples (25a,b) show that the order of temporal adverbials and locative adjuncts can normally be interchanged, whereas reversing the order of a VP-internal PP and a temporal adverbial considerably degrades the sentence, shown in (25c,d). (25) a. Paul a dansé à la fête pendant des heures. “Paul danced at the party for hours.”



Directed motion in Medieval French 

b. Paul a dansé pendant des heures à la fête. “Paul danced for hours at the party.” c. Paul est resté à Paris pendant le mois d’avril. “Paul stayed in Paris for the month of April.” d. #Paul est resté pendant le mois d’avril à Paris. “Paul stayed for the month of April in Paris.”

The absence of any grammaticality effect when the order of a temporal adverbial and a PP headed by vers is reversed suggests that the vers-PP is an adjunct. (26) a. Paul a conduit vers le village pendant des heures. “Paul drove toward the village for hours.” b. Paul a conduit pendant des heures vers le village. “Paul drove for hours toward the village.”

Another relevant test for constituency is do-so (faire de même) VP-elision. Elements that are adjoined to the VP may normally occur outside the domain of do-so, as illustrated in (27a) for a locative PP. In contrast, VP-internal PPs cannot be excluded from elision, as shown in (27b). The example in (27c) demonstrates that do-so VP elision is entirely acceptable with vers, meaning that the vers-PP must be an adjunct and is not merged within the VP. (27) a. Marie a embrassé Paul à la fête et Joëlle a fait de même dans le parc. “Marie kissed Paul at the party and Joelle did so in the park.” b. *Marie a mis les clefs sur la table et Joëlle a fait de même sur le comptoir. “Marie put the keys on the table and Joelle did so on the counter.” c.  Marie a poussé le chariot vers Montréal et Joëlle a fait de même vers Toronto. “Marie pushed the cart toward Montreal and Joelle did so toward Toronto.”

Extraction is a further test that can distinguish argument from adjunct. Folli & Harley (2006) discuss the well-known asymmetry between argument extraction from weak islands and adjunct extraction. Adjuncts like when in (28a) cannot be extracted but complements like what in (28b) can. Similar examples demonstrate that while there is an asymmetry between the locative PP in (29a) and an argument PP in (29b), there is no such asymmetry between the locative PP and the Path-denoting PP headed by vers in (29c). This again suggests that the latter is also an adjunct. (28) a. *Wheni do you wonder whether Snow White will eat an apple ti? b. ?Whati do you wonder whether Snow White will eat ti on Thursday?

 Michelle Troberg

(29) a. *?[À quelle fête]i te demandes-tu si Marie va danser ti? “At what party do you wonder whether Marie will dance?” b. ?[Dans quelle voiture]i te demandes-tu si cet homme va entrer ti? “Into which car do you wonder whether that man will enter?” c. *?[Vers quelle porte]i te demandes-tu si la souris va courir ti? “Towards which door do you wonder whether the mouse will run?”

Constituency tests therefore suggest that unbounded directed-motion interpretations involving the simple preposition vers are not DMCs. Although an analysis of its exact nature is beyond the scope of this article, vers is clearly an event modifier, not a verbal argument. There is no simple vocabulary item in present-day French that lexicalises a Goal-Path head and this raises the question as to whether the functional head Path is realised at all. If simple prepositions in French only realise Place in the decompositional theory of spatial P, then PathP is inactive and one should expect a constellation of syntactic reflexes associated with this fact. Medieval French is informative in this sense since PathP was clearly active during this period and a number of syntactic possibilities that involve PathP are consequently present while they are absent in contemporary French. 4.3  Correlations Evidence in support of a micro-parametric approach involves at least two correlations in MF that may be expected from a grammar that allows prepositional elements to express path: the presence of directional verb particles and preverbs. MF had a productive directional verb-particle system in which the particle’s function was to orient and give (additional) direction to an event; two examples are given in (30); see Burnett & Tremblay (2009) for a full inventory. Many such particles also function as place-denoting prepositions, offering another example of the (syntactically derived) alternation these elements have between a Path and a Place function. (30) a. Lors chevauchièrent avant li quatre baron then rode.3-pl forth the four barons “Then the four barons rode forth” (Froissart, Chroniques R, XI, c.1375–1400, 77; DMF2009) b. Romulus arriere Regarde et zzzxii en a vu Romulus backward looks and 6012 of.them has seen “Romulus looks back and saw 6012 of them” (Pizan, Le Livre de la mutacion de fortune, 1400, t.3, 180; DMF2009)



Directed motion in Medieval French 

It has also been argued that the productive preverb system in MF depends on the availability of a directional functional head. This system makes use of prepositional elements that enhance the meaning of the verbal base, giving it an additional sense of direction, goal, or passage from one state to another as shown in (31); see Dufresne et al. (2001) and Tremblay et al. (2003). (31) a. river/arriver “skirt the shore/arrive at shore” b. penser/apenser “think/realise” c. baisser/abaisser “lower/lower down”

An active Path projection would account for the fact that MF patterns as a satelliteframed language, presenting directional verb particles, preverbs, and DMCs. Conversely, the unavailability of PathP in contemporary French characterises it as a verb-framed language as it lacks such constructions.

5.  Conclusion In this paper I have above all shown that a variety of manner-of-motion verbs give rise to DMCs in Medieval French, a fact that draws a sharp distinction between Medieval and present-day French. Taking a micro-parametric approach to linguistic variation, I have argued that the relevant source of variation resides in the possibility of a syntactically derived path interpretation for prepositional elements. Similar to what has been proposed for English, MF possesses a phonologically null element that lexicalises Path, the functional head that encodes directionality, giving a goal interpretation to prepositions which otherwise have a place meaning. In contrast, no lexical item realises Path in contemporary French, accounting for the absence of structures dependent on such a projection (i.e. the DMC, directional verb particles, and preverbs). Although directed motion readings are possible in Modern French, the path interpretation is, crucially, not syntactically derived. The approach to directed motion taken in this paper is therefore in line with broader perspectives that take into account a variety of morphological, lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic resources that languages draw upon to express directed motion (cf. Beavers et al. 2010) and moves away from assumptions that cross-linguistic variation in motion events reflects a single macro-parameter. Finally, if the change in French from a satellite-framed to a verb-framed language indeed hinges on an active Path projection as I suggest, then the emergence of the new grammar can be framed in terms of a critical shift in frequency of sufficient, unambiguous evidence of vocabulary items that lexicalise such a functional head (the subject of forthcoming work).

 Michelle Troberg

References Beavers, John. 2008. “On the Nature of Goal Markers and Event Delimiters: Evidence from Japanese”. Journal of Linguistics 44. 283–316. Beavers, John, Beth Levin & Shiao Wei Tham. 2010. “The Typology of Motion Events Revisited”. Journal of Linguistics 46. 331–377. Beck, Sigrid & William Snyder. 2001. “Complex Predicates and Goal PPs: Evidence for a semantic parameter”. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development ed. by Anna H.-J. Do, Laura Domínguez & Aimee Johansen, vol.1, 114–122. Somerville: Cascadilla. Bourciez, Édouard. 1967. Éléments de la linguistique romane 5th ed. Paris: Klincksieck. Brunot, Ferdinand & Charles Bruneau. 1949. Précis de grammaire historique de la langue française 3rd ed. Paris: Masson et Cie. Burnett, Heather. 2010. “VP shells and the Evolution of Secondary Predication in the History of French”. Poster presented at the 12th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference (DiGS XII), Cambridge, UK, July 2010. Burnett, Heather & Mireille Tremblay. 2009. “Variable-behaviour Ps and the Location of PATH in Old French”. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2007. ed. by Enoch Aboh, Elisabeth van der Linden, Josep Quer & Petra Sleeman, 25–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cummins, Sarah. 1996. “Movement and Direction in French and English”. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 1. 31–54. Darmesteter, Arsène. 1875. Traité de la formation des mots composés. Paris: A. Franck. DMF : Dictionnaire du Moyen Français. ATILF – Nancy Université & CNRS. Website: http:// www.atilf.fr/dmf. Dufresne, Monique, Fernande Dupuis & Catherine-Marie Longtin. 2001. “Un changement dans la diachronie du français: la perte de la préfixation aspectuelle en a-”. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 29: 2. 34–54. Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2006. “On the Licensing of Causatives of Directed Motion: Waltzing Matilda all over”. Studia Linguistica 60: 2. 121–155. Herslund, Michel. 1980. Problèmes de syntaxe de l’ancien français: Compléments datifs et génitifs. (= Études Romanes, 21). Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical relations in Government and Binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris. Koopman, Hilda. 2000. “Prepositions, Postpositions, Circumpositions, and Particles”. The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads ed. by Hilda Koopman, 204–260. London: Routledge. Mateu, Jaume & Gemma Rigau. 2002. “A Minimalist Account of Conflation Processes: Parametric variation at the lexicon-syntax interface”. Theoretical Approaches to Universals ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, 211–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McIntyre, Andrew. 2004. “Event Paths, Conflation, Argument Structure, and VP Shells”. Linguistics 42: 3.523–571. Nyrop, Kristoffer. 1936. Grammaire historique de la langue française, vol.3: Formation des mots. Copenhagen: Nordisk Forlag. Roeper, Thomas, William Snyder & Kazuko Hiramatsu. 2002. “Learnability in a Minimalist Framework: Root compounds, merger, and the syntax-morphology interface”. The Process of Language Acquisition ed. by Ingeborg Lasser, 25–35. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag. Snyder, William. 1995. Language Acquisition and Language Variation: The role of morphology. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.



Directed motion in Medieval French 

Snyder, William. 2001. “Language Acquisition and Language Variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation”. Language 77: 2.324–342. Son, Minjeong. 2007. “Directionality and Resultativity: The cross-linguistic correlation revisited”. Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 34: 2.126–164. Svenonius, Peter. 2010. “Spatial P in English”. Mapping Spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures ed. by Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi, vol. 6, 127–160. New York: Oxford University Press. Talmy, Leonard. 1975. “Semantics and Syntax of Motion”. Syntax and Semantics ed. by John P. Kimball, vol.4, 181–238. New York: Academic Press. Talmy, Leonard. 1985. “Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms”. Language Typology and Syntactic Description III ed. by Timothy Shopen, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. TFA: Textes de Français Ancien. ARTFL Project – LFA, University of Ottawa & University of Chicago. Website: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/projects/TLA/. Tremblay, Mireille, Fernande Dupuis & Monique Dufresne. 2003. “Les prépositions dans l’histoire du français: Transitivité, grammaticalisation et lexicalisation”. Verbum 25: 4. 549–562. Troberg, Michelle. Forthcoming. “From Indirect to Direct Object: Systematic change in 15th century French”. Diachronica 28: 3. Vandeloise, Claude. 1991. Spatial Prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa & Eunjeong Oh. 2007. On the Syntactic Composition of Manner of Motion. (=Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 48). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

An ergative analysis of French valency alternations Edit Doron & Marie Labelle

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem / Université du Québec à Montréal The French anticausative is attested in two separate constructions: one focuses on the result (Res-AC), e.g. Le rameau s’est flétri; the second focuses on the process (Proc-AC) – Le rameau a flétri, both translated to English as ‘The branch withered’. The paper proposes to explain the differences between the two constructions as follows. Res-AC results from the merge of se under non-active Voice, coupled with the absence of a vP projection, whereas Proc-AC results from the use of active Voice with a v projection lacking a specifier. Anticausative derivations from typologically distinct languages, Hebrew and Neo-Aramaic (an ergative language) provide support for the analysis. In these languages, the merge of v is overtly detectable, whether or not v has a specifier. In Hebrew this is indicated by a dative reflexive clitic, and in Neo-Aramaic, by ergative agreement. The analysis proposed for French extends naturally to these languages, providing support for it.

1.  The problem French constructs anticausative derivations in two different ways. The middlevoice derivation (1a) uses valency reducing morphology (the morpheme se which characterizes middle constructions, e.g. reflexive, unaccusative, dispositional, cf. Kemmer 1993, 1994). The active derivation (1b), without morphological marking, is similar to the English anticausative derivation (The branch withered). (1) a. Le rameau s’ est flétri. The branch se aux wither-prt b. Le rameau a flétri. The branch aux wither-prt “The branch withered.”

The existence of these competing derivations raises two fundamental questions: How can one account for the two derivations? When is one construction preferred or

 Edit Doron & Marie Labelle

required? With respect to the second question, it has been observed that the two constructions have different conditions of use which have been argued to follow from the following meaning differences (e.g. Dobrovie-Sorin 2006; Kayne 2009; Labelle 1992; Lagae 1990; Zribi-Hertz 1987): –â•fi the middle anticausative derivation focuses on the result state of the process; –â•fi the active anticausative derivation focuses on the process, presenting it as autonomous. The contrast is exemplified in the following pair. (2a) describes a sensation of swelling which is a state resulting from happiness, whereas (2b) describes an internally-driven process of swelling, gradually pressing the lungs as the process progresses. (2) a. Son cœur s’ est gonflé de bonheur (Res-AC) his heart se aux swell-prt of happiness “His heart has swelled from happiness.” (www.franceloisirs.com/catalogue/produit.jsp?docId=813569, Â�February 1st, 2011) b. Son coeur a gonflé et compresse les poumons (Proc-AC) his heart aux swell-prt and press-prs the lungs “His heart has swelled and presses his lungs.” (michel.mahler.free.fr/Chansons/Anges_Noirs_B.htm, February 1st, 2011)

Contrasts between result-focusing anticausative constructions (Res-AC) and process-focusing anticausative constructions (Proc-AC) have been reported in other languages, where they are not necessarily associated with the contrast between middle and active voice. Borer (1994) reports two anticausative constructions in Hebrew, where the contrast is associated neither with voice morphology nor with other verb morphology. The two constructions, illustrated in (3), are distinguished by the nature of the dative adjunct they allow. Res-AC (3a) features a possessive dative adjunct (interpreted as the possessor of a VP-internal noun-phrase, hence indicating unaccusativity). In Proc-AC (3b), on the other hand, the verb appears with a reflexive dative adjunct, giving the verb a volitional, process interpretation. (3) a. ha-praxim navlu li (Res-AC) the-flowers wilted to.me “My flowers wilted.”



An ergative analysis of French valency alternations 

b. ha-praximi navlu lahemi (Proc-AC) the-flowers wilted to.them “The flowers wilted (of their own accord).”

Example (3a) focuses on the result state of the flowers having completely wilted; (3b) focuses on the process of wilting, and according to Borer, implies volition or at least a self induced change. A contrast parallel to the French (2) can be seen in (4): (4) a. ha-lev hitraxev li mi-simxa (Res-AC) the-heart swelled to.me from-happiness “My heart swelled from happiness.” b. ha-levi hitraxev loi ve-laxac al ha-re’ot (Proc-AC) the-heart swelled to.it and-pressed on the-lungs “The heart swelled (of its own accord) and pressed the lungs.”

An additional language where two separate anticausative constructions have been reported is Neo-Aramaic, an ergative Semitic language spoken by Jewish and Â�Christian communities from Kurdistan (Khan 2007). In the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Urmi (Khan 2008b), a morphological contrast is found among anticausative verbs between a form of the verb which focuses on the result, and a form which focuses on the process. This morphological contrast is not a contrast in voice (lacking in Neo-Aramaic altogether), but in subject agreement. In Res-AC the Â�subject-agreement suffix of the verb is absolutive, whereas in Proc-AC it is ergative: (5) a. warde wíš-i (Res-AC) flowers dry.perf-abs.3pl “The flowers have dried.” b. warde wǝš-lu (Proc-AC) flowers dry.perf-erg.3pl “The flowers dried.” (6) a. id-i nǝby-a (Res-AC) hand.f-my swell.perf-abs.3fs “My hand has swollen.” b. id-i nbé-la (Proc-AC) hand.f-my swell.perf-erg.3fs “My hand swelled.”

The examples in (a), where the subject-agreement suffix of the verb is absolutive, focus on the result state, whereas the examples in (b), with an ergative subjectagreement suffix, focus on the process.

 Edit Doron & Marie Labelle

The goal of the present paper is to propose an analysis of the alternation between Res-AC and Proc-AC which aims at a universal characterization of the distinction, therefore accounting not only for French or other Romance languages, but also for the ergative and non-ergative Semitic languages discussed above. 2.  The proposal It is proposed that the two distinct anticausative derivations in each of (1)–(6) result from the different distribution of the functional head v in the two derivations, where v is the higher head of a layered verb phrase vP-VP (Larson 1988; Hale & Keyser 2002). The hypothesis that v is crucially responsible for valency alternations is not new. However, since Kratzer (1996), v has also been associated with Voice. Here, we follow suggestions for dissociating the two functional heads, v and Voice Â�(Alexiadou et al. 2006; Doron 2003; Labelle 2008), each one having a specific role in the derivation. While v introduces an activity subevent and assigns the Agent role to its specifier, Voice determines the realization of the external argument. To account for Proc-AC, we assume that some verbal roots allow the merge of v in the active Voice without an external argument. Res-AC, on the other hand, may involve Voice but it does not involve v. In French, Res-AC is characterized by Â�non-active Voice, spelled-out as se. Non-active Voice blocks the merge of an external argument. We assume that, in the layered vP-VP structure, VP expresses a change of state subevent while v introduces an activity subevent. In addition, we adopt the distributed morphology framework in which roots combine with syntactic features to derive words (Halle & Marantz 1993, 1994; Marantz 2005, among Â�others). Embick (2009) proposes that verbal roots may in principle merge with v or with V. He argues that this is what allows the verb to focus either on the process or on the result. Adopting this perspective, we propose that, in the Res-AC derivation, the verbal root merges with V, specifying the final state. This gives rise to an interpretation focusing on the attainment of a final state by the verb’s argument. In the Proc-AC derivation, the root merges with v; it modifies the dynamic/activity subevent. As a consequence, the construction focuses on the process rather than on the result state. This proposal captures the meaning difference between the two constructions, while maintaining the hypothesis that the verb’s argument is an underlying object in both cases. It contrasts with the position of Labelle (1992), where the verb’s argument is projected in object position in (1a) and in subject Â�position in (1b).



An ergative analysis of French valency alternations 

The basic clause structure we assume is explained in more detail in Â�Section 3. Section 4 presents our analysis of the two anticausative derivations. Section 5 shows how the present proposal accounts for peculiarities of the two derivations. Sections 6 and 7 extend the analysis to Hebrew and to Neo-Aramaic. 3.  Active transitive clauses This section spells out our assumptions regarding the derivation of active transitive sentences. Following Larson (1988) and subsequent work, we assume that accomplishment verbs are built out of two separate categories V and v. Moreover, we assume an additional functional category Voice distinct from v Â�(Alexiadou et al. 2006; Doron 2003; Labelle 2008). The two functional categories v and Voice span independent dimensions. The v head introduces a dynamic subevent and assigns its thematic role to the external argument. Voice, which can be active or non-active, determines whether or not v’s argument is merged in the derivation; in active voice, it may be, in non-active voice, it is not. Nonactive voice is further subdivided into middle voice and passive voice. Here we do not discuss passive voice, and thus we use non-active as Â�synonymous to middle. An active transitive sentence with a change of state verb is derived as in (7), with vP dominating VoiceP, which dominates VP. The lower VP expresses a (change  of) state subevent, and the higher vP a process subevent. In (7), the root merges with V. Thus, it modifies the result state, and v’s argument is a Cause. The final clause is derived by raising the verb to T passing through the intermediate heads. (7) Pierre cassa la branche. Pierre break-pst the branch “Pierre broke the branch.” TP Pierre

T

vP Subj PierreCause

v

VoiceP Voice+act DP



VP V

la branche √cass

V

 Edit Doron & Marie Labelle

We follow Embick (2009) in assuming that in a vP-VP structure, the root may merge with v instead of merging with V. In that case, it modifies the process, and v’s argument is an Agent. Nevertheless, the object argument is the argument of a result state expressed by VP. (8) Pierre cassa la branche. “Pierre broke the branch.” TP Pierre

vP

T Subj PierreAgt

v

√cass

VoiceP v Voice+act

VP

DP

V

la branche

With this framework in mind, let us proceed with the description of the two �anticausative derivations that are the focus of this paper.

4.  Anticausative derivations In this section, we show how the framework adopted here derives the two Â�anticausative derivations, Res-AC and Proc-AC. We will first present Res-AC and then turn to Proc-AC. 4.1  The result anticausative derivation (Res-AC) In French, Res-AC, illustrated in (9), is characterized by middle voice, a type of [–Active] Voice realized by se in French.1 A [–Active] Voice head blocks the merge

.  The idea that se is a Voice head has been proposed in some form or another by a number of previous authors. For example, Juarros-Daussà (2000) generates Spanish se as the head of the functional projection introducing the external argument, Folli and Harley (2005) treat Italian si as the head of vP, and Labelle (2008) proposes that se is a Voice head in agentive reflexives, although the analysis in Labelle (2008) differs in some respects from the one Â�presented here. Doron and Rappaport Hovav (2009) suggest a similar analysis for a subclass of reflexive verbs.



An ergative analysis of French valency alternations 

of an external argument. In addition, v is not merged, and therefore no Agent role is assigned.2 (9) La branche se cassa. The branch se break-pst “The branch broke.” VoiceP Voice–act VP se DP V la branche √cass- V

In this construction, the root can only merge with V and modify the result state, since there is no v in the derivation. As a consequence, the sentence focuses on the attainment of a result state by the verb’s argument. 4.2  The process anticausative derivation (Proc-AC) The process anticausative derivation is illustrated in (10). With a restricted number of verbs, v may merge without requiring an external argument in its specifier (see e.g. Alexiadou et al. 2006; Doron 2003). This is possible because v introduces a dynamic subevent. With many verbal roots, the dynamic subevent implies an Agent. But some roots allow a dynamic subevent without an additional participant. In that case, v does not assign the Agent role. Because there is a dynamic subevent but no external argument, the verb’s argument is interpreted as undergoing the process autonomously.

.  We do not consider here possible derivations within the lower VP such as the ones discussed in Hale and Keyser (2002). These authors propose, for example, that a verb like rougir ‘redden’ in (i) has a derivation where the root roug(e) starts up under an adjectival head complement of V and incorporates into (conflates with) the V head : (i) a. Le mouchoir se rougit. The handkerchief se reddens ‘The handkerchief reddens’ (becomes red)

b.

[VoiceP [Voice–act se] [VP [DP le mouchoir] [V [V roug-it] [A roug-]]]]

Since this part of the derivation does not influence the interplay between Voice and v, we do not consider it further. It should be clear that it is compatible with the present perspective.

 Edit Doron & Marie Labelle

(10) La branche cassa. The branch break-pst “The branch broke” vP v √cass-

VoiceP v Voice+act

VP

DP

V

la branche

One difference between (9) and (10) is in the function of the root √cass(e). In (9), the root must modify V since there is no v. In (10), the requirement that each subevent be lexicalized in the stucture (e.g. Rappaport Hovav & Levin 2010) forces the root to modify v. The change-of-state subevent headed by V is lexicalized by the argument la branche ‘the branch’, whereas the dynamic sub-event is not lexicalized by an argument, and thus must be lexicalized by the root. The consequence of having the root modify v is that the verb focuses on the process subevent rather than on the result. 5.  Properties of the two derivations The two French anticausative derivations have distinct properties that find a natural account in the present framework. Subject properties: The Res-AC derivation is attested when the entity in subject position is not the type of entity that could undergo an internally-driven change (Bernard 1971; Burston 1979; Forest 1988; Labelle 1992; Rothemberg 1974): (11) a. Il vit le mouchoir se rougir soudain. He saw the handkerchief se redden suddenly b. *Il vit le mouchoir rougir soudain. He saw the handkerchief redden suddenly “He saw the handkerchief become suddenly red.”

By contrast, the Proc-AC derivation is observed when the subject undergoes an internally-driven action: (12) a. Jeanne rougit. Jeanne reddens b. *Jeanne se rougit. Jeanne se reddens “Jeanne blushes.”



An ergative analysis of French valency alternations 

The contrast is captured by our analysis. The Proc-AC derivation describes a dynamic process, because it contains a vP layer with the v head modified by the root. In contrast, the Res-AC derivation expresses the result-state subevent and it does not imply a dynamic process. Thus it is compatible with entities that reach a final state without actively undergoing a process leading to the final state. Compatibility with mettre quelque chose à ‘to put something on/up to’: The expression mettre quelque chose à describes the fact of creating the appropriate conditions for an autonomous process to take place (Zribi-Hertz 1987). Because it implies an internally-driven process, it is compatible with the Proc-AC construction, but not with the Res-AC one. (13) a. Le cuisinier a mis le sucre à caraméliser. The cook put.the.sugar.on.to caramelize b. *Le cuisinier a mis le sucre à se caraméliser. The cook put.the.sugar.on.to se caramelize “The cook put the sugar on to caramelise.”

Perfective complements: Perfective complements may license a Res-AC derivation. A verb like muer ‘to moult’ describes a dynamic process. Without complement, it is used with the Proc-AC construction: (14) a. La chenille a mué. The caterpillar aux moulted b. *La chenille s’ est muée. The caterpillar se aux moulted “The caterpillar moulted.”

However, if a complement describing the final state is added, the Res-AC construction becomes possible (Labelle 1992:â•›399; Zribi-Hertz, 1986:â•›334): (15) a. *La chenille a mué en un papillon aux The caterpillar aux moulted into a butterfly with couleurs châtoyantes. colours shining b. La chenille s’ est muée en un papillon aux The caterpillar se aux moulted into a butterfly with couleurs châtoyantes. colours shining

“The caterpillar turned into a butterfly with shining colours.”

In (15b), non-active Voice prevents the merge of an external argument. The root modifies V, and the VP focuses on the attainment of a result state. The PP complement of V describes the result state.

 Edit Doron & Marie Labelle

(16)

VoiceP Voice–act se

VP DP

V

la chenille V √mue

PP V en un papillon aux couleurs châtoyantes

In this perspective, the impossibility of (15a) with Proc-AC follows from the fact that in this structure the root modifies v, focusing on the process subevent. Hence the result-state subevent is de-emphasized (or inactive), and this is incompatible with modifying it with a PP describing the final state. 6.  Extension to Hebrew The present framework offers an account for Borer’s data in (3), repeated below as (17): (17) a. ha-praxim navlu li the.flowers wilted-act to.me “My flowers wilted.” b. ha-praximi navlu lahemi the.flowers wilted-act to.them “The flowers wilted (of their own accord).”

In both examples, the verb is in the active voice (act). According to the present approach, this means that the root nbl ‘wilt’ in the active voice allows two Â�anticausative derivations, one with v and one without v. The anticausative derivation without v is shown in (18). Since the root modifies V, the verb focuses on the result state: (18) ha-praxim navlu li (=17a) (Ress-AC) VoiceP Voice+act

VP

li to-me



VP DP

ha-praxim ÷nblthe-flowers

V V



An ergative analysis of French valency alternations 

The dative li ‘to me’ in (18) is adjoined to VP (Landau 1999), and is licensed by its interpretation as the possessor of a VP-internal argument (Borer & Grodzinsky 1986). Borer and Grodzinsky also discuss an alternative interpretation for a dative VP-adjunct, one where it is a reflexive anaphor bound by the specifier of v. In the analysis presented here, this is only possible in the Proc-AC derivation, which is the derivation that contains v. Though the noun-phrase the flowers originates as an argument of V, it may raise to the specifier of v and bind the reflexive dative adjunct: (19) ha-praximi navlu lahemi (=17b) (Proc-AC) vP v √nbl-

VoiceP v Voice+act

VP

lahem to-them



VP DP

V

ha-praxim the flowers

The same contrast is manifested for verbs in the middle-voice, as in (4) repeated in (20): (20) a. ha-lev hitraxev li mi-simxa the-heart swelled-mid to.me from-happiness “My heart swelled from happiness.” (Res-AC) b. ha-levi hitraxev loi ve-laxac al ha-re’ot the-heart swelled-mid to.it and-pressed on the-lungs “The heart swelled (of its own accord) and pressed the lungs.” (Proc-AC)

There exists in Hebrew a very small number of roots where the contrast between Proc-AC and Res-AC is accompanied by a contrast between active and middle voice. In such cases, just like in French, Proc-AC is in the active voice, whereas Res-AC is in the middle voice. For example, the root ‘dm ‘red’ derives both transitive and anticausative verbs in the active voice of the causative-template, as shown in (21a) and (21b) respectively. This root provides independent evidence that the derivation of unaccusative verbs may include the merge of v, since the causative template is a template which realizes a particular type of v (vCAUS, called γ in Doron 2003). The identity in template of (21a–b) means that both the transitive and anticausative derivations contain v. The anticausative derivation in (21b) is

 Edit Doron & Marie Labelle

thus expected to be Proc-AC, as it includes v. Indeed, it allows a reflexive dative adjunct (lahemi, coindexed with the subject): (21) a. ha-šemeš he’edima et ha-tapuxim the-sun reddened-caus acc the-apples “The sun reddened the apples.” b. ha-tapuximi he’edimu lahemi b-a-šemeš the-apples reddened-caus to.them in-the-sun “The apples reddened (of their own accord) in the sun.”

On the other hand, the middle-voice verb derived from the same root with the help of the middle template (called m in Doron 2003), only allows a possessive dative typical of result anticausatives, and does not allows a reflexive dative Â�pronoun (see the contrast between li in (22a) and lahem in (22b)): (22) a. ha-tapuxim hit’admu li b-a-šemeš the-apples reddened-mid to.me in-the-sun “My apples reddened in the sun.” b. ??ha-tapuximi hit’admu lahemi b-a-šemeš the-apples reddened-mid to.them in-the-sun “The apples reddened (of their own accord) in the sun.”

A similar contrast is found with the root ybš ‘dry’.3 The active voice construction in (23) is Proc-AC. As predicted, it allows a dative reflexive pronoun (23a), but not a possessive dative (23b), which the middle voice Res-AC construction in (24) allows. (23) a. ha-kvisai yavša lai b-a-šemeš the-laundry dried-act to.it in-the-sun “The laundry dried (of its own accord) in the sun.” b. ??ha-kvisai yavša li b-a-šemeš the-laundry dried-act to,me in-the-sun “My laundry dried in the sun.” (24) ha-kvisai hityabša li b-a-šemeš the-laundry dried-mid to.me in-the-sun “My laundry dried in the sun.”

.  Fort this root, the active voice anticausative verb is not derived in the causative template but in the so-called simple template.



An ergative analysis of French valency alternations 

7.  Extension to ergative languages In this section, we show how our analysis can be extended to ergative languages displaying a contrast between an anticausative focusing on the event and one focusing on the result state, as illustrated in (5)–(6) above. Ergative languages differ as to the case assigned to subjects of unaccusative verbs (Dixon 1979, 1994). In Split-S languages, only transitive and unergative verbs have ergative subjects; in Extended-Erg languages, all subjects are marked with ergative Case, even subjects of unaccusative verbs. To account for the difference, Doron & Khan (in press) assume that ergative Case is assigned by v, in accordance with many analyses of ergativity (Mahajan 1989; Woolford 1997; Legate 2008; Aldridge 2008), and they propose that, in Split-S languages, v is not present in the derivation of unaccusative verbs; thus, unaccusative subjects are assigned absolutive Case by T. By contrast, in Extended-Erg languages, v is obligatorily merged, even when it does not introduce an external argument. The difference is illustrated below with dialects of Neo-Aramaic. In Neo-Aramaic, ergative alignment appears only in the perfective aspect, and it is expressed by an agreement suffix on the verb. Sentence-final suffixes, related to the presence of v, mark ergative subject agreement in the perfective and object agreement in the imperfective, while absolutive T-suffixes mark object agreement in the perfective and subject agreement in the imperfective: (25) Transitive derivation (Sanandaj) ʾană pyal-ăkĕ tÉŽwr-ă-li I glass.f-the break.perf-abs.3fs-erg.1s “I broke the glass.” TP C1Erg

TP TAbs

vP ’aná vErg

VP

DP

V

pyal-ăké

t wre



-á

vP

DP

-li

For Split-S dialects of Neo-Aramaic, such as Sulemaniyya (Khan 2004) and Sanandaj (Khan 2009), Doron & Khan (in press) propose that v is not merged unless it introduces an external argument. Accordingly, anticausative verbs have

 Edit Doron & Marie Labelle

absolutive rather than ergative subject agreement morphology. Compare (26) with (25): (26) Anticausative derivation in Split-S dialect (Sanandaj) pyal-ăke twĭr-a glass.f-the break.perf-abs.3fs “The glass broke.” TP VP

TAbs

DP

-a

V

pyal-ăké

twίr-

In Extended-Erg Neo-Aramaic dialects, such as Arbel (Khan 1999), Qaraqosh (Khan 2002), and Barwar (Khan 2008a), there is no derivation without v. Since v is always merged, unaccusative subjects are marked as ergative: (27) Anticausative derivation in an Extended-Erg dialect (Arbel) pyal-ăkĕ twÉŽ́r-ra glass.f-the break.perf-erg.3fs “The glass broke.” TP TP T

vP vErg

C1Erg -la

VP DP

V Və

pyal-ăké twə r

A third type of ergative language – called Dynamic-Stative by Doron & Khan – combines properties of Split-S and Extended-Ergative dialects. Dynamic-Stative dialects, like the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Urmi (Khan 2008b) illustrated in (5–6) and below, allow the two types of anticausative derivations, with a difference in interpretation: as predicted, the v-less anticausative derivation focuses on the result state, whereas the anticausative derivation with v focuses on the process. (28) Transitive derivation (J Urmi) ana pyală tÉŽwr-ă-li I glass.f break.perf-abs.3fs-erg.1s “I broke the glass.”



An ergative analysis of French valency alternations 

(29) Two anticausative derivations in a Dynamic-Stative dialect (J Urmi) a. pyala twĭr-a (Res-AC) glass.f break.perf-abs.3fs “The glass has broken.” b. pyala twÉŽ́r-ra (Proc-AC) glass.f break.perf-erg.3fs “The glass broke.”

We have thus closed the circle, and shown that the two types of anticausative derivations discussed for French surface in typologically distinct languages, and that in every case the difference between Proc-AC and Res-AC is linked to the presence of v. 8.  Conclusion French, Hebrew and some dialects of Neo Aramaic exihibit two anticausative constructions, one focusing on the result, and the other one on the process. We argued that in every case, the process interpretation is related to the presence of a v head without an external argument in its specifier, while the result interpretation obtains when there is no v in the derivation. We believe that strong support for the present approach to anticausatives comes from the fact that it extends beyond Romance languages to typologically very different languages.

References Aldridge, Edith. 2008. “Generative Approaches to Ergativity.” Language and Linguistics Â�Compass: Syntax and Morphology 2.5: 966–995. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Florian Schäfer. 2006. “The Properties of Â�Anticausatives Crosslinguistically.” Phases of Interpretation ed. by Mara Frascarelli, Â�187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bernard, Georges. 1971. La transitivité en français contemporain. Ph.D. Dissertation, Université de Rennes, France. Borer, Hagit. 1994. “The Projections of Arguments.” Functional Projections (UMass Occasional Papers in Linguistics #17) ed. by Elena Benedicto & Jeffery Runner, 19–47. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Borer, Hagit & Yosef Grodzinsky. 1986. “Syntactic Cliticization and Lexical Cliticization: The Case of Hebrew Dative Clitics.” Syntax and Semantics 19, ed. by Hagit Borer, 175–217. New York: Academic Press. Burston, Jack L. 1979. “The Pronominal Verb Construction in French: An Argument against the Fortuitous Homonomy Hypothesis.” Lingua 48.147–176. Dixon, Robert M.W. 1979. “Ergativity.” Language 55:1.59–138.

 Edit Doron & Marie Labelle Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2006. “The SE-Anaphor and its Role in Argument Realization.” The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ed. by Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk, vol. 4. 118–179. Oxford: Blackwell. Doron, Edit. 2003. “Agency and Voice: The Semantics of the Semitic templates.” Natural Â�Language Semantics 11.1:1–67. Doron, Edit & Geoffrey Khan. In press. “The Origins of Morphological Ergativity: Evidence from Neo-Aramaic.” Lingua. Doron, Edit & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2009. “A Unified Approach to Reflexivization in Semitic and Romance.” Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 1.75–105. Embick, David. 2009. “Roots and States.” Unpub. Handout of lecture presented at the Root Bound workshop, University of Southern California, February 20–21, 2009. Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2005. “Consuming Results in Italian & English: Flavours of v.” Aspectual Inquiries ed. by Roumyana Slabakova & Paula Kempchinsky, 1–25. Dordrecht :Kluwer. Forest, Robert. 1988. “Sémantisme entéléchique et affinité descriptive: pour une réanalyse des verbes symétriques ou neutres du français.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 83.137–162. Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.” The View from Building 20 ed. by Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1994. “Some Key Features of Distributed Morphology.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21.275–288. Juarros-Daussà, Eva. 2000. “The Syntactic Operator se in Spanish: A Contemporary Account.” Fourth Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Indiana University, Bloomington, November 17th–19th. Kayne, Richard S. 2009. “A Note on Auxiliary Alternations and Silent Causation.” Le français d’un continent à l’autre. Mélanges offerts à Yves Charles Morin ed. by Luc Baronian & France Martineau, 211–235. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1994. “Middle Voice, Transitivity and the Elaboration of Events.” Voice: Form and Function ed. by Barbara Fox & Paul J. Hopper, 179–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Khan, Geoffrey. 1999. A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Leiden: Brill. Khan, Geoffrey. 2002. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Leiden: Brill. Khan, Geoffrey. 2004. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sulemaniyya and Halabja. Leiden: Brill. Khan, Geoffrey. 2007. “Ergativity in the North Eastern Neo-aramaic Dialects.” Studies in Semitic and General Linguistics in Honor of Gideon Goldenberg ed. by Tali Bar & Eran Cohen. Â�Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Khan, Geoffrey. 2008a. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. Leiden: Brill. Khan, Geoffrey. 2008b. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmi. Piscataway: Gorgias Press. Khan, Geoffrey. 2009. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sanandaj. Piscataway: Gorgias Press. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. “Severing the External Argument from its Verb.” Phrase Structure and the Lexicon ed. by Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Labelle, Marie. 1992. “Change of State and Valency.” Journal of Linguistics 28.375–414.



An ergative analysis of French valency alternations 

Labelle, Marie. 2008. “The French Reflexive and Reciprocal se.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(4):833–876. Lagae, Véronique. (1990). “Les caracteristiques aspectuelles de la construction réflexive ergative.” Travaux de Linguistique 20.23–42. Landau, Idan. 1999. “Possessor Raising and the Structure of VP.” Lingua 107.1–37. Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19.335–392. Legate, Julie A. 2008. “Morphological and Abstract Case.” Linguistic Inquiry 39.1.55–101. Mahajan, Anoop. 1989. “Agreement and Agreement Projections.” Functional Heads and Clause Structure, ed. by Itziar Laka & Anoop Mahajan (=MIT Working papers in Linguistics 10), 217–252. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Marantz, Alec. 2005. “Objects out of the Lexicon: Objects as Events.” Unpub. Ms. available at http://openpdf.com/ebook/marantz-273-pdf.html (accessed May 4th, 2010). Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2010. “Reflections on Manner/Result Complementarity.” Syntax, Lexicon and Event Structure ed. by Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel, 21–38. Oxford University Press. Rothemberg, Mira. 1974. Les verbes à la fois transitifs et intransitifs en français contemporain. Paris: Mouton. Woolford, Ellen. 1997. “Four-way Case Systems: Ergative, Nominative, Objective and Accusative.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15.181–227. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1986. “Relations anaphoriques en français: esquisse d’une grammaire générative raisonnée de la réflexivité et de l’ellipse structurale.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Université de Paris VIII. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1987. “La réflexivité ergative en français moderne.” Le Français Moderne 55.23–54.

Peninsular Spanish pre-nominal possessives in ellipsis contexts A Phase-based account* Luis Sáez

Universidad Complutense de Madrid Peninsular Spanish pre-nominal possessives and definite articles contrast in ellipsis environments (los/*nuestros ___ rojos “the/our red ones”), yet all these words are unstressed and, therefore, should violate what I call the Stress Condition on Remnants (ellipsis remnants must be stressed). I claim articles, being externally merged in D, escape such condition as it only affects the most recently spelled-out NP-Phase Complement (Nissenbaum 2000) containing the ellipsis site; instead, pre-nominal possessives raise from NP to D, thus leaving an offending unstressed copy in NP. Strikingly, the combined presence of a post-nominal modifier and a numeral makes pre-nominal possessives compatible with ellipsis (nuestros seis ___ rojos “our six red ones”). A Kayne 1994-style relative-clause configuration for nominal modifiers explains this: the post-nominal modifier is the predicate of a subject DP-Phase (introduced by the numeral) containing the ellipsis site and excluding the possessive, which thus complies with the Stress Condition on Remnants.

1.  Introduction Peninsular Spanish has pre-nominal and post-nominal possessive adjectives; the former (PreN-PAs) are unstressed and agree with nouns in gender and/or number (cf. (1a); formal treatment forms are omitted); the latter (PostN-PAs) are

*╇ For helpful comments on this paper, I wish to thank Ignacio Bosque, Isabel Pérez Jiménez, Carlos Piera, and the audience of the 40th Annual Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages; of course, all errors are my own. Two anonymous reviewers offered criticism which was decisive for improvement of the text. This work has been financed by the Servicio de Investigación of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid as a result of the author’s taking part of the Research Group “Relations between Lexicon and Syntax in Spanish” (Departamento de Lengua Española, Facultad de Filología).

 Luis Sáez

stressed and agree with nouns both in gender and number (cf. (1b); again, formal treatment forms are omitted): (1) a. mi/tu/su(-s) nuestr-o/a(-s) my/your.sg/his,her,their(.pl) our-m/f(.pl) vuestr-o/a(-s) your.pl-m/f(.pl) b. mí-o/a(-s) nuestr-o/a(-s) my-m/f(.pl) our-m/f(.pl) tuy-o/a(-s) vuestr-o/a(-s) your.sg-m/f(.pl) your.pl-m/f(.pl) suy-o/a(-s) his,her,their-m/f(.pl)

PreN-PAs have an odd distributional pattern in nominal ellipsis contexts. For instance, the 1st person PreN-PA nuestros “our” preceding the noun libros “books” in the second coordinate in (2) is incompatible with nominal ellipsis (Picallo & Rigau 1999): (2) No compraron vuestros libros de física, sino not bought-3-pl your-m.pl books of physics, but nuestros *(libros) de química. our-m.pl books of chemistry “They did not buy your books of physics, but our books of chemistry.”

This incompatibility does not arise with other determiners. For instance, nominal ellipsis can take place in (3), where nuestros has been replaced by los, one of the four Spanish definite article forms (introduced in (4)): (3) sino los (libros) de química. but the-m.pl books of chemistry “… but the books of chemistry.”

(4) Spanish definite article forms (unstressed and agreeing in gender and number):

el l–a l-o-s l-a-s the-m.sg the-f.sg the-m.pl the-f.pl

The contrast between (2) and (3) is unexpected, as nuestros complies with the usual requirements otherwise met by definite articles for nominal-ellipsis licensing (cf. Torrego 1987). General ellipsis licensing requirements were originally formulated by Lobeck (1995) and are roughly stated here in (5) with the label Strong Agreement Condition; they properly account for the contrast between (3), where los bears strong agreement (as detailed in (4)), and the underlined sequence in (6), where the determiners qué/vaya “what” in D lack gender/number features:



Spanish pre-nominal possessives in ellipsis contexts 

(5) Strong Agreement Condition: Ellipsis must be licensed by a. a governing head… b. …with strong agreement. (6) ¡Qué libros de física me regalaron! what books of physics me-cl gave-3-pl ¡Y vaya/qué *(libros) de química! and what books of chemistry “What books of physics they gave me! And what books of chemistry!”

Nuestros should be a proper ellipsis licenser. On the one hand, it has strong agreement (gender and number morphemes; cf. (1a)); on the other hand, it is a governing head too if the hypothesis is assumed that PreN-PAs are D-heads. Such hypothesis explains the fact that PreN-PAs cannot co-occur with definite articles (cf. (7)); as a consequence, it remains relatively standard among syntacticians, although it is not the only one available in the literature (according to Haspelmath 1999, for instance, article-possessor complementarity is economically motivated: since possessed NPs are likely to be definite, definite articles become redundant): (7) (*los) nuestros libros de química (the) our books of chemistry

Given that nuestros meets all the properties of an ellipsis licenser, I conclude that the Strong Agreement Condition cannot explain the contrast between PreN-PAs and definite articles in ellipsis contexts. An attempt to account for such contrast might rely on the fact that PreN-PAs, being unstressed, are clitics in need of a host for cliticization; this would force the presence of an overt noun to their right. However, this move would only increase the unexpectedness of the contrast at issue; the reason is that, although it is true that los and nuestros (both unstressed clitics) require a DP-internal cliticization host and, as a result, conflict with full (remnant-free) NP-ellipsis (see (8)), the grammaticality of (3) clearly shows that a cliticization host (here the remnant de química) should be available for clitic determiners in partial NP-ellipsis contexts. (8) Compraron los/nuestros *(libros). bought-3-pl the/our (books).

Moreover, inserting a cardinal numeral seis “six” in (8) as a closest cliticization host for los/nuestros yields grammatical results only with los (see the contrast in (9)), which again is an unexpected fact: (9) a. compraron nuestros seis *(libros). b. compraron los seis (libros). bought-3-pl our/the six books

 Luis Sáez

A further attempt to account for the incompatibility of PreN-PAs with ellipsis might rely on semantic facts: ellipsis contexts are contrastive, and that would fit better a post-nominal position for nuestros in (1), where it contrasts with vuestros. Indeed, this proposal would correctly predict the grammaticality of (10), with a stressed PostN-PA nuestros (co-occurring with los, since it is not in D); however, it would not explain the ungrammaticality of (11), where there is no possessive contrast blocking the presence of the unstressed PreN-PA: (10) sino los ____ nuestros de química. but the our of chemistry (11) No compraron libros de física, sino not bought-3-pl books of physics, but *nuestros ____ de química. our-m.pl of chemistry “They did not buy books of physics, but our books of chemistry.”

Moreover, although Spanish demonstratives (introduced in (12)) can optionally be pre- or post-nominal (cf. (13)), the fact that ellipsis forces them to be prenominal even in contrastive contexts like (14) casts doubts on a semantic condition banning pre-nominal positioning in ellipsis contexts: (12) Spanish Demonstratives (stressed and agreeing with the noun in gender and number): este est-a this-m this-f aquel, ese aquell-a, es-a that-m that-f

est-o/a–s these-m/f.pl aquell-o/a–s, es-o/a–s those-m/f.pl

(13) a. Est-o-s libros these-m.pl books b. L-o-s libros est-o-s the-m.pl books these-m.pl (14) No compraron est-o-s libros de física sino not bought-3-pl these-m.pl books of physics but a. los *(libros) aquell-o-s de química. the ╛╛╛╛╛╛books those-m.pl of chemistry b. aquell-o-s (libros) de química. those-m.pl books of chemistry “They did not buy these books of physics, but those of chemistry.”

In order to explain the striking contrast between PreN-PAs and definite articles in nominal ellipsis contexts, I will offer in Section 2 a Phase-based phonological account relying on the assumption that articles are externally merged in D (as



Spanish pre-nominal possessives in ellipsis contexts 

DP-Phase head), while PreN-PAs are externally merged in the Phase-Complement of D (i.e. they are part of NP). Once an NP containing an ellipsis site is transferred to PHON, any PreN-PA copy in NP will be ruled out by a phonological condition stating that NP-mates of an ellipsis site must be stressed. In Section 3, certain occurrences of PreN-PAs resembling NP-mates of an ellipsis site are presented; these cases simultaneously exhibit a numeral and what I interpret as a modifier. I conclude that the modifier is actually the predicate of a reduced relative clause (Kayne 1994) whose subject is a null headed DP licensed by the numeral and both including the NP-internal ellipsis site and excluding the PreN-PA copy; as a consequence, the ellipsis site and the PreN-PA are not NP-mates in these constructions. In Section 4 I extend the analysis to other data. Section 5 concludes the paper. 2.  A preliminary account 2.1  A phonological condition on ellipsis remnants As just advanced, in order to underpin my account of the contrast between PreNPAs and definite articles in Peninsular Spanish ellipsis contexts I will first formulate the following phonological condition, which I will call the Stress Condition on Remnants: (15) Stress Condition on Remnants: Every ellipsis remnant must bear stress.

This condition is empirically justified. The clausal coordination with Gapping (V-Ellipsis) in (16a) is grammatical because the three (underlined) remnants in the gapped coordinate are stressed; instead, the one in (16b) is ruled out as the pronominal clitic remnant nos “to us” is unstressed:1 (16) a. Ella le compró a él un libro, she him-cl bought to him a book y él ___ a nosotros un lápiz. and he to us a pencil

.  Peninsular Spanish has a set of stressed personal pronouns whose nominative forms are the following (I omit the reflexive ones): yo “I”, tú “you-sg”, él “he”, ella “she”, ellos “they-m”, ellas “they-f”, ello “it”, nosotr-o/as “we-m/f”, vosotr-o/as “you.pl-m/f”. Moreover, yo/tú have a corresponding oblique form mí/ti used after prepositions. The accusative and/or dative forms corresponding to the nominative ones are clitics (that is, they are neutrally unstressed) and necessarily precede the verb in inflected environments: me “me-acc,dat”, te “you.sgacc,dat”, le “him-acc”, le “him,her-dat”, la “her-acc”, lo “him,it-acc”, l–o/as “they-m/f”, os “you-pl. acc,dat” and, finally, nos “us-acc,dat”, which is the form appearing in (16b).

 Luis Sáez

b. *Ella le compró un libro, y él nos ___ un lápiz. and he us-cl a pencil

“She bought him a book, and he bought us a pencil.”

Likewise, the ungrammaticality/grammaticality of ellipsis in (2)/(10) (repeated below for convenience) results from the fact that nuestros is unstressed in (2) but stressed in (10): (2) nuestros *(libros) de química. our-m.pl ╛╛╛╛╛╛books of chemistry (10) los (libros) nuestros de química the-m.pl our -m.pl of chemistry “our books of chemistry”

It is worth pointing out that the relevant stress referred to in the Stress Condition on Remnants is the default/neutral stress (Kratzer & Selkirk 2007), and not the one derived from semantic/pragmatic factors like contrastive focus. The reason is that, although nuestros in (17) is stressed due to contrastive focus, the sentence is still ungrammatical, thus showing that the Stress Condition on Remnants is blind to the contrast-related F-feature (Jackendoff 1972):2 (17) *No compraron VUESTROS libros de física, not bought-3-pl your-m.pl books of physics, sino NUESTROS. but our “They did not buy YOUR books of physics, but OURS.”

2.2  The actual scope of the Stress Condition on Remnants Spanish articles are unstressed; however, as already illustrated in (3), (9b) and (10), they may co-occur with nominal ellipsis. A parallel situation is found in gapped embedded clausal coordinates like the one in (18), which are grammatical even if they are introduced by an unstressed complementizer que “that” (Brucart 1999):

.  Likewise, (16b) would still be ruled out even after providing the neutrally unstressed clitic nos with a non-neutral stress.



Spanish pre-nominal possessives in ellipsis contexts 

(18) Juan dijo que Luis compró libros y Juan said that Luis bought books and que Ana (compró) lápices. that Ana bought pencils “Juan said that Luis bought books and Ana bought pencils.”

All these facts can be captured by a single generalization. Since articles are in D and complementizers are in C, and D and C have commonly been suggested to be Phase heads in the literature (Chomsky 2001, 2004, 2008; cf. also Matushansky 2005 for discussion), I claim that the facts in (3), (9b), (10) and (18) can be derived from the statement in (19):3 (19) Phase heads escape the Stress Condition on Remnants.

In turn, (19) can be theoretically derived from Nissenbaum’s (2000) proposal according to which it is not Phases, but rather Phase Complements (PHCs) that constitute the actual units of syntactic computation (NP for the DP-Phase; TP for the CP-Phase), that is, the chunks of structure cyclically spelled out (=transferred to PHON) in order to reduce computational complexity (cf. also Chomsky 2004). As is well-known, such reduction is obtained because a unit transferred to PHON is not longer accessible to the syntactic component (the Phase Impenetrability Condition; cf. Chomsky 2001, 2004). I will take benefit of this standard theoretical background by restricting the scope of the Stress Condition on Remnants in the following way: (20) The scope of the Stress Condition on Remnants is the PHC most recently transferred to PHON.

2.3  A possessive copy in the Phase Complement transferred to PHON I have assumed that PreN-PAs are in D. However, since the scope of the Stress Condition on Remnants clearly excludes D (the unit most recently transferred to PHON is merely the NP-PHC), this standard assumption seems to wrongly predict .  A reviewer asks whether there is evidence that the correct generalization must be the statement in (19) rather than one like “functional heads escape the Stress Condition on Remnants”. In order to find such evidence, I should first pick an uncontroversial functional head which may be both unstressed and non-phasal, and also unable to escape the Stress Condition on Remnants. Later below I will consider PreN-PAs to actually be unstressed, non-phasal functional heads unable to escape the Stress Condition on Remnants; however, they are not “uncontroversial” functional heads (many syntacticians consider PreN-PAs and pronominal clitics to be maximal projections located in Spec-positions). By now, I must leave the reviewer’s interesting remark for further research.

 Luis Sáez

that PreN-PAs should be compatible with nominal ellipsis. I will avoid this prediction by making a further standard assumption according to which PreN-PAs move to D from a lower position inside the NP-PHC (Picallo 1994; Cardinaletti 1998). For concreteness, I assume the representation in (21) (a much simplified version of Picallo’s (1994) proposal) for the external merge of nuestros in (2) (hereafter, deleted copies are in bold type): (21) [DP [D nuestros i] [GeP nuestros i [NP [N′ (libros) ] ] ] ]

In (21), the interpretation of nuestros as a possessor (the highest role in the nominal thematic hierarchy) derives from its base-generation in the Spec of a Genitive Phrase (GeP). Notice that, under this configuration, the NP-PHCs of (2) and (9a) now contain a copy of nuestros clearly violating the Stress Condition on Remnants (assuming, of course, that such condition must apply before copy deletion takes place at PF; cf. Nunes 2004). 3.  Further facts leading to a more refined proposal Although the distributional pattern of Peninsular Spanish PreN-PAs seems to have been properly approached thus far, it is actually more complex. Let us particularly focus on the contrast between (2) (repeated below along with (3)) and (22), which exhibits a cardinal numeral seis “six”: (2) …sino nuestros

*(libros) de química.

(3) …sino los (libros) de química. (22) …sino nuestros seis (libros) de química. ╛╛╛╛╛╛╛╛but

our

six books

of chemistry

In (22), the ellipsis site and the unstressed possessive copy seem to be PHCmates (as in (2) and (9a)); nevertheless, this example is grammatical, apparently due not just to the presence of the numeral (recall the ungrammatical (9a)), but rather to the combined presence of the numeral and the PP nominal modifier de química. A side conclusion we obtain from the contrast between (2) and (22) is that the ungrammaticality of (2) is unrelated to the familiar one triggered by nonrestrictive pre-nominal adjectives and illustrated in (23): (23) *Conozco a la inteligente madre de Ana, know-1-sg to the intelligent mother of Ana y a las bellas __ de Luis y de Juan. and to the beautiful __ of Luis and of Juan “I know A.’s intelligent mother and L.’ and J.’s beautiful ones.”



Spanish pre-nominal possessives in ellipsis contexts 

The reason is that the combined presence of a numeral and a post-nominal PP does not yield a grammatical example in the latter cases, as shown in (24) (where the numeral and the relevant PP are underlined): (24) …y a las dos bellas *(madres) de L. y de J. ╛╛╛╛╛╛╛and to the two beautiful ╛╛╛╛╛╛mothers of L. and of J. “…and the two beautiful mothers of L. and J.”

The fact that the combination of the numeral seis and the PP nominal modifier de química yields grammaticality in (22) suggests that such combination enables a configuration where a PHC includes the ellipsis site and excludes any PreN-PA copies, so the latter escape the Stress Condition on Remnants in these particular cases. I claim that Kayne’s (1994) proposal for nominal modifiers provides the tools for building a proper configuration (which I will call the Relative-Clause Configuration) where a PreN-PA and the ellipsis site are not PHC-mates. For Kayne, a DP like the one in (25a) would roughly have the configuration in (25b) (irrelevantly different from Kayne’s for present purposes); in this configuration, the DP seis libros is the subject of a reduced relative 4 and the PP nominal modifier de química is understood as a predicate identical to the one exhibited by the fully grammatical non-reduced relative (26a), represented in (26b) (notice that I in (25b) corresponds to the copular verb in (26b)): (25) a. Los seis libros de química the six books of chemistry b. [DP1 [D1 los] [CP [DP2 seis libros]i [C′ C [IP [DP2 seis libros]i [I′ I [pp

de química ]]]]]]

(26) a. Los seis libros que son de química the six books that are of chemistry “The six books that are books about chemistry” b. [DP1 [D1 los] [CP [DP2 seis libros]i [C′ [C que] [IP [DP2 seis libros]i [I′ [I son][PP de química]]]]]]

.  In spite of their being fully clausal, these relatives are referred to as ‘reduced relatives’ in Kayne (1994) because they lack any overt complementizer or inflected verb.

 Luis Sáez

I propose that (22) has the configuration in (27), where, as in Kayne (1994), the PP nominal modifier de química is understood as a predicate internal to a reduced relative: (27)

DP1 CP

D1

C′ C

GeP Ge:CL:nuestros

IP I′

DP2 D2

QP Q : seis

NP:libros

I

PP de química

DP1 in (27) parallels DP1 in (25b) except for the presence of a PreN-PA nuestros. Nuestros is represented as a clitic ( CL ), since I assume Cardinaletti’s (1998) proposal that unstressed PreN-PAs are clitics (in Cardinaletti and Starke’s (1999) sense). Moreover, in the spirit of Sportiche (1996), I propose that the clitic projects its own clausal functional projection; however, I also assume Manzini and Savoia’s (2004) reinterpretation of such proposal according to which clitic functional projections must be characterized in terms of interpretable features, rather than Case. Although I will keep using Picallo’s (1994) label GeP, already used in the representation in (21),5 I propose that the interpretable feature for the clitic functional projection in (27) is Possessor ; this feature allows the clitic to obtain its interpretation as a possessor in (27) (the DP2-external position of GeP is semantically unproblematic; as observed by Picallo (1994), possessors are not semantically selected by nouns hence they do not require being generated inside NP). As for the hierarchical position of GeP, I do not have enough evidence yet for its location between C and IP (a location between I and PP would be conceivable), but the important

.  Of course, GeP in (21) should now be interpreted as a Possessor Phrase as well; likewise, as in (27), nuestros should also be the head of GeP in (21), rather than its specifier.



Spanish pre-nominal possessives in ellipsis contexts 

thing is that the PreN-PA must eventually occupy D1 upon cyclic Cl-(to-I?)-to-Cto-D1 movement, which explains that no definite article shows up in (22). According to (27), QP is a PHC as it is the complement of D2, a Phase-head (recall the above-mentioned remark by Chomsky (2008) that DPs are Phases, which is assumed by several authors; cf. also Svenonius 2004; Bošković 2005). Then, since it includes the ellipsis site and excludes the external merge position of nuestros, the copies of nuestros escape the Stress Condition on Remnants in (27), which explains the grammaticality of (22). However, for this account to work, it is essential to fully justify the presence of DP2 in (25b), (26b) and (27). Interestingly, several proposals in the literature hold that relative-clause heads/antecedents are DPs (Borsley 1997; Bianchi 2000); therefore, I claim that reduced-relative heads/antecedents can be DPs too. This is further supported by Stowell’s (1989) and Longobardi’s (1994) proposals holding that nominal arguments are DPs; being a reduced-relative subject, seis libros in (27) is an argument too. Moreover, if Qualitative Binominal NPs like the one in (28a,b) are analyzed as reduced clauses (Español-Echevarría 1998; den Dikken 2006) where “idiot”/ idiota is the predicate of an inner subject “a doctor”/tu doctor, then the presence of the indefinite article (“a”)/definite PreN-PA (tu) clearly shows that these constructions exhibit an inner subject (underlined) with a DP layer; as a consequence, it is reasonable to conclude that the inner subject in reduced clauses like the one in (22) can be a DP too: (28) a. That idiot of a doctor said this. b. El idiota de tu doctor dijo esto. the idiot of your doctor said this

In addition, according to Kayne (2008), the duplication of the article le in French superlatives like (29) shows that there is a DP-inner subject headed by le (cf. the derivation in (30)): (29) le livre le plus court the book the most short “The shortest book” (30) a. C [SC [le livre] [plus court]] → preposing of predicate b. [plus court]i C [SC [le livre] ti ] → merger of higher D c. le [[plus court]i C [SC [le livre] ti ]] → SC preposing d. [SC [le livre] ti ]j le [[plus court]i C tj ]

(31) is the Spanish correlate of (29) (cf. the derivation in (32)), where the higher D is null and the article heading the DP-inner subject is overt (as in Kayne’s Italian examples); this shows that the inner subject of the small clause in (31)

 Luis Sáez

is a DP, which further supports the claim that the inner subject in (22) can be a DP too: (31) El libro más corto the book most short “The shortest book” (32) a. C [SC [el libro] [más corto]] → preposing of predicate b. [más corto]i C [SC [el libro] ti ] → merger of higher D c. ϕ [[más corto]i C [SC [el libro] ti ]] → SC preposing d. [SC [el libro] ti ]j ϕ [[más corto]i C tj ]

As DPs are commonly headed by determiners and the only overt evidence for an inner subject in (22) is a numeral (seis), the inner subject is represented in (27) as a null-headed DP dominating a numeral-headed QP. As shown by the contrast between libros and dos libros in (33), null headed DP-layers are not freely available in Spanish and must be licensed by an overt QP-layer; whether licensing takes place through Q-to-D movement or otherwise is not an issue I will deal with here (see Section 4 for further discussion), since the important thing is that QP is available in (22)/(27): (33) Dices que *(dos) libros te gustaron. say-2-sg that two books you-cl.dat pleased-3-pl “You say that you liked two books.”

Finally, it is possible that the extraction facts in (34) might be taken to cast doubts on the null DP-layer hypothesis: (34) a. ¿Sabes de quién leyó dos libros? know-2-sg of whom read-pst.3-sg two books b. *¿Sabes de quién leyó esos/los libros? know-2-sg of whom read-pst.3-sg those/the books “Do you know whom (s)he read two/*those/*the books of?”

(34a) shows that arguments introduced by numerals (i.e. null-headed DPs containing QPs; dos libros in (34a)) do not block extraction of a wh-constituent (de quién) out of them, which contrasts with the DP esos/los libros in (34b), which is introduced by an article/demonstrative. This might be taken as a piece of evidence that dos libros is not a DP/Phase, since it seems to be transparent for extraction. However, it is quite dubious that the contrast in (34) corresponds to a contrast in Phase-status. Matushansky (2005) says, for instance, that it most probably derives from semantic factors (specific/existence-presupposing DPs might be islands for extraction); this is suggested by (35), where a comparative superlative



Spanish pre-nominal possessives in ellipsis contexts 

DP (underlined) exhibiting a non-specific definite article is clearly transparent for extraction: (35) ¿De quién leíste los mejores libros? of whom read-pst-2.sg the best books “Whom did you read the best books of?”

(35) shows that DP-Phases, like other Phases, have an escape-hatch for whextraction, which should also be the case for the argument dos libros in (34a) if it is a DP-Phase.6

4.  A  n extension of the Relative-Clause Configuration analysis to other data I have just introduced the Relative Clause Configuration in (27) in order to explain the grammaticality of (22). Now I will show how this proposal fares with other data, some of them already introduced in the text. Let us start with the ungrammatical example in (2), repeated here for convenience: (2) …nuestros *(libros) de química. our-m.pl books of chemistry “…our books of chemistry”

One of the available relative-clause configurations for (2) is represented in (36): (36) [DP1 [GeP

[D1 nuestros i][CP [DP2 D2 [Ge nuestros ]i [IP [DP2 D2

[NP (libros)]]j [C′ C [NP (libros)]]j [I′ I [PP de química]]]]]]]

The problem with (36) is that the ellipsis site does not comply with the Strong Agreement Condition, since its governing head D2 is null and, as a consequence, lacks strong agreement (moreover, there is no inner QP-layer in (36) licensing D2; recall the remarks concerning (33)). On the other hand, nuestros, which does have strong agreement, is excluded by DP2, so it cannot be a proper licensing head for the ellipsis site either.

.  An anonymous reviewer poses the question why D2 should be null in (27). This is an important question I will have to pursue in future work; by now, I can only say this is a question that extends to other Spanish constructions too, like the one in (31)/(32), where higher D must be null (in contrast to the French DPs in (29)/(30)).

 Luis Sáez

This situation clearly contrasts with the one in (22)/(27), where the ellipsis site complies with the Strong Agreement Condition: seis is a numeral, and numerals are Q-heads bearing strong agreement. Although it is true that seis does not overtly manifest agreement, many other cardinal numerals do, as illustrated in (37) for doscientos “two hundred”: (37) dos-cient-o-s (libros) de química two-hundred-m.pl books of chemistry

Then, I will assume that every Spanish numeral bears strong agreement.7 The representation in (38) is the only available structure for (2) complying with the Strong Agreement Condition, since nuestros governs the ellipsis site; however, it violates the Stress Condition on Remnants, since the copy of nuestros and the ellipsis site belong to the same PHC (GeP): (38) [DP1 D1 [CP [DP2 [D2 nuestros i] [GeP [Ge nuestros]i [NP (libros)]]]j [C′ C [IP [DP2 [D2 nuestros i] [GeP [Ge nuestros]i [NP (libros)]]]j [I′ I [PP de química ]]]]]]

Now, let us deal with the grammatical example in (3), repeated here: (3) los (libros) de química the books of chemistry “the books of chemistry”

This example fully complies with the Strong Agreement Condition because the article los, which bears strong agreement, is the head of DP2 (see (39)) and, as a consequence, governs the ellipsis site; recall that (32) already showed that inner subjects can bear overt articles in Spanish: (39) [DP1 D1 [CP [DP2 [D2 los] [NP (libros)]]i [C′ C [IP [DP2 [D2 los] [NP (libros)]]i [I′ I [PP de química]]]]]]

Notice that D1 in (39) is null, so it must be licensed somehow (again, recall the remarks concerning (33)). There are several reasons why a null D1 in (39)

.  An anonymous reviewer points out that it is not necessarily reasonable to think that seis has agreement because doscientos does, since higher numbers are often quite different from lower numbers in their grammar. Although this is true, I will keep assuming that numerals behave uniformly in what concerns their agreement properties, since this is a view on Spanish numerals also shared by other authors (cf. Saab 2008; for an opposite view, see Eguren 2010).



Spanish pre-nominal possessives in ellipsis contexts 

is possible, although I will not take a conclusive stand here about this issue (see below for further discussion): a. once DP2 raises to Spec CP, D2 covertly raises to D1 (roughly in the spirit of Bianchi (2000) for non-reduced restrictive relatives, but with D2 – not D1– being overt); b. if D1 is actually null in (39), its licensing by D2 might be possible without D2-to-D1 movement; no head intervenes between D1 and D2 (D2 heads DP2 in the Spec CP), thus some sort of locality between D1 and D2 might be invoked in order to device a licensing mechanism; c. D1 is actually headed by an article los which, being contiguous to los in D2, is not pronounced (a haplology effect); d. roughly along the lines of the derivation of the Spanish superlative in (32), where higher D is not pronounced once its Spec gets occupied, DP2 raises to Spec D1 and licenses non-pronounciation of D1. Let us deal now with the examples (9a) and (9b), also repeated here: (9) a. …nuestros seis *(libros). b. …los seis (libros). our/the six books

(9a) lacks a post-nominal modifier and, as a consequence, does not contain a reduced relative clause. Its representation is shown in (40), which complies with the Strong Agreement Condition (seis bears strong agreement and governs the ellipsis site) but violates the Stress Condition on Remnants, since the copy of nuestros and the ellipsis site are PHC-mates: (40) [DP [D nuestrosi] [GeP [Ge nuestros]i [QP [Q seis] [NP (libros)]]]]

By contrast, los and the ellipsis site are not PHC-mates in (9b), since los is externally merged in D, as represented in (41): (41) [DP [D los] [QP [Q doscientos] [NP (libros)]]]

Crucially, I am assuming that, as happens in non-reduced copular clauses (see (42)), Spanish PreN-PAs cannot be externally merged as IP-internal predicates to be later moved to D1; this alternative would wrongly provide (9a) with a perfect configuration like (43), where the Stress Condition on Remnants is not violated as nuestros and the ellipsis site are not PHC-mates: (42) *El libro es mi. the book is my “The book is mine.”

 Luis Sáez

(43)

DP1 D1

CP C

IP DP2 D2

I′ QP

Q:seis

I

PreN-PA:nuestros

NP:(libros)

Instead, a configuration identical to (43) but with a (stressed) PostN-PA nuestros replacing the PreN-PA nuestros (see (45)) would fully fit an example like (44); as shown in (46), PostN-PAs can be externally merged as predicates in non-reduced copular clauses: (44) …los seis (libros) nuestros â•… the six books our “Our six books” (45) [DP1 D1 [CP [DP2 [D2 los] [QP seis [NP (libros)]]]i [C′ C [IP [DP2 [D2 los] [QP seis [NP (libros)]]]i [I′ I [PostN-PA nuestros]]]]]] (46) Los libros son nuestros. “The books are ours.”

Recall that PreN-PAs are clitics. Spanish predicates may manifest as clitics in nonreduced copular IPs only through the 3rd person neuter lo “it”, even if they refer to 1st/2nd person, as shown in (47); then, if the PreN-PA nuestros were available as an IP-internal predicate in (39a), it seems reasonable to expect that it should actually manifest as the 3rd person PreN-PA su (if at all), which is contradicted by the ungrammaticality of (48): (47) A: ¿Eres tú? are you (stressed) “Is it you?” B: Sí, lo soy. yes, it-cl.acc (unstressed) am “Yes, it is me.” B′: *Sí, me soy. yes, me-cl (unstressed) am “Yes, it is me.”



Spanish pre-nominal possessives in ellipsis contexts 

(48) Sus (=*nuestros) dos libros its/their/his/her (=*our) two books

To conclude this section, let us extend the Relative-Clause Configuration analysis to more complex cases, like the ones in (49a, b, c): (49) No leíste nuestros muchos cuentos largos para niños, sino not read-pst.2-sg our many stories long for kids but a. …los (cuentos) breves de terror. â•… the stories short of terror b. …nuestros seis (cuentos) breves de terror. c. …nuestros *(cuentos) breves de terror. â•… our six stories short of terror “You did not read our many long stories for kids, but the/our (six) short terror stories.”

(49a, b, c) exhibit two stacked reduced relatives. For instance, the representation of (49a) is (50), where breves is the predicate of the reduced relative dominated by DP2, which is the subject of the predicate de terror corresponding to the reduced relative of DP1; as usually assumed for reduced relatives under an approach like Kayne (1994), the subjects DP3 and DP2 raise to Spec CP2 and Spec CP1 respectively: (50)

DP1 D1

CP1 C′1

DP2 C01

D′2 D2

IP1

CP 2

I′1 C′2 IP2

C02

I′2

DP3 D3:los

PP: de terror

I1

NP:cuentos

I2

AP:breves

 Luis Sáez

In (50), null D1 and null D2 must be licensed; among the strategies presented above, the following ones seem to be feasible: strategy a: D3 raises to D2, and then to D1;. strategy c: los in D1 and D2 get deleted as an haplology effect, since they are contiguous to los in D3;. strategy d:  DP3 raises to Spec D2 and Spec D1, thus licensing the nonpronounciation of D2 and D1. Strategy (b) seems less likely, since D3 would remain in situ, and D2 intervenes between D1 and los in D3. Therefore, I will discard this option for null-D licensing. As for (49b), the representation is given in (51), the QP-less version of which underlies (49c) (and explains its ungrammaticality: the ellipsis site violates the Strong Agreement Condition and D3 is not licensed); this time, from the strategies just mentioned and not yet discarded for null-D licensing, the only one available for the null D1 of (51) is strategy (a) (represented in (51) with a discontinuous arrow: nuestros raises from D2 to D1), while strategies (c) and (d) should be discarded (on the one hand, a definite article los in D1 would not be identical to nuestros in D2; on the other hand, nuestros is not a maximal projection, so it could not raise to Spec D1): (51)

DP1 D1

CP1 C′1

DP2 C01

D′2 D2

IP1 I′1

CP2 C′2

PP:de terror

I1 GeP

C02 Ge:nuestros

IP2 I′2

DP3 D3

QP Q:seis

I2

NP:cuentos

AP:breves



Spanish pre-nominal possessives in ellipsis contexts 

However, a configuration like (52) below seems to also be available for (49b) in principle, since my hypothesis for the base generation of PreN-PAs allows having GeP as the complement of C01: (52)

DP1 D′1 CP1

D1 DP2

C′1 D′2

D2

GeP

C01 CP2

Ge:nuestros

IP1 I′1

C′2 C02

IP2

I1

DP3 D3

I′2 QP

Q:seis

PP:de terror

I2

AP:breves

NP:(cuentos)

For reasons of space, I leave for further research the question of whether or not (52) is also available for (49b). Were it be the case, it would confirm that PreN-PAs obligatorily raise to D; indeed, if Kayne’s (1994) LCA is assumed, the absence of such raising in (52) would wrongly predict the linear order in (53) (with nuestros unstressed): (53) *seis cuentos breves nuestros de terror six stories short our of terror

5.  Summary In this paper I have shown that ellipsis remnants must respect what I have called the Stress Condition on Remnants, according to which ellipsis remnants must be stressed. The scope of this condition is restricted to Phase Complements (Chomsky 2004; Nissenbaum 2000), that is, the complement of D or C (Phase heads). Articles are unstressed ellipsis remnants but, since they are externally

 Luis Sáez

merged in D, they escape the condition; by contrast, I proposed that Peninsular Spanish pre-nominal possessive adjectives are externally merged in the complement of D as clitic heads of a Genitive Phrase with an interpretable feature ( possessor ). Eventually, they move to D, but their unstressed copies violate the Stress Condition on Remnants in ellipsis contexts, which explains the ungrammaticality of nominal ellipsis in DPs like nuestros seis *(libros) “our six books”. However, this sequence becomes grammatical once a post-nominal modifier is added: nuestros seis (libros) de química “our six books of chemistry”. I have extended my Phasebased account to these cases by assuming a Kayne (1994)-style configuration for these DPs. According to this Relative-Clause Configuration account, these DPs exhibit an inner DP subject (a Phase) containing the ellipsis site and excluding the Genitive Phrase, which is one of the functional projections of a reduced relative whose predicate is the post-nominal modifier. As a result, the pre-nominal possessive adjective respects the Stress Condition on Remnants in these particular cases.

References Bianchi, Valentina. 2000. “The Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses: A reply to Borsley”. Linguistic Inquiry 31.123–140. Borsley, Robert. 1997. “Relative Clauses and the Theory of Phrase Structure”. Linguistic Inquiry 28.629–647. Bosque, Ignacio & Violeta Demonte, eds. 1999. Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Bošković, Željko. 2005. “On the Locality of Left Branch Extraction and the structure of NP”. Studia Linguistica 59.1–45. Brucart, José M. 1999. “La elipsis”. Bosque & Demonte, eds. 1999.2787–2863. Cardinaletti, Anna. 1998. “On the Deficient/strong Position in Possessive systems”. Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase ed. by Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder, 17–53. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cardinaletti Anna & Michal Starke. 1999. “The Typology of Structural Deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns”. Clitics in the Languages of Europe ed. by Henk van Riemsdijk, 145–233. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase”. Ken Hale: A life in language ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2004. “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy”. Structures and Beyond ed. by Adriana Belletti, vol II, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On Phases”. Freidin, Otero & Zubizarreta, eds. 2008, 133–166. den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and Linkers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Eguren, Luis. 2010. “Contrastive Focus and Nominal Ellipsis in Spanish”. Lingua 120.435–457. Español-Echevarría, Manuel. 1998. “N/A of a N DP’s: Predicate raising and subject licensing”. Romance Linguistics: Theoretical perspectives. Selected papers from the 27th Linguistic



Spanish pre-nominal possessives in ellipsis contexts 

Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XXVII), Irvine, 20–22 February 1997. ed. by Armin Schwegler, Bernard Tranel & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, 67–80. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Freidin, Robert, Carlos P. Otero & María Luisa Zubizarreta, eds. 2008. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in honor of J–R. Vergnaud. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. “Explaining Article-possessor Complementarity: Economic motivation in noun phrase syntax”. Language 75. 227–243. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 2008. “Some Preliminary Comparative Remarks on French and Italian Definite Articles”. Freidin, Otero & Zubizarreta, eds. 2008.291–321. Kratzer, Angelika & Elisabeth Selkirk. 2007. “Phase Theory and Prosodic Spell-out: The case of verbs”. The Linguistic Review 24. 93–135. Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. “Reference and Proper Names: A theory of N movement in syntax and logical form”. Linguistic Inquiry 25.609–665. Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2004. “Clitics: Co-occurrence and mutual exclusion patterns”. The Structure of CP and IP ed. by Luigi Rizzi, 211–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matushansky, Ora. 2005. “Going through a Phase”. Perspectives on Phases ed. by Martha McGinnis & Norvin Richards (= MIT Working Papers in Linguistic, 49), 157–181. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Nissenbaum, Jon. 2000. Investigations of Covert Phrase Movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Picallo, Carme. 1994. “Catalan Possessive Pronouns: The Avoid Pronoun Principle revisited”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12.259–300. Picallo, Carme & Gemma Rigau. 1999. “El posesivo y las relaciones posesivas”. Bosque & Demonte, eds. 1999.973–1024. Saab, Andrés. 2008. Hacia una teoría de la identidad parcial en la elipsis. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. “Clitic Constructions”. Phrase Structure and the Lexicon ed. by Johann Rooryck & Laurie Zaring, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Stowell, Timothy. 1989. “Subjects, Specifiers and X-bar Theory”. Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure ed. by Mark Baltin & Anthony Kroch, 232–262. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Svenonius, Peter. 2004. “On the Edge”. Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects ed. by David Adger, Cécile de Cat & George Tsoulas, 261–287. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Torrego, Esther. 1987. “On Empty Categories in Nominals”. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Boston.

On the nature of nominal features Agreement mismatches in Spanish conjoined structures* Violeta Demonte, Héctor Fernández-Alcalde & Isabel Pérez-Jiménez

Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, CCHS, Madrid, Spain Agreement mismatches pose a challenge for standard conceptions of Agree as a Probe-Goal feature valuation process of a single set of φ-features. In this paper we focus on sentences with a subject DP formed by two singular conjoined Ns, such as La madre e hija vinieron juntas, in which agreement inside DP gives rise to Closest Conjunct Agreement – D agrees in singular with the first N – while Subject-Tense agreement is plural. To solve this puzzle we argue for the necessity of incorporating into the minimalist framework the distinction between concord and index features, as proposed in other theoretical frameworks. Ns and Ds carry these two sets of features which, we claim, are introduced in independently motivated bundles. Building on Frampton & Gutmann’s (2000, 2006) Feature Sharing theory and Chomsky’s (2001) Maximization Principle, we articulate a single agreement process which derives the two ways in which agreement proceeds in conjoined structures.

1.  Introduction This paper discusses some issues that arise in the feature theory of the minimalist framework. The empirical basis of the article is the agreement mismatches illustrated in (1). Unless otherwise noted, the Spanish examples in this article are from the Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual. (1) a. [DP [D El] [[N1 hornero] y [N2 hornera]]] cobraban the.m.sg baker.m.sg and baker.f.sg were.paid.pl en panes. in bread.loaves *╇This work has been mainly supported by the Spanish MICINN through a grant to the Projects HUM2007-30541-C, FFI2009-07114/FILO and EDU2008-01268/EDUC. We thank Cedric Boeckx, Olga Fernández-Soriano, Ángel Gallego and specially Dongsik Lim for useful suggestions. Usual disclaimers apply.

 Violeta Demonte, Héctor Fernández-Alcalde & Isabel Pérez-Jiménez

b. [DP [D cuya] [[N1 detención] e [N2 interrogatorio]]] fueron whose.f.sg arrest.f.sg and interrogation.m.sg were.pl llevados a cabo por inspectores. carried.out.m.pl by inspectors

Here the subject consists of two singular conjoined nouns preceded by a single determiner, which obligatorily agrees in number and gender with the first conjunct, N1. This phenomenon is usually referred to as Closest Conjunct Agreement (CCA). However, despite the singular agreement marker on the head D, the DP has a plural interpretation, which correlates with plural agreement on the verb with that DP subject. This paper argues that the notion of φ-feature set generally assumed in the P&P/Minimalist framework must be enriched to explain this pattern of agreement, which can be done if Agree is understood not as an operation of feature copying and deletion but of feature sharing (Frampton & Gutmann 2000, 2006). We will argue that Agree is a single syntactic operation that applies both DP internally (what has been referred to as Concord) and externally (in Subject-Verb agreement, generally associated with Case assignment), in line with Carstens (2000, 2001). The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 illustrates the data. Section 3 motivates a new typology of φ-features and presents the mechanism of agreement that triggers the pattern illustrated in (1). Section 4 discusses some prospects and concludes the paper.

2.  The data 2.1  Basic examples The construction in (1) is widely attested and productive in Spanish. It is not Â�conditioned by pragmatic/contextual factors, nor restricted to specific kinds of nouns or determiners. Concrete (in)animate nouns, (1a), (2a), mass/abstract nouns, (2b), (2c), and event nominalizations, (1b), show CCA. As for determiners, definite articles, (1a), possessives (1b), indefinite articles, (3a), demonstratives, (3b), and quantifiers, (3c) are allowed. (2) a. En las noches [su bar y discoteca] abrirán in the nights its.sg bar.m.sg and disco.f.sg will.open.pl sus puertas. their doors

“Its bar and disco will be open at night.”



Agreement mismatches in conjoined structures 

b. [El propano y butano] juegan un papel the.m.sg propane.m.sg and butane.m.sg play.pl a role complementario. complementary

“Propane and butane play a complementary role.”

c. [La oscuridad y claridad] están asociadas a the.f.sg darkness.f.sg and brightness.f.sg are.pl associated to la luz. the light

“Darkness and brightness are associated to the light.”

(3) a. [Un banquete y baile] habían sido anunciados. a.m.sg banquet.m.sg and ball.m.sg had.pl been announced “A banquet and ball had been announced.” b. [Esta implicación y apoyo] han this.f.sg implication.f.sg and support.m.sg have.pl quedado reflejados… been reflected.m.pl

“This implication and support are reflected…”

c. [Toda persona y pueblo] tienen derecho a saber. every.f.sg person.f.sg and people.m.sg have.pl right to know “Every person and people has the right to know.”

Next we describe the major syntactic and semantic properties of these structures. 2.2  Obligatory Closest Conjunct Agreement As noted above, agreement between D and the first noun of the coordination (i.e. CCA) is compulsory in the structure under study. Compare (1a), where the determiner agrees with N1 in masculine gender and singular number, with (4), where the determiner agrees in feminine gender with N2 or appears in the plural. CCA between D and N1 is obligatory even when N1 and N2 have different number specification, (5). (4) {*La/*Los/*Las}D horneroN1 y horneraN2 cobraban… the.f.sg/m.pl/f.pl baker.m.sg and baker.f.sg were.paid.pl (5) … cuya corrupción y disparates han causado whose.f.sg corruption.f.sg and foolish.acts.m.pl have.pl caused la actual paralización. the present stoppage “…whose corruption and foolish acts have caused the present stoppage.”

 Violeta Demonte, Héctor Fernández-Alcalde & Isabel Pérez-Jiménez

2.3  Plural semantics In the examples above, the conjunction of nouns, although headed by a singular D, denotes the same as a plural noun phrase (“more than one”, Lasersohn 1995). Note that this kind of DP may co-refer with a plural pronoun in the discourse, (6). (6) Se les atribuirán [un nuevo padrino y SE cl will.assign.pl a.m.sg new.m.sg godfather.m.sg and madrina], quienes deben darle la instrucción necesaria… godmother.f.sg who.pl must give.cl.dat the instruction necessary “They will be assigned a new godfather and godmother, who must Â�instruct them…”

Similarly to regular plural DPs such as los hombres, the DPs under study give rise to distributive as well as to collective readings (Lasersohn 1995). The distributed or individual level reading, semantically equivalent to sentential conjunction, is illustrated in (2a), where two places are mentioned – a bar and a disco – and each of them will open at night. The collective or set reading arises when the verb selects a semantically plural argument, as in (7a), where the mother and the daughter are exchanging glances with each other, and (7b), where the width and the height are identical to each other. (7) a. [La madre e hija] cruzaron una serie the.f.sg mother.f.sg and daughter.f.sg crossed.pl a series

de miradas. of glances



“The mother and daughter exchanged a series of glances.”

b. Su cúpula, [cuya anchura y altura] its dome whose.f.sg width.f.sg and height.f.sg son idénticas, 43.30m. are.pl identical 

“Its dome, whose width and height are identical: 43.30 m.” [From http://viajeroscallejeros.com]

However, a coordination of Ns can have a singular denotation, correlated with singular verbal agreement when the DP is a subject: (8) [El académico y novelista] pronunció the.m.sg academician.m.sg and novelist.m.sg delivered.sg su conferencia. his conference “The academician and novelist delivered his conference.”



Agreement mismatches in conjoined structures 

Following King & Dalrymple (2004:â•›75–76), we tentatively assume that the distinction between the examples introduced so far and those like (8) is tied to the semantics of the conjunction. Specifically, a coordinate phrase like la madre e hija in (7) involves a group forming interpretation of and, requiring a group composed of madre+hija. In contrast, coordinate phrases like (8) involve “a Boolean interpretation of and, requiring that the individual or individuals have each relevant property”. In this case, the individual that is referred to must be both an academician and a novelist. 3.  Proposal 3.1  Asymmetric Coordination Phrase We assume an asymmetric structure for Coordination Phrases (CoPs, Kayne 1994; Johannessen 1996, 1998; Camacho 2003), where the structure of a DP like La madre e hija is (9). The determiner combines with a CoP where N1 c-Â�commands N2 (it is not crucial for this paper whether the level of projection of N1 is N0 or NP).1 (9) La madre e hija (cruzaron una serie de miradas). [= (7)] [DP [D la] [CoP [N(P)1 madre] [Co′ [Co e] [N(P)2 hija]]]]

We also assume that formal features are properties of lexical items, listed in lexical entries: Specifically, with respect to nouns, we assume that Ns enter the derivation with a full set of φ-features.2 3.2  An enriched theory of φ-features In P&P/Minimalist tradition, syntactic agreement is usually assumed to operate with φ-features. However, the standard notion of a φ-feature set is insufficient to explain CCA. Note that the assumption that the head of the DP subject in (9), i.e. [D la], has only one set of φ-features does not explain why the D shows singular morphology but the DP triggers plural agreement on the verb. That is why we claim that the theory of φ-features must be enriched. Specifically, we introduce two different sets of φ-features. Borrowing terminology from the HPSG tradition,

.  Ultimately, this work springs from Munn (1993), where phenomena parallel to those Â�explored in this article are discussed. .  This is not uncontroversial, though: see Dobrovie-Sorin (2011) for recent discussion on the status of ‘number’.

 Violeta Demonte, Héctor Fernández-Alcalde & Isabel Pérez-Jiménez

we call them c[oncord] φ-features and i[ndex] φ-features. Concord φ-features are formal features related to the morphosyntactic or declensional properties of lexical items and codify instructions to the PF interface. Index φ-features are formal features related to semantic properties of lexical items and codify instructions to the LF interface. This hypothesis captures the transmodular relevance of φ-features. The proposal that two distinct sets of features are involved in agreement has already been argued for in different frameworks, such as OT (Badecker 2007), LFG and HPSG (Pollard & Sag 1994; Kathol 1999; Wechsler & Zlatić [W&Z] 2000, 2003; King & Dalrymple 2004; Villavicencio et al. 2005), and even within Minimalism (D’Alessandro 2004a, 2004b; Costa & Pereira 2005; López 2007; Danon 2011a, 2011b; see also Heycock & Zamparelli 2005, and Sauerland 2008). Data motivating this idea come from the mixed agreement patterns of collective nouns in some languages. Consider the Serbo-Croatian example in (10). (10) Ta dobra deca dolaze. that.f.sg good.f.sg children came.3-pl “Those good children came.”

[W&Z 2003:51, (8)]

The collective noun deca triggers feminine-singular agreement on the prenominal adjective and the determiner, but triggers plural agreement on the verb. In the next section we will extend W&Z’s (2000, 2003) proposal on the puzzle in (10) to explain CCA. 3.3  Featural content of N, D and CoP Here we examine the featural content of the different categories involved in the derivation of CCA in (9). Following W&Z (2003), we claim that nouns enter the derivation with a double set of φ-features. First, nouns have a bundle of c-Â�features, including gender, number and Case. For Case, we propose that all nouns have an abstract Case feature, though phonologically invisible in Spanish nouns (as opposed, for example, to Serbo-Croatian, Greek or Russian). Person is absent from this set, since it is not a declensional category of Ns. Second, they have a bundle of i-features, including gender, number and person.3 We claim that person is a semantic property of nouns and not of determiners, based on the interaction of the person specification (1st/2nd person) with a semantic property of nouns such as animate/human (see (11), suggesting that animate/human nouns

.  See Zoerner (1995) and references therein, where indexical features on nouns are also assumed. The gender i-feature is generally interpreted as sex in animate nouns. For the relation between c-features, i-features and semantic interpretation in inanimate nouns, see W&Z (2003:â•›4.2) and López (2007:â•›§2.6).



Agreement mismatches in conjoined structures 

may show various forms of person agreement (11a), while inanimate nouns do not (11b)). C- and i-features are valued in N, except for the Case feature in the c-set. (11) a. Los españoles {estamos/estáis/están} en el rincón. the Spaniards.3-pl are.1-pl/2-pl/3-pl in the corner “We/You/The Spaniards are in the corner.” b. Las mesas {*estamos/*estáis/están} en el rincón. the tables.3-pl are.*1-pl/*2-pl/3-pl in the corner “The tables are in the corner.”

In our proposal, the feature bundles of the nouns madre and hija from the example in (9) are (12). Note that the gender and number features have equivalent values in the c- and the i-bundle. (12) a. madre i[g(f) n(sg) p(3)] c[g(f) n(sg) c( )] b. hija i[g(f) n(sg) p(3)] c[g(f) n(sg) c( )]

Let us now consider determiners. We follow W&Z’s proposal that determiners carry gender, number and Case c-features, linked to the determiner’s morphology. We claim that D also carries gender, number and person i-features. Both sets of features are unvalued, since D is a functional category. The featural make-up of D is thus (13). The intuition is that D collects the valued i-features of the noun via agreement (see Section 3.4). This relation can be taken as the basis for the semantics of the determiner: D operates on the noun’s index and maps it to some denotations in the context. Agreement between D and N(P) also makes it possible that the DP as a whole (via its head D) carries all the φ-features with which external heads agree. We will return to this idea in Section 3.4. (13) D i[g( ) n( ) p( )] c[g( ) n( ) c( )]

Let us now turn to the feature structure of the coordination of nouns. In coordinate structures like (9) (la madre e hija), both N(P) conjuncts have c- and Â�i-features. The CoP, nevertheless, lacks c-features, because the head of the phrase, the conjunction, is not morphosyntactically plural or singular, masculine or feminine. However, the CoP bears i-features (see also Dalrymple & Kaplan 2000; W&Z 2003; King & Dalrymple 2004; Badecker 2007). This proposal is motivated from the semantics of and in group forming coordinations: the conjunction semantically operates on the indices of its conjuncts, joining them (Zoerner 1995). Since indices are understood as feature structures, the conjunction joins the i-feature bundles of N(P)1 and N(P)2. As a consequence, the whole CoP has a plural i-feature (14).

 Violeta Demonte, Héctor Fernández-Alcalde & Isabel Pérez-Jiménez

Regarding the person and gender i-features of the coordination, we assume that they are determined via resolution, on the basis of the features of N(P)1 and N(P)2. In (14) gender is resolved as feminine and person as 3rd.4 (14)

CoP i[G(f) N(pl) P(3)] N(P)1 i[g(f) n(sg) p(3)] c[g(f) n(sg) c( )]

Co

N(P)2 i[g[f] n[sg] p[3]] c[g[f] n[sg] c[ ]]

Let us recapitulate. Before DP internal Agreement takes place, the structure and feature content of the DP la madre e hija in (9) is (15). (15)

DP D i[g( ) n( ) p( )] c[g( ) n( ) c( )]

CoP i[g(f) n(pl) p(3)]

N(P)1 i[g(f) n(sg) p(3)] c[g(f) n(sg) c( )] Co

N(P)2 i[g(f) n(sg) p(3)] c[g(f) n(sg) c( )]

3.4  Agree as feature sharing In the remainder of this section, we develop our unified analysis of the DP-internal and Subject-Verb agreement facts illustrated in the preceding sections. The analysis crucially relies on Frampton & Gutmann’s (2000, 2006) theory of Feature Sharing, which modifies Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) Agree theory in two respects: (i) the features of the Goal need not be valued for a Probe to agree with them; and (ii) an element containing only valued features can act as a Goal in the derivation (contra Chomsky’s Activation Condition).

.  For the details of ‘resolution’, see Corbett (1991, 2006), Dalrymple & Kaplan (2000), W&Z (2000, 2003), King & Dalrymple (2004), Villavicencio et al. (2005), Badecker (2007).



Agreement mismatches in conjoined structures 

Frampton & Gutmann (2000, 2006) assume that lexical items can enter the derivation with their features valued or unvalued. Unvalued features must be valued before the derivation is transferred to the interfaces, otherwise it would crash. Agree is the syntactic operation established between a Probe containing unvalued features that need to be assigned a value and a Goal with matching counterparts. Within its c-commanding domain, the Probe conducts a top-down search of a feature, be it valued or unvalued, that matches its own unvalued feature. When this is accomplished, the search stops and the unvalued feature on the Probe and the feature on the Goal are coalesced, resulting in a shared feature, no matter whether agreement succeeds or not in valuing at that point the unvalued feature of the Probe. When unvalued, the Probe and the Goal will share an instance of an unvalued feature, which will be valued at once later in the derivation. This is what happens with the Case feature in our structure, as we will see immediately. We further assume that the operation Agree is constrained (apart from being subject to locality and intervention conditions) by the Maximization Principle (Chomsky 2001): if a Probe matches with a Goal, its unvalued features must be valued at once, as fully as possible. Successive operations of partial valuation of features are not allowed. In (15) D, with unvalued φ-features, probes for a Goal with their matching counterparts. I- and c-features are treated as bundles, as expected from the Maximization Principle. D’s i-features agree with the closest goal containing another instance of this set of features, namely CoP; since the i-features of CoP are valued, the features of D receive their value. But the c-features of D find their closest goal in the c-features of N(P)1, establishing with them an Agree relation (the feature bundle on CoP is overlooked since it does not “maximally” match the one on the Probe). In this case, however, one of the features of N (structural Case) is unvalued; this is not a problem for the theory of feature sharing since Agree is blind to feature values: it just pairs up matching features. These DP internal agreement processes, usually referred to as Concord, are derived here from the application of Agree. As a result of these agreement operations, D is morphologically singular, which constitutes the phenomenon of CCA, but indexically plural, (16).5 The Case feature of D also remains unvalued. We assume that the features of D are visible at the DP level and can be accessed for DP external syntactic operations.

.  The i-features of the DP (plural number and resolved gender coming from the i-bundle of CoP) are visible in predicative contexts. In (1b) and (3b), a conjunction of a masculine and a feminine noun determines masculine gender and plural number on the predicate. This is expected if predication is seen as a coindexing relation between a predicate and a c-commanding subject (Williams 1980).

 Violeta Demonte, Héctor Fernández-Alcalde & Isabel Pérez-Jiménez

(16)

DP i[g(f) n(pl) p(3)] c[g(f) n(sg) c( )]

DP D i[g(f) n(pl) p(3)] c[g(f) n(sg) c( )]

CoP i[g(f) n(pl) p(3)]

N(P)1 i[g(f) n(sg) p(3)] c[g(f) n(sg) c( )] Co

N(P)2 i[g(f) n(sg) p(3)] c[g(f) n(sg) c( )]

As the derivation proceeds, the functional category T(ense), standardly assumed to be the locus of Subject-Verb agreement features, merges with the verbal phrase containing the subject DP, as in (17). T bears a c-bundle which contains at least person and number features (for simplicity we assume that it also has a gender feature, invisible in Spanish). These features are expected, since verbal agreement systems evolve historically from pronoun incorporation (a proposal which goes back as early as Givón 1976). However, these are c-features on T, because they correspond to the inflectional properties of the verb and are visible at PF. The unvalued c-features of T probe for a matching set of features, and find the Â�i-features of DP and agree with them. This agreement relation is possible given that c- and i-features are different kinds of features in the interfaces they give instructions to, but are equally treated by syntax. Therefore, a c-bundle can agree with an i-bundle as long as they contain the same featural content, as in SubjectVerb (T) agreement. (17)

TP T c[g(f) n(pl) p(3)]

DP i[g(f) n(pl) p(3)] c[g(f) n(sg) c( )]

vP …

As a result of Agree between T and DP, the number feature of T is valued as �plural, since its value comes from the i-feature of D. Following Chomsky (2001) and Frampton & Gutmann (2000, 2006), we assume that Case is a reflex of agreement processes. Thus, the Case feature of DP (remember that Case is a feature shared by D and N) is valued as nominative as a by-product of the Agree that it establishes with T. How exactly the Case c-feature is valued after T agrees with



Agreement mismatches in conjoined structures 

the i-features of D is still not clear to us, but what is important to keep in mind is that the Case feature is not valued by Agree, i.e. by means of copying the value of another Case-feature already valued in a different head, but as an argument-� marking strategy dependent upon Agree. This is only possible if, as proposed above, D comes with (unvalued) i-features, since Case assignment to the whole DP would not be possible if T targeted some other, more embedded element with the relevant featural make-up.6

4.  Prospects and conclusions Before concluding, we need to consider the cross-linguistic distribution of the structures analyzed in this paper. Many scholars claim that the existence of such structures (where a single D precedes a coordination of N(P)s with plural denotation) and the possibility of CCA in them are related to parametric differences between Romance and Germanic languages. Heycock & Zamparelli (2005), Bouchard (2002), Dobrovie-Sorin (2011), claim that sentences like (18)–(20) do not exist in Italian, French and Romanian, due to semantically or syntactically parameterized properties of the category Number (cf. English This man and woman are in love). (18) *[Un uomo e bambino] mangiano. a.m.sg man.m.sg and child.m.sg eat.pl “A man and child are eating.”

[H&Z 2005:(21a)]

(19) *[Ce soldat et marin] this.m.sg soldier.m.sg and sailor.m.sg étaient d’accord. were.pl of agreement

[H&Z 2005:(22b)]

“This soldier and sailor agreed with each other.” (20) *[Acest bărbat şi femeie] this.m.sg man.m.sg and woman.f.sg sunt îndrăgostiti. are.pl in.love

[Dobrovie-Sorin 2011:(11)]

“This man and woman are in love.”

.  We will not discuss the details of Case assignment to N2, and simply assume that N1 and N2 share their Case-feature, which gets its value when Agree with a Case-assigner probe is established.

 Violeta Demonte, Héctor Fernández-Alcalde & Isabel Pérez-Jiménez

The data presented in this paper suggest that Spanish (also see Villavicencio et al. 2005 for Portuguese) should be grouped together with Germanic rather than Romance languages in this respect, a fairly unexpected typological conclusion. Finding the exact locus of this putative parametric variation is beyond the scope of this article, but we think that a research line worth exploring could be the further investigation of the role of the conjunction, which seems to license bare N(P)s as arguments (*Madre llegó “mother came” vs. Madre e hija llegaron “mother and daughter came”), in combination with the properties of the determiner in Spanish, whose  selectional requirements may differ from the other languages. Another line of research that our analysis gives rise to is treating bundles as structured sets (C. Boeckx, p.c.) where gender and number features depend on Case (21a) and person (21b). (21) a.

Case gender

number

b.

Person gender

number

Evidence for this bundling is found in the agreement patterns observed in languages with quirky subjects. For example, in Icelandic gender/number agreement between a quirky subject and a Goal with person marking (e.g. the inflected verb: T) is different from gender/number agreement with a Goal with Case marking (e.g. a secondary predicate). This could indicate that gender and number features are dependent on the Case and person features in each bundle. With the feature hierarchies in (21) we may be able to dispense with the labels i/c and to explain why the number/gender features in the case bundle are not interpreted at LF while the number/gender features in the person bundle are. We may further argue that dependent features in a hierarchy must share some properties with the superordinate node, so that if Case is not interpreted at LF their dependent features will not be interpreted either. To conclude, in this paper we have proposed an analysis for the number agreement mismatch in Spanish DPs with internal N-y-N coordinations. We have claimed that the mismatch between morphological and semantic number can be captured in a model in which agreement relations are established derivationally due to the interaction of two types of nominal features (c-features and i-features), both being syntactically active inside DP. Specifically, we have argued that number is a syntactic feature that emerges with a double face within the nominal feature geometry: as a formal feature (concord) and as a referential feature (index). The idea that there are two types of number features is favored by almost all approaches to agreement mismatches. Yet the ideas that each type of number feature is part of a bundle, that certain heads bear only one of the two bundles, and that Agree is a single syntactic operation (independent of Case assignment) that applies in all



Agreement mismatches in conjoined structures 

syntactic domains linking matching features irrespective of their type, are unique to our approach and allow us to explain the complex agreement paradigm we have unveiled.

References Badecker, William. 2007. “A feature principle for partial agreement”. Lingua 117.1541–1565. Bouchard, Denis. 2002. Adjectives, Number and Interfaces: Why Languages Vary. Amsterdam & Boston: North Holland. Camacho, José. 2003. The Structure of Coordination. Conjunction and Agreement Phenomena in Spanish and Other Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Carstens, Vicki. 2000. “Concord in Minimalist Theory”. Linguistic Inquiry 31.319–355. Carstens, Vicki. 2001. “Multiple Agreement and Case Deletion. Against phi-(in)completeness”. Syntax 4.147–163. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries”. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Â�Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase”. Ken Hale. A Life in Language ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Corbett, Greville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual (CREA). Real Academia Española. Banco de datos en línea. 〈http://www.rae.es〉. Costa, João & Sandra Pereira. 2005. “Phases and autonomous features: a case of mixed agreement in European Portuguese”. Perspectives on Phases ed. by Martha McGinnis & Norbert Richards, 115–124. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. D’Alessandro, Roberta. 2004a. “Syntactic and Pragmatic Features: A case study”. Leitura: Estudos em syntaxe comparativa 33.185–202. D’Alessandro, Roberta. 2004b. Impersonal si Constructions. Agreement and Interpretation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Stuttgart. (Published as Impersonal si Constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007.) Dalrymple, Mary & Ronald M. Kaplan. 2000. “Feature Indeterminacy and Feature Resolution”. Language 76.759–798. Danon, Gabi. 2011a. “Agreement with Quantified Nominals: Implications for feature theory”. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8.75–96. Danon, Gabi. 2011b. “Agreement and DP-internal Feature Distribution”. To appear in Syntax. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2011. “Number as a Feature”. To appear in Functional Heads: a Â�Festschrift for Guglielmo Cinque ed. by Laura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro & Cecilia Poletto. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frampton, John & Sam Gutmann. 2000. “Agreement is Feature Sharing”. Unpublished Â�Manuscript, Northeastern University. Frampton, John & Sam Gutmann. 2006. “How Sentences Grow in the Mind”. Agreement Systems ed. by Cedric Boeckx, 121–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 1976. “Topic, Pronoun, and Grammatical Agreement”. Subject and Topic ed. by Charles N. Li, 151–188. New York: Academic Press.

 Violeta Demonte, Héctor Fernández-Alcalde & Isabel Pérez-Jiménez Heycock, Caroline & Roberto Zamparelli. 2005. “Friends and Colleagues: Coordination, plurality, and the structure of DP”. Natural Language Semantics 13.201–270. Johannessen, Janne B. 1996. “Partial Agreement and Coordination”. Linguistic Inquiry 27.661–676. Johannessen, Janne B. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kathol, Andreas. 1999. “Agreement and the Syntax-morphology Interface in HPSG”. Studies in Contemporary Phrase Structure Grammar ed. by Robert Levine & Georgia M. Green, 223–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. King, Tracy H. & Mary Dalrymple. 2004. “Determiner Agreement and Noun Conjunction”. Journal of Linguistics 40.69–104. Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, Conjunction and Events. Dordrecht: Kluwer. López, Luis. 2007. Locality and the Architecture of Syntactic Dependencies. New York: Palgrave. Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordination. Ph.D. Dissertation, Â�University of Maryland. Pollard, Carl & Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sauerland, Uli. 2008. “On the Semantic Markedness of Phi-features”. Phi Theory: Phi Features across Interfaces and Modules ed. by Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar, 57–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Villavicencio, Aline, Louisa Sadler & Doug Arnold. 2005. “An HPSG account of Closest Â�Conjunct Agreement in NP coordination in Portuguese”. Proceedings of the HPSG Conference ed. by Stefan Müller. Stanford: CSLI. Wechsler, Steven & Larisa Zlatić. 2000. “A Theory of Agreement and its Application to SerboCroatian”. Language 76.799–832. Wechsler, Steven & Larisa Zlatić. 2003. The Many Faces of Agreement. Stanford: CSLI. Williams, Edwin. 1980. “Predication”. Linguistic Inquiry 11.203–238. Zoerner, Cyril Edward. 1995. Coordination: The Syntax of &P. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California.

On the nature of bare nouns in Afro-Bolivian Spanish Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Sandro Sessarego

The Ohio State University / University of Wisconsin, Madison This paper provides an analysis of bare nouns in Afro-Bolivian Spanish. Their behavior does not fit the typology emerging from the Nominal Mapping Parameter. We consider several properties related to mass/count, kind, and indefinite/definite readings, and we conclude with an explanation based on the generalized availability of type-shifters.

1.  Introduction It is commonly accepted that NPs are predicates while DPs are arguments, at least in the Romance languages (Longobardi 1994; McNally 2004). A great deal of research has been carried out recently to refine the proposal of a Nominal Mapping Parameter (Chierchia 1998), which would account for the distribution of bare plurals and full DPs cross-linguistically, especially the distribution of bare nouns in languages where arguments can occur without projecting a D category in canonical subject and object positions. According to Chierchia (1998), languages lacking an overt definite article would be endowed with a non-overt iota operator, a semantic type-shifter equivalent to a definite article. On the other hand, if a language has an overt determiner capable of performing such operation, iota will be blocked since it is a last-resort operator. Such a proposal has been empirically challenged by Schmitt & Munn (2003) for Brazilian Portuguese (BP), among others (e.g. Déprez 2001; Kester & Schmitt 2006). In fact, BP has definite articles but bare NPs can still act as DPs. Another language with certain characteristics that are partly similar to BP is Afro-Bolivian Spanish (ABS) – See Sessarego (2010) for an overview of its origins and structural characteristics. In this Afro-Hispanic vernacular, bare nouns can appear both in subject and object positions whereas in standard Spanish (stSp) they can only occur in complement positions (Contreras 1986; Bosque 1996). Independently of their syntactic distribution, bare nouns in ABS have a variety of interpretations. This paper provides an account for these phenomena

 Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Sandro Sessarego

by postulating that several properties differentiate ABS from stSp and from other languages in which bare nouns may be used to refer to kinds. In Section  2, we introduce the Nominal Mapping Parameter (Chierchia 1998) and, in Section 3, we show that ABS does not fit within the typological classification of languages proposed by Chierchia. Sections 4 and 5 provide a description of bare nouns in ABS, including the distinction between count/mass and generic readings. Sections 6 and 7 analyze the similarities between bare nouns and definite and indefinite descriptions. Section 8 proposes an account for the phenomena described. Finally, Section 9 presents our conclusions. 2.  The Nominal Mapping Parameter Chierchia’s (1998) Nominal Mapping Parameter attempts to provide an account of the distribution of bare nouns and full DPs cross-linguistically. His classification distinguishes three language types with the following differential properties: (A)[+arg,–pred] (e.g. Chinese/Japanese): generalized bare arguments, every (lexical) noun is mass, lack of plural morphology, generalized classifier system; (B) [–arg,+pred] (e.g. Romance Languages): count/mass distinction, lack of bare NPs in argument position, plural morphology; (C) [+arg,+pred] (e.g. Germanic/Slavic Languages): count/mass distinction, bare mass nouns and plurals in argument position, lack of bare singular count nouns, plural morphology; (D) [–arg,–pred] (non-existent). According to this system, in Chinese and Japanese, which have a generalized classifier system and lack plural morphology, NPs are basically argumental. Bare NPs in argument position are analyzed as names of kinds. These elements are not predicates and they cannot be quantified without the use of the operator ∪, which assigns a mass denotation to them. As a result, all Ns in [+arg,–pred] languages will be mass nouns. The singular/plural distinction is not operative and an additional classifier is required to distinguish between count and mass. On the other hand, in Romance languages NPs are basically predicates; they are turned into arguments by an overtly pronounced D element. The semantic shift from predicate to kind can take place only if this prerequisite is satisfied. Languages of this type also instantiate the count-mass distinction and present plural marking on count nouns. Finally, the last group includes languages like those belonging to the Germanic or Slavic families. They show NPs in both argument and predicate position. These languages parallel Romance in that singular count nouns appear in predicate position; at the same time, they resemble Chinese and Japanese in that mass and plural count nouns can appear in argument position. Argument nouns can be shifted to predicate position through the ∪-operator, which turns them into mass terms.



On the nature of bare nouns in Afro-Bolivian Spanish 

On the other hand, predicates are shifted to argument position by the “cap” operator (∩), which turns them into kind terms. Chierchia’s proposal has been empirically challenged by Schmitt & Munn (2003) for Brazilian Portuguese, and by several other authors with data from different languages (Baptista (2000) for Cape Verdian Creole; Kester & Schmitt (2006) for Papiamentu; Déprez (2001) for Haitian French). In these varieties, bare-singular nominals occur in argument position even though these languages are equipped with plural morphology and lack a generalized classifier system. Moreover, the hypothesis that the non-overt type-shifting iota operator is available only for languages without a definite article does not account for the data in Cape Verdian Creole and Brazilian Portuguese. ABS is another language which does not fit the Nominal Mapping Parameter. In this Afro-Hispanic vernacular bare singular nouns can appear both in subject and object positions, while definite articles, plural morphology and the count/ mass distinction are present.

3.  Where to place ABS in the Nominal Mapping Parameter typology ABS does not seem to fit in any of the four typological categorizations derived from the Nominal Mapping Parameter. In fact, definite articles, plural morphology and the count/mass distinction are present, while bare singular nouns occur in both subject and object positions. Number (plural/singular) is normally conveyed in ABS by the determiner heading a DP. This element can be inherently plural, namely lu (1a), or consist of a determiner marked with the inflectional plural marker -s (1b). (1) a. Lu buen amigo mayó the-pl good-sg friend-sg old-sg “the old good friends” b. Mis/ejes buen amigo mayó my-pl/his-pl good-sg friend-sg old-sg “my/his old good friends”

Although nominal and adjectival stems remain bare, plural morphology exists, since it clearly appears on possessives and demonstratives, and it is crucial to determine reference to plural or singular entities (Delicado-Cantero & Sessarego 2011). The count/mass distinction is also present in ABS: (2) a. Mucho amigo viene a la fiesta much friend come to the party “Many friends come to the party.”

 Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Sandro Sessarego

b. Mucho agua hay que beber much water have to drink “Much water should be drunk.”

While amigo “friend” in (2a) has a plural reading, agua “water” in (2b) is understood as a mass term. This clearly shows that ABS differs from languages like Chinese or Japanese, where a special classifier is required for count nouns, which would otherwise be interpreted as mass. What makes ABS even more intriguing is the fact that bare-singular nouns can occur in subject and object positions (3): (3) Perro come galleta dog eat cookie “Dogs eat cookies.”

However, in contrast with other languages in which argumental plural bare nouns are found (e.g. Brazilian Portuguese), nouns in ABS never inflect for number and cannot carry plural morphology. These data indicate that there are languages in which singular count bare nouns can be arguments while plural ones are not allowed. Lastly, ABS has definite determiners: masculine singular (el), feminine singular (la) and a plural article that does not inflect for gender (lu): (4) El gato/la gata/ lu gato blanco the cat/the cat-f/ the-pl cat white “the white cat/cats”

Summarizing, the ABS nominal domain has the following characteristics: singular bare nominals in argument position, count/mass distinction, morphological plural, lack of a generalized classifier system, and presence of definite articles. These features make ABS a language which does not fit into Chierchia’s Nominal Parameter typology. At the same time, ABS also differs from BP, in that this AfroHispanic dialect does not allow bare plural nouns to be arguments. In the next sections, we will take a closer look at ABS bare-singular nouns in order to understand which principles regulate their behavior. 4.  Number and mass interpretation Bare singulars in ABS are unmarked for number but do not necessarily denote mass entities. When occurring in the scope of a time-span aspectual adverbial, a bare singular behaves as a plural, and allows an activity interpretation (Vendler 1967) of the event phrase (the plurality distributes over the relevant interval): (5) Yo mató iguana/#un iguana/#la iguana por dos hora I killed iguana/ an iguana/the iguana for two hours “I killed iguanas/# an iguana for two hours.”



On the nature of bare nouns in Afro-Bolivian Spanish 

Bare singulars have a plural reading when occurring as objects of verbs imposing a non-atomicity entailment on their internal argument (6): (6) Pedro colecciona sello Pedro collects stamp “Pedro collects stamps.”

The singular interpretation is available if the verb does not satisfy such a constraint, for example, when bare nouns combine with verbs imposing an atomicity entailment on its internal argument. This would be the case of the verb casar in (7): (7) María quere ti casar con italiano Maria wants you marry with Italian “Maria wants you to marry an Italian.” (any Italian)

Discourse anaphora provides further evidence of the systematic ambiguity between a singular and a plural reading of bare nouns. Bare NPs in ABS can be referred back to using a plural or a singular pronoun, as (8) illustrates. (8) Yo tiene hijo. El/Eyu vive a Mururata I have child. He/They live to Mururata “I have a child/children. He/They live in Mururata.”

Summarizing, bare singulars in ABS allow atomic and non-atomic readings and can be linked to singular or plural pronouns. Moving now to the mass/count distinction, ABS mass terms can surface as bare arguments, with an existential reading as in (9a) or a generic reading, as in (9b): (9) a. Agua ta friu water is cold “The water is cold.” b. Oro ta caro gold is expensive “Gold is expensive.”

Bare nouns act as mass terms but are also able to have a count reading. Evidence for this generalization is provided by the occurrence of bare nouns with predicates that require individuation. Mass nouns are generally unable to be subjects of predicates requiring individuation (10). (10) *Gold weighs two grams.

Such a constraint does not apply to bare-singular count nouns in ABS: (11) Wawa pesa 20 kilos cun eje edad child weighs 20 kilos in this age “Children weigh 20 kilos at this age.”

 Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Sandro Sessarego

The above data show that bare singulars allow mass and count readings. With respect to the latter, they can be interpreted as atomic or non-atomic individuals, and they can be linked to singular or plural pronouns.

5.  Bare nouns as kind terms Two main hypotheses have been suggested in the literature to account for the occurrence of bare plurals in argument position. Some scholars treat them as names of kinds (Carlson 1977; Chierchia 1998; Dayal 2004), while for others they should be analyzed as systematically ambiguous between a kind and an indefinite reading (Kratzer 1995). In the present section, we will provide a list of examples suggesting that the first hypothesis is the most adequate to account for the data. We will use several tests developed by Carlson (1977) to determine that bare plurals in English are names of kinds, as adopted by Kester & Schmitt (2006) to make a similar point for BP and Papiamentu. Carlson (1977) and Kester & Schmitt (2006) rely on three main points to support the names-of-kinds analysis is on the right track: (i) Bare plurals can be subjects of predicates applying to kinds only; (ii) their interpretation varies depending on their contextual environment; and (iii) they do not take wide scope over negation, intensional verbs and aspectual adverbs. As will be shown, bare singular nouns in ABS display the same behavior as bare plurals in English and Portuguese. In (12), we show that bare nouns in ABS may appear as subjects of predicates that only apply to kinds. (12) Chancho es muy común a Tocaña wild-pork is very common in Tocaña “Wild porks are very common in Tocaña.”

The generic and existential readings of bare nouns are conditioned by well-known factors such as the lexical requirements of the predicate, tense/aspect, episodicity, etc. The bare singular in (13) is interpreted generically, whereas the one in (14) is existential: (13) A mí me gusta gato to me me like-3-sg cat “I like cats.” (14) Tiene gallina en la casa have-3-sg chicken in the house “There is a chicken/chickens in the house.”



On the nature of bare nouns in Afro-Bolivian Spanish 

Finally, when co-occurring with negation (15a), intensional verbs (15b) and durative adverbials (16), bare singulars only allow narrow-scope readings: (15) a. Oté no vió mancha en la ventana you no saw spot in the windows “You did not see the spot on the window.” (neg < object; *object < neg) b. Juana quiere ti casar con italiano Juana want you marry with Italian “Juana wants you to marry an Italian.” (want < object; *obj. < want) (16) Yo mató iguana por dos hora I killed iguana for two hour “I killed iguanas for to hours.” (adv < object; *object < adv)

Summarizing, this section shows that bare nouns in ABS, which are not specified for number (singular/plural), can be interpreted as kinds. This actually seems to be their default interpretation. Nevertheless, such reading is not the only one they have. In the next two sections, we explore how bare nouns are related to indefinite and definite DPs in their ability to have interpretations overlapping those typical of these terms. The distribution of articles in ABS resembles the one of standard Spanish, but bare nouns are very different since they may have plural/ singular, definite/indefinite, or specific/non-specific readings, given the appropriate environment.

6.  Indefinites and bare nouns The article system of contact languages has generated much interest in Creole linguistics. According to Bickerton (1981), Creole languages have an article system with “a definite article for presupposed-specific NP; an indefinite article for assertedspecific NP; and zero for nonspecific NP” (1981:â•›56). This description does not capture the features of the ABS article system. In this vernacular, there are three overt definite articles (el, la, lu) and two indefinite ones (un, unos). Indefinite determiners in ABS (un/unos) can refer to both specific and non-specific entities. Pragmatically, we say that an entity is specific if it is known by the speaker, by the hearer or by both (Gutiérrez-Rexach 2004). Bare nouns may have a specific/non-specific reading: (17) a. Ayer yo compró tarta de chocolate yesterday I bought cake of chocolate “Yesterday I bought a/some (specific) chocolate cake(s).”

 Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Sandro Sessarego

b. Mañana yo va comprar tarta de chocolate tomorrow I go buy cake of chocolate “Tomorrow I will buy a/some chocolate cake(s).”

Indefinite singulars in ABS can take wide or narrow scope with respect to other operators (Diesing 1992), such as negation and intensional verbs: (18) a. Yo no vió un mancha en el suelo I not see a spot on the floor “I didn’t see a spot on the floor.” (un > ¬ and ¬ > un) b. Juana quiere ti casar con un italiano Juana want you marry with un Italian “Juana wants you to marry an Italian.” (want > un and un > want)

Indefinites in ABS can have a generic reading which, however, should not be confused with the kind-denoting reading of bare nouns. Indefinites can be interpreted as quantificational generics (19), but cannot occur with predicates that are only true of a kind (20) or with one-event-only episodic predicates (21). (19) Un inglés habla inglés an Englishman speaks English “An Englishman speaks English.” (20) Gallinazo/ *Un gallinazo ta en peligro de extinción black-buzzard/ ╇a black-buzzard is on-the-verge of extinction “Black buzzards are on the verge of extinction.” (21) Negro/ *Un negro votó por primera vez después Reforma black/ a black voted for first time after Reform “Black people voted for the first time after the Land Reform.”

Therefore, singular bare nouns can be kind-referring expressions while nouns preceded by indefinite articles cannot. Müller (2003:â•›78–81) suggests that there are more differences in interpretation between indefinite nouns and bare singular nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. The same is true of ABS. When they occur as subjects of an episodic predicate, both indefinites and bare singulars may be interpreted as generics. Nevertheless, in a sentence like (22) the indefinite subject can also have a specific interpretation (“A certain Bolivian eats lechón today”) whereas such a reading is not available for a bare noun, which is always understood as existential/ generic when uttered out of the blue (“Bolivians in general eat lechón today”). (22) Un boliviano/Boliviano come lechón hoy a Bolivian/Bolivian eats lechón today “A Bolivian/Bolivians eat(s) lechón today.”



On the nature of bare nouns in Afro-Bolivian Spanish 

Moreover, indefinites are more restricted and tend to allow genericity inferences only in characterizing contexts. For example, both sentences in (23) can be understood as generic statements, since a defining or essential property of “being a sonnet” is “having four strophes” (Gutiérrez-Rexach 2006). On the other hand, in (24a) it is not possible to ascribe to “a romantic song” the analytical or essential property of “being popular”, so the sentence lacks a salient generic reading. The anomaly of the indefinite description in (24a) is due to the fact that the sentence does not describe an analytic or characterizing property; the correlate in (24b) with a bare noun has a descriptive or inductive flavor (Greenberg 2003). (23) a. Un soneto tiene cuatro estrofa a sonnet has four strophes “A sonnet has four strophes.” b. Soneto tiene cuatro estrofa sonnet has four strophes “Sonnets have four strophes.” (24) a. #Un canción romántico es popular a song romantic is popular “A romantic song is popular.” b. Canción romántico es popular song romantic is popular “Love songs are popular.”

Indefinite noun phrases expressing unusual classes tend to be interpreted existentially, whereas bare nouns of the same type can be interpreted generically. The bare nouns in (25) have a generic interpretation. The generic reading is possible not only for bare nouns denoting well-known or common classes, such as “famous actor” in (25a); it is also available for bare nouns referring to very unusual ones, such as “Bolivian musician born on the fourth of August in Cochabamba” in (25b). On the other hand, both the generic and the existential interpretations are available for the indefinite noun in (26a), while an existential specific reading is very salient, and strongly preferred for (26b). (25) a. Actor famoso gana mucho dinero actor famous earns much money “Famous actors make a lot of money.” b. Músico boliviano nacido en Cochabamba toma harto cerveza musician Bolivian born in Cochabamba drinks much beer “Bolivian musicians born in Cochabamba drink a lot of beer.” (26) a. Un actor famoso gana mucho dinero an actor famous earns much money “A famous actor makes a lot of money.”

 Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Sandro Sessarego

b. Un músico boliviano nacido en Cochabamba toma a musician Bolivian born in Cochabamba drinks

harto cerveza much beer



“A Bolivian musician born in Cochabamba drinks much beer.”

In sum, both bare nouns and noun phrases headed by an indefinite can express genericity. Indefinites only express generalizations that are backed up by information shared in the common ground, whereas bare nouns express generalizations per se, not triggering supporting presuppositions (Greenberg 2003). With respect to existential/indefinite readings, bare nouns only have an existential reading if uttered out of the blue; indefinites have either a generic or an existential interpretation depending on the presence or absence of triggering presuppositions. 7.  Bare nouns and definiteness Bare nouns in ABS can also have readings that are similar to those of DPs headed by definite determiners. Nevertheless, they cannot have a definite reading (indicating existence plus uniqueness) if uttered out of the blue, i.e. they also have to satisfy a familiarity presupposition. Both definite descriptions and bare nouns can be associated to an antecedent in discourse via identity or a part-whole relation, satisfying a strong familiarity presupposition (Roberts 2003). An example of an identity relation between discourse referents is presented in (27), where the (b) sentence is a continuation of the (a) sentence. (27) a. Yo compró un tarta I bought a cake “I bought a cake.” b. Tarta/ la tarta sabe a fresa cake/ the cake taste to strawberry “The cake tastes like strawberry.”

The above example shows that bare nouns can also refer back to discourse-familiar entities and, not being specified for number, they can be linked to singular or plural discourse referents. Both definite articles and bare nouns can also refer back to weakly familiar entities (Roberts 2003). Instances of weak familiarity are represented by the so-called bridging or associative contexts (Asher & Lascarides 1998), where the association with an antecedent in the preceding discourse obtains via a part-whole relation. In (28), crema/la crema “cream/the cream” is understood as the cake’s cream.



On the nature of bare nouns in Afro-Bolivian Spanish 

(28) a. Yo compró un tarta I bought a cake “I bought a cake.” b. Crema/la crema sabe a fresa cream/the cream taste to strawberry “The cream tastes like strawberry.”

Definite determiners and bare nouns allow attributive and referential interpretations of a nominal description. They differ in that attributive readings of bare nouns are only possible when such an attribute is salient in the common ground. In (29a), both a reading in which we know who the Dean is, as well as a reading in which we are looking for the Dean whoever he is, are possible. Nevertheless, (29b) can be uttered only in a scenario (common ground) in which the relevant properties or attributes are salient, for example, a College’s main office at a particular university. It would not be felicitous, for example, uttered while addressing a server in a bar, unless the Dean is a well-known regular customer. (29) a. Yo ta buscando el decano I is looking the Dean “I am looking for the Dean.” b. Yo ta buscando decano I is looking Dean “I am looking for the Dean.”

Sometimes the use of bare nouns approximates that of demonstrative elements, in that not only the presuppositions associated with definiteness are satisfied (existence and uniqueness), but also a demonstration presupposition (Roberts 2001). The deictic content of bare nouns can also be derived by visual cues. In (30), if the mentioned entities are pointed at by the speaker, no definite or demonstrative article is required and the bare noun is understood as a demonstrative description: (30) Nube ta bien rojo cloud be good red “That cloud/those clouds is/are very red.”

Definite DPs in ABS, like bare nouns, can combine with predicates of kinds (31a) and with one-event only episodic predicates (31b): (31) a. El gallinazo ta en peligro de extinción the black-buzzard is in danger of extinction “Black buzzards are on the verge of extinction.” b. El negro votó por primera vez después Reforma Agraria the black voted for first time after Reform Land “Black people voted for the first time after the Land Reform.”

 Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Sandro Sessarego

In sum, this section shows that bare singular nouns can alternate with definite DPs in ABS. This is possible only when the relevant presuppositions are satisfied in the common ground. Said interpretation can be made explicit through an anaphoric identity relation, part-whole relation, common-ground cues, uniqueness presuppositions, or visual deixis. 8.  Bare nouns in ABS: A unified account In this section, we provide a theoretical account of the attested patterns. First, it seems clear that the Nominal Mapping Parameter (Chierchia 1998) does not adequately explain the ABS data. As observed, ABS does not fit into Chierchia’s framework, since bare nouns occur in argument position, there is plural morphology in the system, and the count/mass distinction is instantiated. Following Longobardi (1994, 2005), we can assume that bare nouns are not structurally bare but do in fact project a full DP, with an empty D head (cf. also Contreras 1986). Only DPs can serve as arguments and NPs are predicates turned into arguments by D. The null determiner plays an important role at the syntax-semantics interface, since it is the locus of semantic type-shifting operations. Given that common nouns denote properties (type 〈s,〈e,t〉〉), the nominalization function shifts the property into an individual (〈s,e〉) via a nominalization operation nom (∩) (Chierchia 1998). As suggested by a reviewer, it would also be possible to posit syntactically bare NPs which directly trigger the type-shifting rules given the appropriate contextual parameters. We propose that covert determiners in ABS encode a variety of functions, not only nom. For Chierchia (1998), covert type-shifting operations are last resort operations. Given that DPs are not canonically mapped into predicates, their interpretation as kinds or quantificational elements is the result of last resort operations to fix a type mismatch. Covert type-shifting operations are not allowed if there is a determiner performing the same role. In ABS we see that there are definite and indefinite determiners but bare nouns can still receive indefinite or definitelike interpretations without the presence of those articles, although the resulting interpretations are not identical. Moreover, contrary to what has been claimed for Papiamentu and Brazilian Portuguese (Kester & Schmitt 2006), the Derived Kind Predication (DKP) mechanism (Dayal 2004) does not apply as the only means to explain the readings of object bare nouns in ABS. One prediction of DKP is that bare existentials always take scope under other operators. Nevertheless, bare nouns in ABS not only allow narrow scope readings, they can also be interpreted as definites or indefinites with wide scope. This suggests that Dayal’s (2004) theory would not be able to account for ABS.



On the nature of bare nouns in Afro-Bolivian Spanish 

ABS bare nouns lack number specification. Number and quantificational force are encoded at the D level (Delicado-Cantero & Sessarego 2009). This particular configuration allows for a wider array of interpretive possibilities, depending on which operator is inserted. In the case of bare nouns in ABS, the evidence presented in this paper suggests that a covert determiner may encode a variety of type-shifting functions (Partee & Rooth 1982): (i) Nom: for the shift of predicates to kind readings in the default case; (ii) Existential or definite (iota) operators: for existential and definite-like interpretations. In the case of the existential operator, pure existential readings are favored; for the definite readings, familiarity presuppositions have to be satisfied in the common ground. In general, ABS instantiates a very flexible system, where the absence of overt morphological marking on nouns allows for contextual parameters to determine the interpretation of bare DPs. This flexibility is required, given that not only morphological marking and semantic type determine the interpretation of the bare noun but also contextual factors. 9.  Conclusion In this paper, we have provided a survey and analysis of the nature of bare nouns in ABS. We have also compared the properties of definite and indefinite determiners with those of bare nouns. Parallel to English and Brazilian Portuguese, ABS bare nouns are better analyzed as names of kinds subject to type-shifting operations determined by contextual factors. Bare nouns in this dialect seem to obey certain specific semantic and pragmatic constraints, which ultimately determine the interpretation of their covert D-categories.

References Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 1998. “Bridging”. Journal of Semantics 5.83–113. Baptista, Marlyse. 2000. “Variabilité référentielle des syntagmes nominaux nus en créole cap-verdien”. University of Paris III Linguistic Symposium. April 7th, 2000. Unpublished Msanauscript, University of Paris. Bickerton, Derek. 1981. The Roots of Language. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Karoma. Bosque, Ignacio. 1996. “Por qué determinados sustantivos no son sustantivos determinados”. Presencia y ausencia del artículo en español, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, 13–119. Madrid: Visor. Carlson, Carlson. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. “Reference to Kinds across Languages”. Natural Language Semantics 6.339–405. Contreras, Heles. 1986. “Spanish bare NPs and the ECP”. Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax, ed. by Ivonne Bordelois, Heles Contreras & Karen Zagona, 25–49. Dordrecht: Foris.

 Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Sandro Sessarego Dayal, Veneeta. 2004. “Number Marking and (In)definiteness in Kind Terms”. Linguistics and Philosophy 27.393–450. Delicado-Cantero Manuel & Sandro Sessarego. 2011. “Variation and Syntax in Number Expression in Afro-Bolivian Spanish”. Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium ed. by Luis Ortiz-Lopez, 42–53. Somerville, Mass: Cascadilla Press. Déprez, Viviane. 2001. “On the Syntactic and Semantic Nature of Haitian Bare NPs”. Current Issues in Romance Linguistics, ed. by Diana Cresti, Christina Tortora & Teresa Saterfield. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Greenberg, Yael. 2003. Manifestations of Genericity. New York: Routledge. Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 2004. La semántica de los indefinidos. Madrid: Arco Libros. Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 2006. “Beyond the Indefiniteness Restriction”. Sinn & Bedeutung 11.291–304. Kester, Ellen-Petra & Christina Schmitt. 2006. “Papiamentu and Brazilian Portuguese: A comparative study of bare nominals”. Noun Phrases in Creole Languages, ed. by Marlyse Baptista & Jacqueline Guéron, 106–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. “Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates”. The Generic Book, ed. by Greg N. Carlson & Francis J. Pelletier, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. “Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form”. Linguistic Inquiry 25.609–665. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2005. “Toward a Unified Grammar of Reference”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24.5–44. McNally, Louise. 2004. “Bare Plurals in Spanish are Interpreted as Properties”. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3.115–133. Müller, Ana. 2003. “Generic Sentences with Indefinite and Bare Subjects in Brazilian Portuguese”. Proceedings of SULA 2.71–86. Partee, Barbara & Mats Rooth (1983). “Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity”. Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, ed. by Rainer Bäuerle, Christian Schwarze, & Arnim von Stechow, 361–383. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Roberts, Craige. 2001. “Demonstratives as Definites”. Information Sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation, ed. by Kees van Deemter & Roger Kibble, 89–196. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Roberts, Craige. 2003. “Uniqueness in Definite Noun Phrases”. Linguistics & Philosophy 26.287–350. Schmitt, Cristina & Alan Munn. 2003. “The Syntax and Semantics of Bare Arguments Brazilian Portuguese”. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2.185–216. Sessarego, Sandro. 2010. Aspects of the syntax of the Afro-Bolivian Spanish Determiner Phrase. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ohio State University. Vendler, Zeno. 1967. “Verbs and Times”. Linguistics in Philosophy, 97–121. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Negative imperatives in Portuguese and other Romance languages* Rerisson Cavalcante

Universidade de São Paulo

1.  Introduction This paper discusses the interaction between the expression of imperative mood and sentential negation in some Romance languages: on the one hand, European Portuguese (EP), Spanish, and Italian, in which true imperative forms are incompatible with (preverbal) negation; and, on the other hand, Brazilian Portuguese (BP), in which both true and suppletive imperative forms co-occur with negation. The main goal is to present data that can help evaluate previous analyses on the lack of negated imperative verbs in some languages and explain the unexpected behavior of BP. The paper is organized in the following way: in Section 2, I present an overview of the types of imperative forms and their behavior in negative commands across languages; in Sections 3 and 4, I discuss three previous analyses of the phenomena; in Section 5, I introduce Bošković’s (2004) PF merger analysis of the ban of negative imperatives in Greek and I show how it can account for the problematic data presented here and the differences between BP and the other languages under discussion. In Section 6, I summarize the basic points of the paper. 2.  Imperative forms and negation 2.1  Types of imperative forms and their distribution in negative commands To express imperative mood, languages use verbal forms that either are specific of imperative contexts or are borrowed from other moods (indicative and

*╇The present paper is part of my Ph.D. research project about sentential negation and constituent negation in Brazilian Portuguese, supported by FAPESP (2006/00965–2 and 2008/00073–0) and CAPES (0306/10–0). Special thanks to Jairo Nunes, Željko Bošković, Marcelo Ferreira, Esmeralda Negrão, Marcus Lunguinho and Bradley Larson for comments and suggestions; to Isabella Fortunato, Leonor Simioni and Roberta D’Alessandro for helping with Italian examples.

 Rerisson Cavalcante

Â� subjunctive, for example). The specific forms have been referred to as true imperatives and the borrowed ones, suppletive imperatives (cf. Rivero 1994; Han 1999 and others). Spanish, for example, has three distinct verbal forms to express second person singular in imperative, indicative and subjunctive. English, on the other hand, makes use of the same verbal form in imperative, indicative and (semantic) subjunctive, as shown in Table 1. Table 1.╇ True and suppletive imperatives in Spanish and English Imperative

Indicative

Subjunctive

Spanish

da

das

des

English

give

give

give

Studies on the imperative mood have shown that these forms are incompatible with sentential negation, specifically with preverbal negative markers (cf. Rivero 1994; Han 1999, 2001; Zeijlstra 2006; and others). In other words, true imperatives occur exclusively in affirmative commands. In negative commands, on the other hand, the imperative form is replaced with suppletive forms. Examples (1), (2) and (3) show that, in the presence of the negative marker, the true imperative verb is replaced with subjunctive forms in both Spanish (cf. (1)) and EP (cf. (2)) and with infinitive forms in Italian (cf. (3)).1 (1) Spanish a. ¡(*No) lee lo! neg read-imp it-acc b. ¡No lo leas! neg it-acc read-subj “Don’t read it!” (2) EP a. (*Não) conta (tu) a verdade! neg tell-imp thou the truth

b. Não contes (tu) a verdade! neg tell-subj thou the truth “Don’t tell the truth!”

.  Zanuttini (1997) and Kayne (1992) propose that Italian suppletive imperatives make use of a null modal verb, which takes the infinitive as complement.



Negative imperatives in Portuguese and other Romance languages 

(3) Italian a. (*Non) telefona le! neg call-imp her b. Non telefonar le! neg call-inf her “Don’t call her!”

However, BP behaves differently from these languages. Three facts are of interest for this work. First of all, in BP the imperative verb does not present any incompatibility with negation. Example (4) shows that the (so-called) true imperative verb can appear with either a preverbal or a post-sentential negative marker.

(4) Negative and “true” imperative (BP)

Não conta (tu/você) a verdade pra ele (não)! neg tell-imp thou you the truth to him neg “Don’t tell him the truth!”

Second, despite the compatibility between true forms and negation, the suppletive/subjunctive forms are still available in negative imperatives, as shown in (5). This is unexpected since the use of suppletive forms is analyzed as a consequence of the impossibility of the true forms in this context.

(5) Negation and suppletive imperative (BP)

Não conte (tu/você) a verdade pra ele (não)! neg tell-subj thou you the truth to him neg “Don’t tell him the truth!”

Third, more surprisingly, suppletive forms alternate with true forms even in affirmative imperatives, as shown in (6), which is impossible in EP, Spanish and Italian. As shown in (7), the suppletive forms cannot appear in affirmative command when a true form is available in these languages.

(6) Suppletive forms in affirmative imperatives (BP)

Conta / conte a verdade pra ele! tell-imp tell-subj the truth to him “Tell him the truth!”

(7) Lack of suppletive forms in affirmative imperatives.

a. *¡(lo) leas (lo)! (Spanish) it-acc read-subj it-acc “Read it!”

 Rerisson Cavalcante

b. *Contes (tu) a verdade! (EP) tell-subj thou the truth



“Tell the truth!”

c. *Telefonar le! (Italian) call-inf her “Call her!”

What could explain the optionality between suppletive and true imperatives in both negative and affirmative commands in BP? 2.2  The nature of imperative forms in BP A possible clue to explain these differences between EP (and the other languages) and BP is the reduction of verbal morphology that has occurred in the latter. The loss of the second person morphology in BP rendered the indicative form identical to imperative form, as shown in Table 2. Table 2.╇ Verbal forms for second person in EP and BP Indicative

Subjunctive

Imperative

EP

(tu) cantas

(tu) cantes

canta (tu)

BP

(tu/você) canta

(tu/você) cante

canta [=IND]/cante [=SUBJ] (tu/você)

Table 2 shows that there is currently no specific verbal form for the imperative mood in BP (cf. Cavalcante 2008a, 2010; see also Postma & Wurff 2007:â•›242). Thus, children acquiring BP arguably identify both forms used in imperative contexts as suppletive forms, borrowed either from the indicative or from the subjunctive. Therefore, we can say that BP imperatives do not show incompatibility with negation because there are no true imperative forms at all in this language, despite the fact that there are forms that phonologically correspond to EP true imperative forms.2

.  There are BP dialects (specially in the state of São Paulo) in which the subjunctive form can be replaced with the indicative form in (non-imperative) subjunctive contexts. (i) Você quer que eu faça? you want that I do.subj (ii) % Você quer que eu faço? you want that I do.ind “Do you want me to do it?”



Negative imperatives in Portuguese and other Romance languages 

However this is just a descriptive observation. It is still necessary to explain what the formal property is that differentiates BP from languages like EP and Spanish and how this property is related to the transparency in verbal morphology. In the following sections I will discuss four kinds of analyses for the lack of negated true imperatives: (i) a movement analysis; (ii) a semantic analysis; (iii) a selectional analysis; (iv) and a PF merger analysis. I will present data which bring problems for the three first analyses and argue that the PF merger analysis can adequately account for the behavior of negative imperative in BP and other Romance Languages.

3.  Movement based analyses The two first analyses to consider here are based on constraints on movement. The difference between them is the nature of the postulated constraint: syntactic in the first case and semantic in the second one. 3.1  Movement is blocked by syntactic constraints Rivero (1994) proposes that the imperative feature is codified in the head of CP and that a (true) imperative verb has to move to this position to check its own imperative feature (cf. (8a)). According to this view, the lack of negative imperatives would be derived from the Head Movement Constraint (HMC): the Neg head, between CP and TP, blocks the verb movement to C0 (cf. 8b) and leads the derivation to crash.3 (8) a.

CP C verb + T [IMP]

TP C [IMP]

verb [IMP]

T

VP T

…….

.  Some arguments in favor of her analysis are the VS inversion and the V-clitic order in imperatives in languages with SV and clitic-V order in declarative sentences.

 Rerisson Cavalcante

b.

CP C verb + T [IMP]

NegP C [IMP]

Neg

TP

não/no(n) T verb T [IMP]

VP …..



Han (1999, 2001), however, argues against this analysis based on the fact that the negative marker is a clitic in languages like Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. As a clitic, it should not block verb movement, but move with the verb as a complex, as we can see in cases of Aux-to-Comp movement in Italian interrogatives, as shown in (9a) from Rizzi (1982). The clitic nature of the negative marker is also true for Portuguese and Spanish as shown in (9b) and (9c), in which the adjacency between the marker and the verb can only be disrupted by (complement) clitics. (9) Italian a. (Non) avendo Gianni fatto questo, … neg having G. done this “(Not) having done this, John…” Portuguese b. Eu (ontem) não (*ontem) te saí I-non yesterday neg yesterday thou.acc left “I did not see you yesterday” Spanish c. (Ayer) no (*ayer) lo vi yesterday neg yesterday 3-sg.acc saw-1-sg “I did not see him yesterday”

3.2  Movement is blocked by semantic constraints Han (1999, 2001) agrees with Rivero (1994) with respect to the requirement of verb movement to C0 in order for the imperative feature to be checked. However, based on the clitic nature of the negative markers in the relevant languages, she proposes that when the complex Neg+V moves to C0 to check the imperative feature of the verb, the negative marker ends up taking scope over and canceling the illocutionary (imperative) force of the sentence, yielding an illegitimate semantic interpretation at LF and causing the derivation to crash.



Negative imperatives in Portuguese and other Romance languages 

(10) a. *No cuenta lo neg tell.imp 3-sg-acc “I don’t order you to tell it” b. *NEG > IMP

CP

C no cuenta Neg verb

NegP C [IMP]

Neg no(n)

TP T

verb T [imp]

… …..



3.3  Problems with V-to-C analyses At first sight, an analysis based on V-to-C movement could explain the differences between BP and the other languages, as BP does not have V-to-C movement (cf. Torres Morais 1993; Lopes Rossi 1993). However, this proposal faces a conceptual problem and an empirical one. Conceptually, the idea that the negation cancels the illocutionary force of the sentence by taking scope over it is at odds with standard assumptions on the left periphery. For instance, it is a standard assumption that a negative marker can move (with V) to C in other types of sentences, like declarative and interrogative ones, without canceling declarative or interrogative force, as in the example (11) (see also (9a–b). However, if negation in C0 could cancel the directive force, it should also cancel declarative and interrogative force. There is no a priori reason to assume that the imperative force is specially sensitive to negation in some way that declarative and imperative force is not. (11) a. What don’t you understand? b. [CP what [C′ don’t C0 [TP you (…) ]]]

Empirically, the analysis predicts that any negative elements generated above C0 (or dislocated to a position higher than C0) should cancel imperative force. However, examples like (12) (from Zanuttini 1995), show that dislocated negative elements do not block true imperative forms in Italian. (12) A nessuno di-llo! To nobody say.imp-it.acc “Don’t say it to anybody!”

 Rerisson Cavalcante

If the imperative verb has to be in C0 in Italian, then a dislocated negative expression, as a nessuno in (12), would be at least as high as Spec,CP and c-command the imperative force encoded in C0. 3.4  Additional data and an additional problem An even more problematic fact is that the movement approaches do not explain why phrasal negative adverbs such as Portuguese and Spanish nunca or Italian mai (“never”) also block true negative imperatives (cf. (13–15)), as I pointed out in Cavalcante (2008a). (13) Spanish a. ¡(*Nunca) cuenta lo! never tell.imp 3-sg.acc “(Never) tell it!” b. ¡Nunca lo cuentes! never 3-sg.acc tell.imp “Never tell it!” (14) Italian a. (*Mai) critica un componente della sua famiglia! never criticize.imp a member of.the your family “(Never) criticize a member of your family!” b. Mai criticare un componente della sua famiglia! never criticize.inf a member of-the your family “Never criticize a member of your family!” (15) European Portuguese a. (*Nunca) bebe (tu) antes de dirigir! never drink.imp thou before of drive “(Never) drink before driving!” b. Nunca bebas (tu) antes de dirigir! never drink.subj thou before of drive “Never drink before driving!”

In Cavalcante (2008a), I observed that, if both nunca and mai (“never”) are not heads, they should not block verb movement to C0. In Han’s (1999, 2001) analysis, the derivation in (16a) should be licit and the sentence in (16b) should be acceptable in EP, but it is not.4 .  The same problem may be found in BP. I have been arguing (Cavalcante 2007, 2008b) that the post-sentential negative marker não in BP should be analyzed as generated in a category of the CP-system rather than as a (simple) VP adjunct or a IP-related category. Arguments for this analysis came from the facts that the BP post-sentential negative marker is sensitive



Negative imperatives in Portuguese and other Romance languages 

(16) European Portuguese CP a.╇

C bebe drink.imp

TP C [IMP]

TP

AdvP nunca (DP) (tu)

TP T

VP

bebe drink.imp

……

b. *Bebe nunca (tu) antes de dirigir! drink.imp never thou before of drive “Don’t ever drink before driving”

In the next section, I will review and discuss a third kind of analysis for the lack of negated true imperative verbs across languages.5

to CP  specification. It is incompatible (or marginal) with embedded sentences, with WHquestions and topicalization/focalization. If this analysis is correct, the post-sentential negative in BP should also take scope over C0 canceling the imperative force. The semantic analysis incorrectly predicts that sentences like (i) should be unacceptable independently of the post-verbal position of the negative marker. (i) (Não) sai / saia não! neg leave.ind leave.sub neg .  In BP there is a dialectal variation in the acceptability of the suppletive imperative taken from indicative with preverbal nunca (“never”): (i) *Nunca conta isso! never tell.ind this “Never tell this!” (ii) ? Nunca faz isso never do.ind this (iii) ? Nunca (mais) faz isso never (more) do.ind this “Never do this (anymore)!” (iv) Nunca esquece de mim, tá? never forget.ind of me is “Never forget me, ok?” The existence of this variation show that the difference between EP and BP regarding to nunca with imperatives is more complex, but it is out of the limits of this paper and it will be addressed in a future work.

 Rerisson Cavalcante

4.  A selectional analysis To support her analysis of negative imperatives in Italian dialects, Zanuttini (1995) mentions two facts regarding crosslinguistic distribution of negative markers with respect to mood: (i) in Latin there were two different negative markers, one of which, ne, was used only in prohibitive sentences, i.e. in negative imperative and subjunctive sentences. (ii) Sadock & Zwicky (1985) show that, crosslinguistically, when a language have two morphologically distinct negative markers, they are sensitive to mood specifications and have a specialized distribution. Zanuttini (1995) then proposes that Italian has maintained the Latin distinction and has two (homophonous) negative markers: one that is used in nonimperative contexts and compatible with all kinds of verbal forms; and another one used in imperative contexts and is sensitive to mood/modality specifications. More specifically, she proposes that the negative marker used in imperatives requires a complement with a mood feature and that true imperative forms lack (tense or) mood specification.6 Once they cannot be taken as complement by these type of negative markers because of the absence of mood specification, the lack of negated imperative verbs would follow. This proposal could in principle explain the case of BP once both indicative and subjunctive forms, used as imperatives, would have a mood feature, which can satisfy the selectional requirement of the negative marker. However, if we were to assume Zanuttini’s (1995) analysis, it would be necessary to stipulate that EP and Spanish also have two different (preverbal) negative markers, as in Italian. A problem for this assumption is that it would also be necessary to stipulate that EP and Spanish have two kinds of nunca (“never”), and Italian, two kinds of mai (“never”) in order to explain why (preverbal) negative adverbials also block the true (mood-less) imperative forms.7

.  In her first analysis (Zanuttini 1991), she assumes that imperatives lack Tense (i.e. they do not have TP). In this latter work, she assumes that the missing feature is Mood and not Tense. .  One alternative would be to assume that even in sentences like (13)–(15), with a preverbal negative adverb but no negative marker in Neg0, the empty negative head in imperative may also have selectional properties which require a mood specialized complement. Note, however, that there would be a difference between an overt and non-overt negative marker, but between two non-overt negative markers, since non-imperative sentence with negative adverbs do not require subjunctive verbs, as shown in (i). (i) Ela nunca dorme / *durma tarde (Portuguese) she never sleep.ind sleep.subj late



Negative imperatives in Portuguese and other Romance languages 

5.  A PF merger analysis To solve the problems presented here, I assume Bošković’s (2004) analysis of negative imperatives in Greek. He proposes that the incompatibility between the negative marker and a true imperative form in Greek is due to morphological Â� considerations. More specifically, the imperative morpheme (in C0) behaves as an affix in PF and must merge with the (imperative) verb under adjacency. When the negative marker is present between the imperative morpheme and the verb, the adjacency is broken resulting in an illformed sentence, as shown in (17). (17) Greek a. Diavase! ler.imp “Read!” b. *Den/mi diavase! neg ler.imp “Don’t read!” c. Na mi diavazis! subj neg ler.subj “Don’t read!” d. [XP MIMP [NegP mi [TP diavase ]]]

Following Bošković’s (2004) analysis, I would like to propose that in EP, Spanish, and Italian, the imperative morpheme (in C)8 should be analyzed as a PF affix, which must merge with the (imperative) verb under adjacency. Assuming that nunca and mai appear in a specifier position, i.e. Spec,NegP (see Belletti 1990; Mioto 1992), they should also block the adjacency between the imperative morpheme and the verb. According to this proposal, it is not necessary to postulate V-to-C movement in imperatives. Even the postverbal position of the subject could be derived from this adjacency requirement, as I pointed in Cavalcante (2008a), as we will see below. At first sight, this proposal faces the same problem of how to deal with languages that lack true imperative forms, like BP. If we assume that the difference between those languages is that BP does not have the imperative morpheme, we

.  Bošković proposes that the imperative morpheme is generated in a higher position and admits the possibility that it could be C0, but his analysis is not committed to this.

 Rerisson Cavalcante

have a new9 problem: we would have to postulate that this type of languages simply does not have formal imperative sentences. However, Bošković (personal communication) suggests that it is possible to assume a parametric difference based not on the presence/absence of the imperative morpheme, but on its nature. The imperative morpheme would be present in all languages, but it might work either as a (PF) affix or as an independent morpheme. According to this idea, differently from the case of the other languages under discussion, BP does not have an adjacency requirement. The imperative morpheme in C0 is an independent morpheme that encodes the imperative force, but it is not an affix in PF and does not require adjacency with a verbal form. According to this view, the change in the nature of the imperative morpheme in C0 is probably a consequence of the loss of verbal morphology in BP,10 mentioned in Section 2.2. Independent evidence for this proposal is provided by the fact that BP allows preverbal subjects in imperatives (Cavalcante & Simioni 2009) (cf. (18)), which are banned in EP, in which the imperative subjects are either null or postverbal (cf. Han 1998), as shown in (19). (18) Preverbal (contrastive) subjects in BP imperatives A: — Abra / abre a porta! open.subj open.ind the door “Open the door!” B: — Eu não. VOCÊ abra / abre a porta! I neg you open.subj open.ind the door “Not me! YOU open the door!” (19) Subjects in EP imperatives Lava (tu) os pratos! wash.imp thou the dishes “You wash the dishes!”

(Han 1999:â•›141)

.  Actually, this problem is also present in the version of movement analysis proposed by Rivero (1994) and Han (1999). According to both analyses, to explain the lack of incompatibility between imperatives and negation in languages that do not have true imperatives, it is necessary to postulate that these languages do not have sentences with imperative features at all. .  This relation between the loss of verbal morphology and the change of the nature of the imperative affix (in C0) becomes more likely if we assume Chomsky’s (2001) proposal that C0 is the real place where the phi features (of T0) are generated.



Negative imperatives in Portuguese and other Romance languages 

It follows directly from the analysis above that preverbal subjects block the adjacency between the IMP morpheme and the imperative verb. Because of the adjacency requirement in EP, preverbal subjects is ruled out by PF. Once this requirement does not exist in BP, preverbal subjects are available. As for the postverbal position in EP, we can account for it by assuming the recourse of PLC (Pronounce Lower Copy), proposed by Franks (1998), which Bošković (2004) uses to explain the change in the Clitic-Verb order to Â�Verb-Clitic order in Greek imperatives. According to the proposal, PF can pronounce a lower copy of a syntatic expression in order to avoid a phonological violation. In Greek non-imperative sentences display only Clitic-Verb order, as shown in (20). However, in imperative sentences we observe the mirror image. Only Verb-Clitic order is available, as shown in (21). (20) Greek: V-Clitic order in indicatives a. To diavasa 3-sg-acc read.ind b. *Diavasa to read.ind 3-sg.acc “I read it” (21) Greek: Clitic-V order in imperatives a. *To diavase! 3-sg.acc read.imp b. Diavase to! read.imp 3-sg.acc “Read it!”

Assuming PLC, Bošković (2004) proposes that the clitic blocks the adjacency between the affix and the verb, leading to a violation in PF. To solve this problem, PF deletes the higher copy of the clitic and pronounces a lower one, as shown in the derivation in (22). (22) [XP MIMP [TP to diavase to ]]]

Following the same idea, I propose that the postverbal position of subjects in EP can be accounted for by the pronunciation of a lower copy of the subject, as shown in (23), in order for avoid a violation in PF. (23) [XP MIMP [TP subject verb [VP subject (…) ]]]

 Rerisson Cavalcante

6.  Summarizing In this section, I summarize the main conclusions on the interaction between the imperative verbs and negative markers: a. BP lost second person morphology and the distinction between indicative and imperative verbs. As a consequence, the distinction between true and suppletive imperatives was also lost. b. The imperative morpheme in C0 is a PF affix in EP, Italian, and Spanish and requires adjacency with the imperative verb. But in BP the imperative morpheme is an independent morpheme. c. Negative adverbs such as nunca and mai (“never”) block the adjacency between the verb and the imperative affix (in EP, Spanish and Italian). d. Preverbal subjects are not available in imperatives in EP, Spanish, and Italian, because of the adjacency requirement on the imperative affix, but are available in BP, because its imperative C0 is not an affix.

References Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement. Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier. Bošković, Željko. 2004. “On the Clitic Switch in Greek Imperatives”. Balkan Syntax and Semantics. ed. by Olga Mišeska Tomić, 269–291. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cavalcante, Rerisson. 2007. A NegaçaÌ…o Pŏs-Verbal no Portuguės Brasileiro. Master’s Thesis. Â�Universidade Federal da Bahia. Cavalcante, Rerisson. 2008a. “Imperativo e Negação em Português”. Paper presented at the II Workshop do Projeto Temático Sintaxe Gerativa do Português Brasileiro na Entrada do Século XXI: Minimalismo e Interfaces. University of São Paulo, Brazil, November 2008. Cavalcante, Rerisson. 2008b. “Post-Sentential Negation in Brazilian Portuguese”. Paper presented at the VII Workshop on Formal Linguistics, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Â�Curitiba, August 2008. Cavalcante, Rerisson. 2010. “Interação entre Imperativo e Negação”. Revista de Estudos da Â�Linguagem 8:2. 9–36. Cavalcante, Rerisson & Leonor Simioni. 2009. “Sobre a Ordem VS em Sentenças Imperativas no Português Brasileiro”. Paper presented at the XII Encontro de Estudantes de Pós-Â� Graduação em Lingüística da USP, University of São Paulo, Brazil, June 2009. Franks, Steven. 1998. “Clitics in Slavic”. Position paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, June 5–7, Bloomington. Han, Chung-Hye. 1999. “Cross-linguistic Variation in the Compatibility of Negation and Imperatives”. Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. 265–279. Han, Chung-Hye. 2001. “Force, Negation and Imperatives”. The Linguistic Review 18. 289–325. Kayne, Richard. 1992. “Italian Negative Infinitival Imperatives and Clitic Climbing”. Hommages aÌ• Nicolas Ruwet. Ed. by Liliane Tasmowsky & Anne Zribi-Hertz, 300–312. Ghent: Communication and Cognition.



Negative imperatives in Portuguese and other Romance languages 

Lopes Rossi, Maria Aparecida Garcia. 1993. “Estudo Diacrônico sobre as Interrogativas do Â�Português do Brasil”. Português Brasileiro: Uma Viagem Diacrônica. Ed. by Ian Roberts & Mary A. Kato, 263–303. Campinas, Unicamp. Mioto, Carlos. 1992. Negação Sentencial no Português Brasileiro e a Teoria da Gramática. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidade de Campinas (Brazil). Postma, Gertjam & Wim van der Wurff. 2007. “How to Say No and Don’t: Negative Imperative in Romance and Germanic”. Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar: Studies Offered to Frits Beukema ed. by Wim van der Wurff, 205–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1994. “Negation, Imperatives and Wackernagel Effects”. Rivista di Linguistica 6. 39–66. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Floris. Sadock, Jerrold M. & Arnold M. Zwicky. (1985). “Speech Act Distinction in Syntax”. Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Ed. by Timothy Shopen, 155–196. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Torres Morais, Maria Aparecida C. R. 1993. “Aspectos Diacrônicos do Movimento do Verbo, Estrutura da Frase e Caso Nominativo no Português do Brasil”. Português Brasileiro: Uma Viagem Diacrônica. Ed. by Roberts, Ian & Mary A. Kato, 263–303. Campinas, Unicamp. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential negation. A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1995. Reflexes of Clausal Structures in the Syntax of Negation: a Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Georgetown University. Zeijlstra, Hedde H. 2006. “The Ban on True Negative Imperatives”. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6. 405–424.

part iii

Semantic interfaces

Another look at Italian generic sentences* Alda Mari

Institut Jean Nicod, CNRS/ENS/EHESS In this paper we reconsider the interpretation of indefinite singular generics and definite plural generics in Italian. We show that these two types of statements cannot be associated with the traditional distinction between definitional vs. accidental generalizations. In particular we argue that indefinite generic statements are associated with a variety of interpretations that can be unified by reconstructing a hidden abilitative verbal operator triggered by the imperfective interpretation of the present tense. We distinguish between two types of abilities as well as between the overt abilitative modal and the covert one. We correctly derive the prediction that indefinite singular generics cannot be combined with accidental properties, which are perfective in nature. We analyze definite plurals as entering the logical form with a situation variable that is responsible for the fact that definite plural generics are compatible with accidental properties.

1.  Introduction This paper focuses on the interpretation of indefinite singular generic (IS) (1a) and definite plural generic (DP) sentences (1b) in Italian.1 (1) a. Un leone ha una criniera “A lion has a mane” b. I leoni hanno una criniera “The lions have a mane”

*╇ I would like to thank Claire Beyssade, Fabio Del Prete and Francis Corblin for discussion on the topic as well as the audiences of LSRL 40 and of Genius Seminar (Paris, Ens). This research is supported by the ANR Project Genius. (ANR-08-JCJC-0069). .  Definite singular are used in Italian for direct reference to kinds and are not considered here. Plural indefinites can only be used in very limited environments and will not be considered in this paper (see, e.g. de Swart 1991; Farkas & de Swart 2007; Dobrovie-Sorin & Mari 2007 for discussion).

 Alda Mari

The uses of IS and DP sentences in Romance languages correspond, respectively, to those of indefinite generic (2a) and bare plural generics (BP) (2b) sentences in English. (2) a. A lion has a mane b. Lions have a mane

Like ISs and BPs in English, ISs and DPs in Romance do not express the same kind of generalizations. ISs have been claimed to express law-like statements and to be compatible with essential properties only as the contrast in (3a)–(3b) illustrates.2 BPs have been noted to be compatible with both essential properties (4a) and accidental generalizations (4b) (Lawler 1973; Dähl 1975). The same observations hold for ISs ((5a) vs. (5b)) and DPs ((6a) vs. (6b)) in Italian. It is now standardly admitted that (5b) is ruled out because popular is a non-definitional property of madrigals. (3) a. A madrigal is polyphonic b. *A madrigal is popular (4) a. Madrigals are polyphonic b. Madrigals are popular (5) a. Un madrigale è polifonico “A madrigal is polyphonic” b. *Un madrigale è popolare “*A madrigal is popular” (6) a. I madrigali sono polifonici “The madrigals are polyphonic” b. I madrigali sono popolari “The madrigals are popular”

Much disagreement remains when it comes to the analysis of these statements. Firstly, it is not settled whether ISs and BPs/DPs must receive a unified treatment in terms of generic quantification. Secondly, it remains to be established that the above-mentioned characterization of ISs as only able to express law-like statements is correct and to what extent. Thirdly, assuming that the meaning of the determiner determines the interpretation of the sentence, it cannot be taken for granted that one single analysis can extend to all languages. Taking into account the meaning of the determiner, we end up with two very different

.  ISs stands for singular indefinite generic sentences; DPs for definite plural generic sentences and BPs for bare plural generic sentences.



Another look at Italian generic sentences 

logical forms for the two types of statements. We consider ISs in Section 2, DPs in Section 3. Section 4 concludes the paper. We focus here on Italian. The same results extend to French. 2.  IS sentences 2.1  Tripartite structures Most of the current approaches of ISs are based on the tripartite structure in (7).

(7) GEN [restrictor] [matrix]

There are two views of GEN. On the extensional analysis of GEN (see in particular Farkas & Fugioka 1983; de Swart 1991), GEN means essentially “always”. It is argued that GEN is triggered by a silent when-clause, on the basis of the following argument. (8a) is interpreted as in (8b). When a when-clause occurs with an overt AdvQ as in (8c), the when-clause is considered to provide the restriction for the AdvQ. GEN is a silent AdvQ that must have its own restriction. A silent whenclause provides its restriction. (8) a. Fido barks b. Fido barks (when he is hungry) c. Fido usually barks when he is hungry

The resulting LF for (8a) is as follows: (9) ALWAYS s [in(s; Fido)][barks(s; Fido)] Always in relevant situations, Fido barks

According to de Swart (ibid.) indefinites are generalized quantifiers operating over a domain of individuals with an existential interpretation. The existential quantifier is in the scope of GEN and thus individuals are indirectly bound to situations. (10) a. A dog barks b. ALWAYSs [∃x dog(x) & in(x, Fido)][barks(x, s)]

Aside from some other shortcomings (see in particular Rimell 2004; Ferreira, 2005) this analysis fails to explain why ISs are incompatible with temporary states when AdvQ is silent (11a), but are instead compatible with them when AdvQ is overt (11b). (11) a. *Un madrigale è popolare “A madrigal is popular” b. Un madrigale è sempre popolare “A madrigal is always popular”

 Alda Mari

In the intensional analysis of GEN, (12a) is interpreted as in (12b). An if-clause is reconstructed that provides the restriction for GEN. GEN is interpreted as an intensional unselective universal quantifier meaning “must” (Krifka et al. 1995). On the assumption that indefinites contribute a variable ranging over individuals (Kamp 1981; Heim 1982), that variable can be bound by GEN. In accordance with this view, assume a classical modal framework in which W is a set of worlds, D is a domain of entities and ≤ is an ordering source on worlds according to normality. Modal bases (i.e. the domains of worlds) are of various types, and can be circumstantial, deontic etc. For (12a), in which the modal base is circumstantial and most normal worlds are quantified over, the resulting interpretation is given in (12c). (12) a. A dog barks b. If something is a dog, it must bark c. ∀w′≤w,x[dog(x,w′)][barks(x,w′)] Paraphrase: in all normal worlds, if something is a dog, it barks.

Menendez-Benito (2005) has noted that this view predicts for (13a) that a Ferrari goes at 200 km/ph in all accessible worlds, even though it only does in some worlds, and one should assume that (13a) is synonymous with (13b) rather than a modal sentence with ‘must’. (13) a. Une Ferrari va a 200 km/ph “A Ferrari goes 200 km/ph” b. Una Ferrari può andare a 200Km/ph “A Ferrari can go at 200 Km/ph”

Although the observation is prima facie correct, Krifka et al. (1995:â•›54) did not fail to note that not all IS sentences can be paraphrased by ‘can’ as the contrast in (14a)– (14b) illustrates. Contrary to (14a), (14b) is odd. (14) a. Una barca galleggia/ b. può galleggiare “A boat/??can float”

Menendez-Benito (2005) argues that the silent can in (13a) and (14a) is only compatible with “inner dispositions”. In this respect, it is different from an overt ‘can’ that is not restricted to such dispositions. However, this view cannot extend to all kinds of ISs because inner dispositions are not always available as in (15), where a silent ‘can’ cannot be reconstructed. (15) Un idraulico guadagna molti soldi “A plumber earns a lot of money”

The account presented in this paper solves this puzzle.



Another look at Italian generic sentences 

More generally, both the extensional and the modal account are not at ease with the fact that ISs do not form a uniform class of statements. While some of them provide definitional statements as in (16), others cannot be considered as definitional (17a), (17b).3 (16) Un madrigale è polifonico “A madrigal is polyphonic” (17) a. Un calciatore guadagna molti soldi “A football player earns a lot” b. Una tartaruga vive a lungo “A turtle lives a long time”

These two types of statements behave differently with regard to tolerance to exceptions, and clearly the first ones (like (16)) are more resistant to exceptional individuals: if a madrigal is not polyphonic, it is not a madrigal. The latter ones (like (17a) and (17b)) are more permeable to them. There certainly are football players who do not earn a huge amount of money (e.g. in the third Italian league) and turtles that do not live a long time span. Moreover, as the authors themselves observe, the modal account that they propose makes some unsuitable predictions. For (17b), they explain (Krifka et al.:â•›56) that “… This sentence evokes a kind of “realistic” modality in which the laws of biology holds. However, the worlds in which no turtle ever dies a premature death are biologically highly abnormal …”. Another potential problem for the modal account as it is stated in Krifka et al. is that, allowing for the use of any type of modal base, it cannot rule out temporary properties (18), because in most circumstantially normal worlds it is true that raps are popular. (18) *A rap is popular

In the analysis that follows, we espouse an intensional view. We propose though a new account that is not based on the reconstruction of a restrictive clause (neither a when nor if clause) but that is grounded on the notion of ability. We tease apart cases in which the modality is overt from those in which it is covert, and provide first an analysis for the latter cases.

.  These cases are also problematic for ‘in virtue of ’ theories (Greenberg 2002).

 Alda Mari

2.2  IS sentences as abilitative statements Carlson (1977) and Rimell (2004) propose for habitual sentences like John walks to school that there is a silent habitual HAB. HAB is associated with the imperfective interpretation of the present tense. As many scholars have observed in previous studies, in the absence of a spatiotemporal location, the present tense in English has a generic interpretation (Kenny 1963; Declerck 1988). It is thus legitimate to distinguish a perfective interpretation of the present tense, which depends on the quantification of situations for its interpretation and an imperfective interpretation of it.3 The same contrast arises in Italian. (19) a. Uccello vola sul tetto (perfective) “A bird flies on the roof ” b. Un Uccello vola (imperfective) “A bird flies”

In both Carlson’s (1977) and Rimell’s (1994) accounts, HAB is an inductive generalization operator. Here, in connection with indefinite generics, we do not claim that there is a silent HAB that provides inductive generalization, but rather a silent abilitative AB which provides intensional generalizations. In order to clearly distinguish the two, we note HABext and ABint the operators that provide inductive generalizations and intensional generalizations, respectively. A semiformal representation of (19b) can be seen in (20). (20) ABint (fly)(a bird)

Before getting to the question of what ABint is and how indefinites are interpreted in generic statements, we begin by answering the immediate question of why there should be an extensional operator in (21a) but an intensional one in (21b). (21) a. Anna va a scuola a piedi “Anna walks to school” b. Un bambino va a scuola a piedi A boy walks to school

It has been extensively argued that indefinites lack their own reference and have existential meaning only with presentational verbs (22) or in a context where there is quantification over spatio-temporal location (19a) (Chierchia 1995; McNally 1998; Dobrovie-Sorin 2004). (22) Un uomo è entrato e mi ha parlato (∃ reading) “A man entered and talked to me”



Another look at Italian generic sentences 

When quantification over spatio-temporal location is missing, as in generic statements, the indefinite lacks specific reference (see also Cohen, 2001 on this). It is impossible to achieve an inductive generalization about entities whose reference is not determined in a model. Entities with non-determined reference can instead be attributed a capacity, that is to say a principle such that, for a given entity, regulates its behavior. Thus, uttering a bird flies does not commit to the fact that some birds fly repeatedly, but only to the fact that if a bird exists, that bird has the ability to fly. This bird need not be an actual one. Granted that generic indefinites can be attributed a tendency (or capacity) but not a habit, we now turn to the semantics of abilities.4 2.3  ABint and the semantics of abilities Whereas habits describe observed regularities, abilities have an explanatory value. They exist independently of their manifestations and are such that, if exercised, can lead to successful action. The semantics of abilities is a very complex matter to which we cannot render justice in this paper, which is dedicated to the distinction between ISs and DPs. 2.3.1  Capacity in potentia and capacity in acto Here we espouse the standard view that abilities are a certain type of possibility (e.g. Aristotle, De Interpretatione; Kenny 1963). Along the lines of the distinction made in Aristotle, we distinguish the ‘capacity in potentia’ and the ‘capacity in acto’ (Arstt. De interpretatione XXIII,a,8 ): “… ‘Possible’ itself is ambiguous. It is used, on the one hand of facts and of things that are actualized; … On the other hand, ‘possible’ is used of a thing that might be realized; it is possible for someone to walk since in certain conditions he would … ”. The ‘capacity in acto’ is in fact a ‘necessary’ capacity as Aristotle himself claims a few paragraphs later. A capacity in acto holds in virtue of the existence of the bearer of the capacity. The analysis of the capacity in acto then comprises a form of entailment of the form (23), and in this respect our analysis agrees with most of the available approaches. (P and Q are, respectively, the properties denoted by the NP and the VP). (23) ∀x(P(x) → Q(x))

.  Here we use the term ‘ability/capacity’ in a very loose way. As it is going to become clear, we do not require for instance that the NP in subject be an ‘agent’. The analysis of the notion we are targeting is given in (25)–(26).

 Alda Mari

This entailment, explains Aristotle, always holds, provided that worlds are nomologically and alethically similar to the actual world (e.g. fire burns in all worlds in which the fire has the physical properties that it has in the actual world). (cf. infra, (25)). Moreover, because the capacity in acto is necessarily exercised as long as the bearer of the capacity exists, the temporal extent of the property coincides with the temporal existence of the bearer. This does not require that the property be ‘permanent’. Permanency is a consequence of this requirement: the property holds during the ‘life’ of the bearer. As a further consequence, the property does not have to hold in a spatio-temporally bounded situation. As a result, when in IS sentences the verb is stative, it can denote the capacity is in acto. Capacity in potentia can either be expressed by a stative verb (24a)–(24b) or by an eventive one (24c). Since an ability is a permanent state of the entity that possesses it, we assume that, in this case, the eventive predicate is coerced into a stative via ABint (24c). When the capacity in potentia is expressed by an eventive predicate, the capacity is considered to be exercised only in particular circumstances. In both these cases, the capacity in potentia is not actualized by the mere existence of the bearer of the capacity and some other conditions must be met. (24) a. Una tartaruga vive a lungo “A turtle lives a long time span” b. Un giocatore di calcio guadagna molti soldi “A soccer player earns a lot of money” c. Una Ferrari va a 200km/ph “A Ferrari goes at 200km/ph”

The question then arises of what is the modal base for ABint. Here we propose that the worlds that are quantified over are those in which all impediments are absent. 2.3.2  An abilitative modal base: Absence of impeding conditions Absence of impeding conditions is to be carefully distinguished from normalcy conditions. Normalcy conditions have been argued to be of two sorts. They can correspond to some observed regularities in the actual world (à la Cohen 1999), or to some explicative principle (à la Nickel 2009). Assume first that normal worlds are those in which the regularities available in the actual worlds are also present (hence we understand ‘normalcy conditions’ in an inductive way, as observed regularities in the actual world). According to this view, the intended interpretation of (24a) cannot be derived because under normal circumstances, given the actual world, turtles die very young because they are eaten by predators.



Another look at Italian generic sentences 

Assuming instead that ‘normalcy conditions’ are some type of explicative principle, we fall short of an explanation for (24b) because there is no regulatory principle intrinsic to being a soccer player that justifies his earning a lot of money. Impeding conditions are thus a very weak form of restriction over possible worlds. This reflects the fact that they are associated with a silent operator (namely ABint) and when a silent operator is used, it generally has a weaker interpretation than overt ones, because covert operators are there by default.5 We now turn to the implementation of the account. 2.4  IS statements: Analysis This distinction between the capacity in acto and capacity in potentia gives rise to different types of entailments. Because capacity is a modal notion, quantification over worlds will be used. In particular we will be using universal quantification over possible worlds. This is straightforwardly justified in the case of capacities in acto, which are ‘necessary capacities’. As for capacities in acto, the existence of the bearer entails the existence of the ability. The set of worlds quantified over are thus simply restricted to circumstantially accessible worlds. (25) Capacity in acto λw ∀w′[[Acc(w′,w)]→ ∀x[P(x,w′) → Q(x,w′))]] Paraphrase: Given a world of evaluation w, for all worlds w′, if w′ is accessible from w, then for all x, if x is P in w′, then x is Q in w′.

Regarding the analysis of capacity in potentia, universal quantification is restricted to worlds in which there are no impeding conditions. (26) Capacity in potentia with a stative (24a) λw∀w′[[No−impedements(w′,w)] → ∀x[P(x,w′) → Q(x,w′))]] Paraphrase: Given a world of evaluation w, for all worlds w′, if w′ is accessible from w with no impediment to the exercise of the capacity, then for all x, if x is P in w′, then x is Q in w′.

In (17b) impeding conditions are the presence of predators, lack of food, etc. In the absence of these impeding conditions, a turtle has a long life span. Similarly for (17a), in the absence of impeding conditions (e.g. playing in the third Italian league), a soccer player earns a lot of money. .  On ‘impeding conditions’, see also Eckardt 2000 on ideal objects. Here restriction to the modal basis to ‘lack of impeding conditions’ is induced by the semantics of AB.

 Alda Mari

To express capacity in potentia, a situation variable is used to signal that the capacity, in worlds in which there are no-impeding conditions, has instantiations in specific spatio-temporal situations. In (13a) if the Ferrari in not broken (impeding condition), then in some relevant circumstances, the Ferrari goes at 200 km/ ph. C is a predicate that relates situations, individuals and worlds, and which returns contextually relevant situations in which x is involved in world w (see also Greeenberg 2002). (27) Capacity in potentia with a coerced event (24c) λw∀w′[[No−impedements(w′,w)] → ∀xs, [(P(x,w′) & C(x,w′s)) → Q(x,w′))]]] Paraphrase: Given a world of evaluation w, for all worlds w′, if w’is accessible from w with no impediment to the exercise of the capacity, then for all x, if x is P in w′ and x is in some relevant situation s in w′ then x is Q in w′.

2.5  Some other consequences of the account In analyzing ISs as abilitative statements, the account grasps a variety of judgments that ISs can express. As noted above, ISs are not always definitional. The notion of capacity in acto requires unrestricted quantification over circumstantially accessible worlds. As for the ‘capacity in potentia’, instead, worlds in which the generalization holds are worlds in which there is no impediment. As we have noted, restriction to these worlds does not amount to restriction to ‘normal worlds’ and we have shown above how these two notions differ. 2.5.1  Difference between overt ‘can’ and covert ABint The restriction of lack of impeding conditions pending on covert modality is weaker than the one pending on the overt abilitative modality. In fact, it has been observed that the overt abilitative modal ‘can’ is associated with an inference of ‘effort,’ according to which there are specific conditions under which the action is carried out (Kenny 1963). This inference is absent when the abilitative interpretation is reconstructed. This explains the contrast in (14a)–(14b). This argument also grasps the subtle difference in the interpretation of (13a) and (13b). (13a) asserts that, provided there are no impediments (e.g. the Ferrari works properly, there are no speed limit restrictions etc), in some particular situations (e.g. those in which the driver wants to), the Ferrari goes at 200km/ph. (13b) implies instead that the Ferrari achieves a peculiar goal that requires that specific conditions be met (e.g. that a special technology be used etc.).



Another look at Italian generic sentences 

2.5.2  Incompatibility with temporary statives The account predicts that an indefinite cannot be combined with predicates denoting accidental properties like popular (see (18)). Accidental properties are bounded to spatio-temporal locations and are thus perfective in nature. A rap is ‘popular’ in a certain location, and likely, for a certain time. Unlike an eventive predicate in the present tense, a stative that denotes a spatio-temporally bounded property (e.g. McNally 1998; Fernald 2000), cannot have an imperfective interpretation. Hence ABint cannot be reconstructed and the interpretation cannot be carried out. To make the sentence acceptable, a temporal adverb or a when-clause is used. In these cases, de Swart (1996) analysis applies (e.g. Dobrovie-Sorin 2004 for French). (See (10b) for the analysis of (28)). (28) Un madrigale è sempre popolare “A madrigal is always popular”

2.5.3â•…IS statements are not definitional It has been often noted in the Romance linguistic literature that indefinite statements have a prescriptive use (Corblin 1987; Carlier 1996; Mari 2008) or a moral flavor (Cohen 2002). (29) Una pianta ha bisogno di acqua per vivere ! “A plant needs water to live!”

It has also been argued that ISs are definitional, that they express rules and regulations and that they lack propositional content (Cohen 2001). Burton Roberts (1977) observes for A gentleman opens doors for ladies that “if Emile does not as a rule open doors for ladies, his mother could utter [it] and thereby successfully imply that Emile was not, or was not being a gentleman” (see also Mari (2008) and Mari & Martin (2009)). This view undermines the fact that exceptional individuals can still be accommodated in ISs. (17a) is compatible with the fact that although there are football players (in the third Italian league, for instance) who do not earn a lot of money, they are still football players. What defines a football player is not his earning a lot of money. Similarly, for (17b), turtles that do not live a long time span are certainly turtles. It is nonetheless correct that ISs can have a prescriptive use. However, ISs with prescriptive use usually have an overt quasi-modal or modality as in (29) or (30). (30) Une jeune femme doit bien se comporter “A young lady must behave well”

 Alda Mari

In these cases the modal analysis straightforwardly applies (12c). Here the choice of the modal base is determined by the modal itself (see Krifka et al. 1995). In (29) the quasi-modal ‘to need’ (aver bisogno) is deontic and the prescriptive use is enhanced by the deontic reading of the modal. In cases which have been argued to have a prescriptive use and in which there is no overt modality, the role of prosody has been very much undermined. These statements can be turned into a rule only if they are turned into imperatives by the appropriate intonation. An analysis of prosody is outside the scope of this paper.6 2.5.4  ISs do not express inductive generalizations The account that we have proposed here also does not espouse the view that indefinite generic sentences can express inductive generalizations (as suggested in Putnam 1975). One could argue that it is legitimate to assume that in order to utter (17b), the speaker must have heard of rich soccer players. Assuming that in the actual world there are regularities that hold for a reasonable amount of time, the speaker is entitled to conclude that a soccer player is rich also at the time of the utterance. As already pointed out, the view that ISs express inductive generalizations would predict that a turtle lives a short time span since most turtles in the actual world die young. Our account does not commit us to this view. 3.  DP sentences 3.1  The questions We have recalled in the introduction that DPs express inductive generalizations in the same way that BPs do in English. Relatedly, it has been noted that DPs better tolerate exceptions than ISs. The following is a perfectly acceptable discourse in which John is introduced as a true exception to the rule (Mari & Martin 2009). (31) a. I professori nella mia università portano la cravatta. b. Ma no, guarda Giovanni! a. “The professors in my university wear a tie”. b. “No! Look at John!”

This fact is straightforwardly explained in Farkas & de Swart’s (2007) account. The authors have argued that DPs compare two sets of individuals. They state that plural definites have determined reference, namely, the value assigned to these

.  On the relation between deontic modality and imperatives, see Portner 2009.



Another look at Italian generic sentences 

discourse referents in the model must be fixed (hence the use of ‘!’ in (32b)). Since Farkas & de Swart assume that GEN is interpreted as meaning ‘in most situations’, it quantifies over situations. In their analysis, sentence (32a) means that in most situations, if there are hungry dogs in there, dogs are dangerous. (32) a. I cani affamati sono pericolosi “The hungry dogs are dangerous” b. GENS, X[!dogs(x) & Pl(x) & hungry(x) & in(x,s)][dangerous(x,s)]

However, definite plurals are compatible with a variety of uses, and, depending on which use is targeted, DPs tolerate different types of exceptions. 1. Assume that I am reporting about the habit of actual professors in my university. In this case (33), exceptions as individuals are allowed. (33) Scenario 1: Description of the habit of professors in my university Nella mia università, i professori portano la cravatta tranne Gianni “In my university, the professors wear a tie but John”

2. Assume instead that I am stating how professors behave in a university. In this case, exceptions as individuals cannot be accommodated, but only exceptions as classes (34). (34) Scenario 2: general fact about professors in university I professori portano la cravatta, tranne quelli associati/*Gianni “In my university, the professors wear a tie, but the associate ones/*John”

In this paper we build on Farkas & de Swart’s view that DPs refer to plural individuals. However, differently from what these authors assume, we will not consider that GEN quantifies over situations. 3.2  DPs: Analysis We adopt Schwarzschild’s (2009) view, according to which definites denote a fixed set of elements in a situation and come equipped in the logical form with a situation variable. Along with Kratzer (2002) we assume that situations are parts of worlds. Situations and worlds are thus introduced as variables that wait to be bounded. On the two above-mentioned interpretations of DPs, they can either be lambda abstracted or they can be bounded by the universal quantifier (GEN). The resulting analysis for the uses of DPs is given in (35) and (36). (As in Farkas & de Swart 2007, the distributive predicate induces universal quantification over individuals in the maximal sum ιX.) (35) λw,s ιX(P(ιX,s,w) & ∀x ∈ ιX Q(x,s,w)) For a given world w, a situation s and the maximal sum X, the maximal sum is P in s,w, and for all elements x in X, x is Q in s,w.

 Alda Mari

(36) ∀w′≤w′ s ιX(P(ιX,s,w′) → ∀x ∈ ιX Q(x,s,w′))

For all worlds w′ which are maximally similar to w, for all situations s and the maximal sum X, if the maximal sum is P in s,w′, then, for all elements x in X, x is Q in s,w′.

In (35) the generalization is about individuals in the actual world in a given situation. For (33) it states that, given the set of professors in my university, every professor wears a tie. Because it is entailed that there are actual individuals, actual exceptional individuals can be accommodated. In (36) the generalization is about worlds and situations. The existence of actual individuals is not entailed, and this explains why in (34) it is difficult to accommodate actual individuals as exceptions. In a third configuration, the world is lambda abstracted and the situation variable is universally bounded (37). Here the generalization is about situations of the actual world. It states that if a member of the maximal sum X satisfying property P is involved in s, then it is also Q in s. The existence of actual individuals in actual situations of the actual world is not entailed. However, since situations are parts of worlds, one cannot know what goes on in a particular situation unless one has observed it. Regularities about situations in the actual world are generally derived on the basis of induction. Hence the existence of actual xs is inferred. In this case, as in (35), it is thus possible to accommodate exceptions, as actual individuals. The general strategy for such accommodation is along the lines proposed by Lasersohn (1999), who argues that all types of precise measures (like ‘all’ or ‘maximal sum’) are compatible with a pragmatic halo which allows approximating (without necessarily reaching) the limit. (37) λw,∀s ιX(∀x ∈ ιX(P(x,s,w) → Q(x,s,w))) For a given world w, for all situations s and the maximal sum X, for all elements x in X, if x is P in s,w then x is Q in s,w. (38) I madrigali sono popolari “The madrigals are popular”

The present account derives the prediction that definites are compatible with accidental properties because they provide the spatio-temporal location that accidental properties need to be used.

4.  Conclusion In this paper we have proposed a new LF for ISs and DPs in Italian. For the first ones, we have introduced a new verbal quantifier ABint that is analyzed as



Another look at Italian generic sentences 

an abilitative modal. ABint is triggered by the imperfective interpretation of the present tense that arises in the absence of any specification of a spatio-temporal location. Adopting the Aristotelian distinction between capacities in acto and capacities in potentia, we have shown that covert ABint has a different interpretation than the overt abilitative modal ‘can’. In particular its modal basis is restricted to worlds in which there are no impediments, and it is not associated with an inference of effort (on the inference of effort, see Mari (2011)). We also argued that IS statements are not all definitional, and it is legitimate to wonder whether, ultimately, they are able to express inductive generalizations. As for uttering ‘a soccer player earns a lot of money’, it is likely that the speaker has heard of rich soccer players. Knowing how the generalization is achieved, however, is a separate question from knowing what the sentence asserts. Its truth-value is computed uniquely from the meaning components, and ISs turn out to be true even in the absence of actual individuals in the world of evaluation w. ISs are thus correctly predicted to be incompatible with predicates denote temporary states. These are by nature perfective and bounded to spatio-temporal locations. As for DPs, we have argued that plural definites enter in the logical form with a situation variable that is responsible for their being compatible with nondefinitional statements. Assuming that situations are parts of worlds, we have also shown that by differentiating the operations on worlds and situations, various interpretations of DPs can be derived.

References Aristotle, de Interpretatione. Oxford: Loeb Classical Library. Burton-Roberts, Noel, 1977. “Generic Sentences and Analyticity”. Studies in Language 1.155–196. Carlier, Anne, 1996. “Les gosses, ça se lève tôt le matin”. French Language Studies 6.133–162. Carlson, Gregory, 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Chierchia, Gennaro, 1995. “Individual-level Predicates as Inherently Generics”. The Generic Book. ed by Gregory Carlson & Jeff Pelletier, 176–223. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Cohen, Ariel, 1999. “Generics, Frequency Adverbs and Probability”. Linguistics and philosophy 22.221–253. Cohen, Ariel, 2001. “On the Generic Use of Indefinite Singulars”. Journal of Semantics 18: 183–209. Cohen, Ariel. 2002. Genericity. Linguistische Berichte 10.59–89. Corblin, Francis, 1987. Indéfini, défini et démonstratif. Genève: Droz. Dähl, Osten, 1975. “On Generics”. Formal Semantics of Natural Language ed. by E. Edward Keenan, 99–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Alda Mari Declerck, Reenaat, 1988. “Restrictive When-clauses”. Linguistics and Philosophy 11.131–168. de Swart, Henriëtte, 1996. “(In)definites and Genericity”. Quantifiers, Deduction and Context. Stanford ed. By Makoto Kanazawa, Christopher Piñón, & Henriëtte de Swart, 171–194. CSLI. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, 2004. “Generic Plural Indefinites and (In)direct Binding”. Handbook of French Semantics, ed. by Francis Corblin & Henriëtte de Swart, 55–70. Stanford: CSLI. Dobrovie-Sorin Carmen & Mari Alda, 2007. “Quantification and Objecthood: The case of generic plural des-indefinites in French”. Proceedings of Nels 37. Eckardt, Regine, 2000. “Normal Objects, Normal Worlds and the Meaning of Generic Sentences”. Journal of Semantics 16: 257–278. Farkas Donka & Sugioka, Yukiko, 1983. “Restrictive If/When clauses”. Linguistics and Philosophy 6.225–258. Farkas, Donka & de Swart, Henriëtte, 2007. “Article Choice in Plural Generics”. Lingua 11.1657–1676. Fernald, Theodore, 2000. Predicates and Temporal Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ferreira, Marcelo, 2005. Event Quantification and Plurality. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Greenberg, Yael, 2002. “Two types of Quantificational Modalized Genericity and the Interpretation of Bare Plurals and Indefinite Singular NPs”. Proceedings of SALT XII, 104–123. Heim, Irene, 1982. The Semantics of Definites and Indefinites Noun Phrases. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Kamp, Hans, 1981. “A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation”. Formal Methods in the Study of Language ed. by Jeroen Groenendijk, T. Janssen & Martin Stokhof, 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum. Kenny, Antony, 1963. Will, Freedom, and Power. Oxford: Blackwell. Kratzer, Angelika, 2002. “Facts: particulars or information units?”. Linguistics and Philosophy 25.655–670. Krifka, Manfred, Francis J. Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice Ter Meulen, Godehard Link & Gennaro Chierchia. 1995. “Genericity. An Introduction”. The Generic Book. ed. by Gregory Carlson & Jeff Pelletier, 1–124. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lasersohn, Peter, 1999. “Pragmatic Halos”. Language 75.522–551. Lawler, John, 1973. Studies in English Generics. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Papers in Linguistics. Mari, Alda, 2008. “Analyticity Under Perspective: Indefinite Generics in French”. Proceedings of SuB 12.414–429. Mari, Alda & Martin, Fabienne, 2009. “Generic (In)definites and the Analythic/Synthetic Distinction”. Talk at Genius 1, Paris. Menendez-Benito, Paula, 2005. The Grammar of Choice. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. McNally, Louise, 1998. “Stativity and Theticity”. Events and Grammar ed. by Susan Rothstein, 293–307. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Nickel, Bernhard, 2009. “Ways of Normality”. Linguistics and Philosophy 31.629–648. Portner, Paul, 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Putnam, Hilary, 1975. “The Meaning of Meaning”. in Mind, Language and Reality (Philosophical Papers, Hilary Putnam vol. 2), 215–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rimell, Laura, 2004. “Habitual Sentences and Generic Quantification”. Proceedings of WCCFL 23. Schwarzschild, Roger, 2009. “Variable Enriched Logical Forms”. EALING, Paris.

The agreement of collective DPs in Romanian Blanca Croitor & Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin

Institute of Linguistics, Bucharest / CNRS – LLF, Université Paris 7 Romanian collective nouns do not allow plural agreement on the verb, unlike in British English. But when a collective noun is used with a partitive quantifier (e.g. o parte din guvern “part of the government”), plural agreement is possible. We propose an analysis for partitive quantification, which can account for plural agreement with partitive collectives, as well as with partitive plural DPs (o parte dintre studenţi “part of the students”). Our analysis is based on Higginbotham’s (1994) analysis of mass and plural D-quantifiers. Quantification is construed in terms of amounts of minimal parts; the minimal parts in the denotation of collective nouns are atomic entities. The partitive quantifiers transform a group denoting entity into a sum denoting entity.

1.  The problem In Romanian, collective DPs allow only singular agreement on the verb, whereas in British English, both singular and plural agreement are allowed: (1) a. Guvernul a decis /*au decis. (Romanian) government-the has decided /have decided “The government has decided.” (2) a.  The Government have decided that judicial salaries will increase by 1.5 per cent. (http://services.parliament.uk/…/20090331…) b.  The Government has decided that base pay and the minima and maxima of each pay band will increase by 1.5 per cent. (www.number10.gov. uk/…, March 31st, 2009)

In Romanian, collective nouns fail plurality tests such as reciprocals, or distributive adverbials like pe rând “one after the other/in turn”, or plural anaphoric terms: (3) a. *Guvernul se ajută unii pe alţii. government-the refl help ones on others “The government help each other” b. *Guvernul a plecat pe rând de la şedinţă. government-the has left in turn from meeting “The government left the meeting one after the other”

 Blanca Croitor & Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin

c. *Guvernuli se află în şedinţă. Eii vor discuta… government-the is in meeting. They will-pl discuss “The government is in a meeting. They will discuss…”

However, when collectives are used with certain quantifying expressions, they allow both singular and plural agreement. Singular agreement is standard, plural agreement is accepted by part of the speakers:1 (4) a. O parte din guvern a votat/ %au votat a part of government has voted/ have voted “Part of the government voted” b. Majoritatea guvernului e plin / %sunt plini majority-the government-the-gen is full-sg/ are full-pl

de bani. of money



“Most members of the government are loaded with money”

c. Toată echipa a / au jucat perfect. all team-the has/ have played perfectly “The whole team played perfectly”

With partitive plural DPs, plural agreement is generalized: (5) a. O parte dintre studenţi au votat/ ??a votat a part of students have-pl voted / has voted “Part of the students voted” b. Majoritatea politicienilor sunt bogaţi/ *e bogată. majority-the-sg politicians-the-gen are rich-pl/ is rich-sg “Most politicians are rich”

Examples of the type in (5) have been discussed in the literature (Ştefănescu 1997; GALR 2008; Danon 2009); examples of the type in (4) constitute a new observation, at least for Romanian. The analyses proposed so far for (5) explain plural agreement as being due to the plurality of the partitive phrase or the Genitive-case marked DP. This analysis does not extend to (4), in which both the quantifying expression and the partitive phrase are singular. Note that if the partitive phrase is a singular non-collective noun, plural agreement is disallowed, which indicates that the possibility of plural agreement with partitive collectives in Romanian is an interplay of the partitive quantifier and the collective noun. .  We haven’t made a linguistic questionnaire, we asked several speakers about their grammaticality judgments.



The agreement of collective DPs in Romanian 

The questions we want to address in this article are: i. How can we explain the contrast between Romanian and British English collective nouns? ii. How can we explain the contrast in (1) vs. (4), between collective DPs and partitive collective DPs in Romanian? In other words, what makes plural agreement possible in (4), for some of the speakers?

2.  The contrast between Romanian and British English collective nouns Central to our analysis of the contrast between (1) and (2) is the hypothesis that Number can be valued at the level of little n in English, whereas in Romanian (and the other Romance languages) it can only be valued on Det (Dobrovie-Sorin 2009). In Romanian, only gender is valued at n (Picallo 2007). By feature unification or bidirectional valuation between Det and nP, the Romanian Det is valued for gender and number: (6) a. guvernul – neuter, singular government-the b. echipa – feminine, singular team-the

Because Number is valued on Det, Det supplies a variable ranging over singular or plural entities, depending on the Num value of Det. nP denotes a property that restricts the range of the variable. Since in examples such as (1) the Number on Det is marked as singular, Det introduces a variable over singular entities, and correlatively singular agreement on the verb is obligatorily triggered. In English, Det is not specified for number. Det denotes a function that applies to the set denoted by nP and returns an entity of that set. nP denotes a set of singular or plural entities, depending on the value of n (see Dobrovie Sorin 2009). With collective nouns, nP denotes a set of groups; Det selects one group out of this set. Since groups are (atomic) plural entities, plural agreement on the verb is possible. This agreement is ‘semantic’ in the sense that it is triggered by the semantic feature of plurality that characterizes groups. How can we explain the contrast between American English and British English? In American English the collective nouns disallow plural agreement. Therefore, we suggest that in American English Det is rather like the Romance Det, carrying Number and blocking agreement, although Number is not visibly marked on Det in American English.

 Blanca Croitor & Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin

3.  Types of quantifiers and the agreement of collective DPs The possibility of plural agreement depends on the type of quantifier. With the quantifier fiecare (“each”), plural agreement is not allowed (at least, for most speakers), whereas quantifiers like o parte “part”), majoritatea (“most”), jumătate (“half ”), tot (“all”), plural agreement is allowed (see (4) above and (7), (8) below): (7) a. *Fiecare din guvern sunt corupţi. each of government are corrupt-pl “Each member of the government is corrupt.” b. *Fiecare din guvern au votat. each of government have-pl voted “Each member of the government voted.” (8) a. %O parte din guvern sunt corupţi. a part of government are corrupt-pl “Part of the government is corrupt.” b. %O parte din guvern au votat. a part of government have-pl voted “Part of the government voted.”

Since the type of quantifier is relevant, we need to understand the difference between two types of quantification: distributive quantifiers (of the type each), and non-distributive quantification (of the type part). Non-distributive quantifiers have in common the fact that they are concerned with part-whole relations; therefore, we will refer to them as partitive quantifiers. 4.  Distributive vs. partitive quantifiers: The syntax 4.1  Distributive quantifiers Distributive quantifiers (Engl. each, every; Rom. fiecare) merge with singular NPs (countable NPs, collective NPs and proper names): (9) a. each chair, every boy (count NPs) b. every government, each team (collective NPs) c.  Every Paris is beautiful. (the proper name is re-categorized as a common noun)

Distributive quantifiers do not merge with mass NPs and plural NPs: (10) a. *every water, *each gold b. *every boys, *each chairs



The agreement of collective DPs in Romanian 

4.2  Partitive quantifiers There are several semantic types of partitive quantifiers: (11) i. part of…, half of…, one third of…, 30% of… ii. most (of) iii. all (of)

Partitive quantifiers merge with ‘partitive phrases’, which are full DPs governed by a partitive preposition (Rom din, Engl. of, Fr. de) or marked with Genitive Case (in Romanian): (12) a. o parte /o treime /o jumătate /30% din studenţi (Romanian) a part /a third /a half /30% of students b. majoritatea/ restul studenţilor (Romanian) majority-the/ rest-the students-the-gen “most/the rest of the students”

In English, some partitive quantifiers may also merge with bare plurals or bare mass Ns, which are not preceded by of: (13) a. Most water is liquid. b. Most students arrived yesterday.

The bare nouns (BNs) in these examples are probably full DPs headed by Chierchia’s (1998) Down operator. The possibility of (13a–b)is related to the fact that BNs in English can be kind-referring: (14) a. Water is liquid. b. Students are intelligent.

Regardless of their syntax (partitive PPs, Genitive-marked DPs, bare NPs), the DPs that appear in partitive phrases have definite interpretations: (15) a. half of the gold, part of the students (DPs with the definite article) b. most of these students (demonstrative DP) c. most of your gold, most of your students (possessive DP) d. Most students passed the exam. (bare NP)

Partitive quantifiers can combine with any type of noun, regardless of the syntax of the partitive phrase: (16) a. Part/half/30% of the chair is black. (count sg. DPs) b. Part/half/30%/all of the government is corrupted. (collective sg. DPs) c. Part/half/30%/all of Paris is beautiful. (proper names) d. Part/half/30%/most /all of the water is polluted. (mass DPs) e. Part/half/30%/most /all of the students are intelligent. (pl. DPs)

 Blanca Croitor & Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin

Following proposals that the quantifier is external to the noun phrase (see Sportiche 1988; Giusti 1990; Cardinaletti & Giusti 1992, 2006), we assume that the syntactic structure of partitive quantifiers is as shown in (17) for o jumătate din guvern (“half of the government”): (17)

QPpart PPpart

Qpart o jumătate “half”

Ppart din “of”

DP guvern “government”

The fact that plural agreement is generalized with partitive plural DPs cannot be explained if we assume that partitive quantifiers are head nouns followed by a complement (note that o parte “a part”, o treime “one third”, majoritatea “a majority”, restul “the rest” etc. function – from the morpho-syntactic point of view – as nouns).2 In general, it is the head noun, rather than its complement, that transfers its Number features to the verb. Some researchers explain plural agreement as a processing phenomenon (agreement with the closest DP, i.e. the plural noun, in SVO sentences). But plural agreement is also generalized in VSO sentences (where the verb is closer to the singular partitive quantifier). Given that plural agreement is generalized, it cannot be considered an instance of agreement with the closest DP. We also argue that plural agreement with partitive collectives cannot be .  Note that nouns like parte “part” can have a specific reading, “a certain part/a specific amount”. When it has this reading, parte is a fully referential DP, not a quantifier, and it triggers agreement: (1) a. O parte din guvern este mai coruptă: a part-f of government-n is more corrupt-f: cea socialistă. (Romanian) the-f socialist-f

“A part of the government is more corrupt: the socialist one.”

b. O parte din studenţi este mai săracă: cea a part-f of students is more poor-f: the-f

reprezentată de studenţii din estul ţării. (Romanian) represented-F by students-the from east country-gen

“A part of the students is poorer: the one represented by students from the east of the country.”



The agreement of collective DPs in Romanian 

considered an instance of agreement attraction (Jespersen 1913/1961), as in “The participants’ identity are to remain a secret.” (den Dikken 2001). In Romanian, as well as in British English, the collectives cannot trigger agreement attraction: (18) a. Identitatea guvernului rămâne / *rămân secretă/ identity government-the-gen remain-sg/ remain-pl secret-sg/ *secrete. secret-pl

“The identity of the government remains secret.”

b. The identity of the committee is/*are to remain a secret. (den Dikken 2001)

Den Dikken (2001) argues that collectives which behave like plurals are complex noun phrases headed by a null plural pronoun. Pronouns cannot trigger agreement attraction; therefore, the impossibility of agreement attraction with collectives has a structural cause and is cross-linguistic. We will show that our analysis for partitive collectives can also account for plural agreement with partitive collectives.

5.  Distributive vs. partitive quantifiers: The semantics As we have seen, what distinguishes distributive and partitive quantifiers is the ability of the latter to combine with mass and plural nouns. We will first present Higginbotham’s (1994) analysis of mass quantifiers, to be distinguished from canonical set-quantification (distributive quantification). We will then show that this analysis straightforwardly extends to plurals (as observed by Higginbotham himself). Finally, and most importantly for the problem at hand, we will show that Higginbotham’s analysis of mass quantifiers can be generalized to count singulars, in particular, to collectives. 5.1  Distributive quantifiers cannot apply to mass nouns The canonical set-theoretic representation of quantification applies to distributive quantification. (19) a. Every man is mortal. b. EVE]RY ({x: man(x)}, {x: mortal(x)})

Every denotes the relation between two sets; in (19a), the set of men and the set of mortal individuals. In order to assign a truth value to (19a) we need to check the properties of each man. The proposition in (19a) is true if the intersection of the two sets is identical to the set of men.

 Blanca Croitor & Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin

Distributive quantifiers like every and each are impossible with mass nouns: (20) a. *Every water is liquid. b. *Each gold is heavy.

Why can’t we use distributive quantifiers with mass nouns? According to Kratzer (1995:169), we cannot quantify over elements ordered by part-whole relations. This claim is too strong, since mass quantifiers do exist; therefore, the generalization should be weakened, restricted to distributive quantifiers: (21) Distributive quantifiers cannot apply to elements ordered by part-whole relations.

This impossibility is due to the fact that the elements ordered by part-whole relations cannot be individuated. In order to assign a truth value to (20) we would need to check the properties of each amount of water, but amounts of water cannot be individuated. 5.2  The Homogeneity Constraint (HC) Quantification over mass domains is subject to the Homogeneity Constraint (Bunt 1979, 1985; Lønning 1987): (22) The predicate in the nuclear scope of a mass quantifier must be homogeneous.

Homogeneity is defined in (23c): (23) a. A predicate is distributive if it applies to the parts of the things to which it applies (so P is distributive if P(M) and F ≤ M implies P(F) provided F ≠ (0) b. A predicate is cumulative if it applies to the sum of two things whenever it applies to each (P is cumulative (over finite sums) if P(M) and P(F) implies P(F + M)) c. A predicate is homogeneous if it is both distributive and cumulative.

Examples (24b–c) show that dirty is a homogeneous predicate (i.e. it is distributive and cumulative): (24) a. This water is dirty. → b. Half of this water is dirty. c. This water is dirty and that water is dirty. → d. This and that water is dirty.



The agreement of collective DPs in Romanian 

Since (24a) entails (24b), we consider dirty to be a distributive predicate. (24c) entails (24d), therefore, dirty is a cumulative predicate. The sentence in (24e) is grammatical because it satisfies HC: (24) e. All the water is dirty.

Other examples of homogeneous predicates are polluted or rancid, which can be applied to partitive mass DPs: (25) a. Most of this water is polluted. b. Part of the butter is rancid.

Example (26c) below is ruled out due to the violation of HC. Heavy is a nonhomogeneous predicate, as indicated by (26a–b): (26) a. This water is heavy. b. #Half of this water is heavy. (26a) does not entail (26b). c. *All the water is heavy.

5.3  Higginbotham’s (1994) analysis of mass and plural D-quantifiers We have seen that distributive quantifiers cannot apply to mass domains – (21). Quantification over mass domains cannot be construed in terms of set quantification, since mass nouns do not denote sets. Mass quantification involves a relation between maximal quantities or amounts. Maximal quantities are obtained by applying a nominalizing operator, the sigma-operator, to the predicates that occur in the restriction and the nuclear scope of mass quantifiers. The representation of the sentences with mass quantifiers in (27a) is given in (27b): (27) a. All the gold is yellow. b. ALLpart ((σ gold), (σ yellow))

According to the representations in (27b), the quantifier does not denote the relation between two sets (e.g. the set of amounts/portions of gold and the set of amounts/portions of yellow stuff), but rather the relation between two maximal quantities, e.g. the maximal quantity of gold in the world and the maximal quantity of yellow stuff in the world. The sentence in (27a) is true if the measure of the overlap of the two quantities is equal to the measure of the maximal quantity of gold in the world. According to Higginbotham, the homogeneity constraint on mass quantification is a constraint on the sigma-operator. The sigma-operator is a maximalizing operator, and as such it can only apply to cumulative predicates (in particular to mass predicates), i.e. to lattice structures. It cannot apply to sets

 Blanca Croitor & Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin

of individuals. Non-homogeneous/integrative predicates, like big and heavy, denote sets of individuals. Those quantifiers that can combine with mass nouns can also combine with plurals. This is expected, since it is well-known that both mass and plural predicates are cumulative: (28) a. All men are mortal. b. Part of/one third of/half of/all the books are heavy.

The sentence in (28a) can be represented as in (29), with a sigma-operator that applies to the restriction and to the scope. Since plural predicates are cumulative, the sigma operator can apply to them. Note that men is overtly plural in (28a). (29) ALLpart ((σx. men(x)), (σx. mortal(x))) – the plural men denotes the maximal sum of men.

Note that quantification over plural DPs satisfies the HC: (30) a. These boys are tall. b. Half of these boys are tall. c. All these boys are tall.

Heavy is a non-homogeneous predicate. However, this predicate is pluralized in example (28b), since it appears in the nuclear scope of a quantifier that has a plural DP in its restriction. Pluralized predicates are cumulative (they denote the closure under sum of the set of heavy individuals) and as such they satisfy the HC.

6.  Generalizing partitive quantification In Sections 3 and 4 we saw that: (31) Partitive quantifiers built with collective nouns allow plural agreement on the verb, whereas distributive quantifiers disallow it (see Example (7)–(8)). (32) Partitive quantifiers combine with mass and plural nouns, whereas distributive quantifiers do not.

In view of (31)–(32), it seems desirable to extend Higginbotham’s analysis of mass/plural quantifiers to all partitive quantifiers, in particular to those built with collective nouns: (33) a. Part of the cow is black. (count singular DP) b. Part/half/one third of the government is corrupt. (collective singular DP) c. All (of) Paris is beautiful. (proper name)



The agreement of collective DPs in Romanian 

Examples of the type in (33) illustrate the generalization in (34), which says that partitive quantifiers can freely combine with any type of noun: (34) Partitive quantifiers apply not only to mass and plural nouns, but also to singular count nouns (including singular collective DPs, proper names).

This behavior of partitive quantifiers seems to be problematic, since partitive quantifiers over mass/plural domains are constrained by cumulativity, but count singular nouns are not cumulative. What does a partitive quantifier denote when it applies to a non-cumulative domain? In (33) and (35) we see that partitive quantifiers with count singular DPs are sensitive to the same Homogeneity Constraint, like mass nouns and plurals. In (33), the predicates black, corrupt and beautiful are homogeneous. In (35), the predicates mad, intelligent, official and big are non-homogeneous: (35) a. *Part of the cow is mad. a′. The cow is mad. b. *Part of the government is intelligent/official. b′. The government is intelligent/official. c. Paris is big. c′. *Part of/most of Paris is big.

Note that the same constraint applies to all-phrases: (36) a. *All the cow is mad. a′. The cow is mad. b. *All the government is intelligent/official. b′. The government is intelligent/official. (37) a. Mărul este rotund. (Romanian) apple-the is round “The apple is round.” b. *Tot mărul este rotund. (Romanian) all apple-the is round “The entire apple is round.”

A definite DP headed by a count singular noun denotes a unique entity (not a maximal quantity) and can be shifted to denote the set of its parts. A (default) sigma operator applies to the set of parts of that entity and picks up the maximal sum of the parts of that entity: (38) The partitive quantifier denotes a relation between two maximal sums. When applied to count singular DPs and proper names, it denotes a relation between the maximal sum of the parts of the entity they denote and the maximal sum denoted by the nuclear scope.

 Blanca Croitor & Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin

The same account extends to DPs headed by demonstratives: (39) a. Most of this stuff is gold. b. MOSTpart ((this stuff)), (σ gold))

In (40) we sum up several generalizations we have made so far: (40)

a. Partitive quantifiers should be distinguished from distributive quantifiers.

b.  Partitive quantifiers can combine with mass, plurals, collective singular DPs, as well as count singulars and proper names. c. Partitive quantifiers denote a relation between two maximal sums. d. Partitive quantifiers are subject to the homogeneity constraint. e. The denotation of singular count DPs and proper names combined with a partitive quantifier is shifted from a unique entity to the sum of its parts.

7.  Plural agreement with partitive collectives As we have seen in (39), partitive quantifiers applied to collective singular DPs denote a relation between the maximal sum of their parts and the maximal sum denoted by the nuclear scope. Thus, a group-denoting entity is coerced into a sum-denoting entity. The partitive collective denotes the sum of its parts. Following Higginbotham’s (1994) analysis, we can represent the sentence in (41a) as in (41b): (41) a. O parte din guvern este corupt / a part-f of government-m is corrupt-m.sg/ sunt corupţi. (Romanian) are corrupt-m.pl b. PARTEpart ((σ government), (σ corrupt))

Unlike other singular DPs, collectives have individual minimal parts in their denotation, i.e. atomic entities: the members of the government, the members of the team (players) etc. Therefore, partitive collectives denote the sum of these individual entities. Plural agreement with partitive collectives is allowed by the interplay between the plural denotation of the collective and the semantics of the partitive quantifier.3

.  Not all collective nouns allow plural agreement. Collective nouns formed by derivation from a singular countable with a collective suffix do not allow plural agreement. Romanian



The agreement of collective DPs in Romanian 

How can we explain the free choice between the singular and the plural agreement? We consider that singular agreement is formal agreement, triggered by the fact that both nouns are singular; plural agreement is ‘semantic’ agreement. There seems to be a condition on plural agreement with collective partitives: the minimal parts have to be accessible, from a cognitive point of view, or pragmatically salient. Such collective nouns are government or team: (42) a. O parte din guvern este corupt / a part-f of government-m is corrupt-m.sg / %sunt corupţi. (Romanian) are corrupt-m.pl

“Part of the government is corrupt.”

b. Majoritatea echipei a jucat/ %au jucat bine. most team-the-gen has-sg played/ have-pl played well “Most members of the team played well.” c. Toată echipa a jucat/ %au jucat perfect. all team-the has-sg played/ have-pl played perfectly “The whole team played perfectly.”

Many of the examples with plural agreement attested in television programs are with the noun with the collective DP populaţie “population”: (43) Cam 80% din populaţie îşi permit să cumpere about 80% of population-the afford-pl to buy o mobilă… (TV, 2008) a furniture… “About 80% of the population can afford furniture…”

nouns frunziş “foliage” and studenţime “collectivity of students” are derived from frunză “leaf ” and student “student”: (1) a. *O parte din frunziş au căzut. a part of foliage have-pl fallen “Part of the leaves fell” b. *O parte din studenţime vor să emigreze. a part of students want-pl to emigrate “Part of the students want to emigrate.” In fact, frunziş “foliage” could be argued to be a mass noun, despite its (apparent) collectivity. The same thing could be said about several collective nouns, but this issue is beyond the scope of our paper.

 Blanca Croitor & Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin

With a collective noun like mafie (“mafia”), plural agreement is less acceptable. We believe that this is due to the fact that the members of the mafia are less salient or cognitively accessible than members of the government or the team (mafia is more like an organization, not a collectivity of people): (44) ??O parte din mafia au fost arestaţi. (Romanian) A part of mafia-the have-pl been arrested-pl “Part of the mafia was arrested.”

Partitive collectives pass plurality tests such as reciprocals and distributive adverbials. Compare with collective DPs (in (3), repeated below), which fail these tests: (45) a. O parte din guvern se ajută unii a part of government refl help each-pl

pe alţii. (Romanian) on other-pl



“Part of the government help each other”

b. O parte din guvern au plecat pe rând a part of government have-pl left in turn

de la şedinţă. (Romanian) from meeting



“Part of the government left the meeting in turn”

(3) a. *Guvernul se ajută unii pe alţii. (Romanian) government-the refl help ones on others “The government help each other” b. *Guvernul a plecat pe rând de la şedinţă. (Romanian) government-the has left in turn from meeting “The government left the meeting one after the other”

In sum, the possibility of plural agreement with partitive collective DPs is due to: i.

the semantic analysis of partitive quantification (the DP that is mapped onto the restriction of partitive quantifiers denotes the maximal sum of the parts of the entity denoted by the DP) and ii. the fact that groups denoted by some collective DPs are made up of salient members, so that a collective DP that is mapped onto the restriction of a partitive quantifier denotes the maximal sum of its members, rather than the maximal sum of its parts; iii. maximal sums of minimal parts/atoms count as plurals, whereas maximal sums of random parts do not count as plurals.



The agreement of collective DPs in Romanian 

Since partitive quantification is not at work in examples of the type in (1), with definite collectives, plural agreement on the verb is ruled out: (1) a. Guvernul a decis /*au decis. (Romanian) government-the has decided/ have decided

Compare with the examples in (4), repeated here, built with partitive quantifiers: (4) a. O parte din guvern a votat/ %au votat a part of government has voted/ have voted “Part of the government voted” b. Majoritatea guvernului e plin / %sunt plini majority-the government-the-gen is full-sg/ are full-pl

de bani. of money



“Most members of the government are loaded with money”

c. Toată echipa a / au all team-the has/ have jucat perfect.(plural agreement is attested on the internet) played perfectly

“The whole team played perfectly”

The next issue we want to address is the impossibility of plural agreement with mass DPs and singular count DPs combined with partitive quantifiers. Unlike collective nouns, mass and singular count DPs do not have atomic minimal parts in their denotation; therefore, nothing triggers semantic plural agreement on the verb: (46) a. O parte din apă *s- au vărsat/ *sunt murdare. (Romanian) a part of water refl have poured/ are dirty-pl “Part of the water is dirty.” b. *O parte din scaun sunt verzi. (Romanian) a part of chair are-pl green-pl “A part of the chair is green.”

8.  Partitive plural DPs Our account of the plural agreement with partitive collective DPs also accounts for the plural agreement with partitive plural DPs: the partitive quantifier denotes the relation between the maximal plurality denoted by the plural DP and a maximal plurality in the nuclear scope, which results in plural marking on the VP.

 Blanca Croitor & Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin

Plural agreement is generalized with quantified plural DPs, but not with collective singular DPs. This is due to the fact that with plural DPs, the denotation of the DP itself is of the type ‘plurality’; it does not need to be coerced into a plurality. The plural DP is both semantically and formally plural. Collective DPs that are mapped onto the restriction of partitive quantifiers are formally (morphosyntactically) singular and can, but need not be semantically plural. In other words, the plural interpretation is not obligatory. Speakers can choose between plural and singular agreement. 9.  Conclusions In this paper, we addressed the issue of the agreement of collective nouns in Romanian. When collective DPs are used independently in subject position, they do not allow plural (‘semantic’) agreement, but when they are embedded in a partitive phrase, plural agreement is allowed. We showed that plural agreement is an interplay between the semantics of the collective noun and the semantics of the partitive quantifier. The possibility of plural agreement with partitive collective DPs is due to the semantic analysis of partitive quantification: the DP that is mapped onto the restriction of partitive quantifiers denotes the maximal sum of the parts of the entity denoted by the DP; therefore, a collective DP that is mapped onto the restriction of a partitive quantifier denotes the maximal sum of its members; maximal sums of minimal parts/atoms count as plurals, whereas maximal sums of random parts do not count as plurals.

References Bunt, Harry C. 1979. “Ensembles and the Formal Semantics Properties of Mass Terms”. Mass Terms: Philosophical Problems. Synthese Language Library ed. by J. Pelletier, 6, 249–277. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Bunt, Harry C. 1985, Mass Terms and Model-Theoretic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cardinaletti, Anna & Giuliana Giusti. 1992. “Partitive ne and the QP Hypothesis”. Proceedings of the XVII Meeting of Generative Grammar ed. by Elisabetta Fava, 121–141. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. Cardinaletti, Anna & Giuliana Giusti. 2006. “The Syntax of Quantified Phrases and Quantitative Clitics”. Blackwell Companion to Syntax ed. by Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk, vol. V, 23–93. Malden, Mass., Oxford & Carlton, Victoria: Blackwell Publishing. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. “Reference to Kinds across Languages”. Natural Language Semantics 6: 4.339–405. Danon, Gabi. 2009. “Agreement with Quantified Nominals: implications for Feature Theory”. Talk given at Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris, September 25, 2009.



The agreement of collective DPs in Romanian 

den Dikken, Marcel. 2001. “‘Pluringulars’, Pronouns and Quirky Agreement”. The Linguistic Review 18.19–41. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2009. Number as a Feature. Ms., Université Paris 7. Higginbotham, James. 1994. “Mass and Count Quantifiers”. Linguistics and Philosophy 17.447–480 (republished in Quantification in Natural Languages ed. by E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer & B. H. Partee, vol. I–II 1995. Springer). GALR 2008. Gramatica limbii române ed. by Valeria GuÅ£u Romalo, Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române. Giusti, Giuliana. 1990. “Floating Quantifiers, Scrambling and Configurationality”. Linguistic Inquiry 21.633–641. Jespersen, Otto. 1913/1961. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Copenhagen: Munksgaard & London: George Allen & Unwin. Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. “Stage-level and Individual-level Predicates”. The Generic Book ed. by G.N. Carlson & F. Pelletier, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lønning, Jan Tore. 1987. “Mass Terms and Quantification”. Linguistics and Philosophy 10.1–52 . Picallo, M. Carme. 2007. On Gender and Number, Ms., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. “A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure”. Linguistic Inquiry 19.425–449. Ştefănescu, Ioana. 1997. The Syntax of Agreement in Romanian, Ph. D. Dissertation, City University of New York.

A multidominance account for conjoined questions in Romanian Dafina Rațiu

University of Nantes, LLING EA 3827 This paper discusses conjoined questions in Romanian, where two selected WHs (i.e. a subject WH phrase and an object WH phrase) appear coordinated in clause-initial position. By comparing conjoined questions with selected WHs with conjoined questions with non-selected WHs, I argue for a bi-clausal analysis for both types, where one single IP is pronounced. I show that conjoined questions with selected WHs, as opposed to conjoined questions with non-selected WHs, raise two problems: (i) the shared IP can only be pronounced once and (ii) the shared IP has to be pronounced in the second conjunct. I argue that while an ellipsis/sluicing analysis fails, the multidominance analysis provides a straightforward account for these two problems. In particular, linearization algorithms for multidominance structure (all) correctly predict that the shared IP appears only once in the second conjunct.

1.  Introduction There are two types of multiple questions in Romanian, namely, multiple questions where all WHs are fronted to clause initial position (henceforth matching questions) (1) and multiple questions where fronted interrogatives appear coordinated in a clause initial position (henceforth conjoined questions) ((2)): (1) Cine ce a cumpărat who what aux-3-sg bought ‘‘Who bought what?”  (2) Cine şi ce a cumpărat ? who and what aux-3-sg bought Literally: “Who and what bought?” 

Conjoined questions and matching questions in Romanian have different syntactic and semantic properties. Fronted WHs in matching questions are subject to strict ordering constraints, as shown in (3)–(4). In contrast, the order of WHs

 Dafina Rațiu

that appear coordinated in conjoined questions is free, as shown in (5)–(6) (Comorovski 1989): Matching questions: (3) Cine ce a cumpărat who what aux-3-sg bought “Who bought what?” (4) *Ce cine a cumpărat what who aux-3-sg bought Conjoined questions: (5) Cine şi ce a cumpărat ? who and what aux-3-sg bought Literally: “Who and what bought?”  (6) Ce şi cine a cumpărat ? what and who aux-3-sg bought Literally: “Who and what bought?” 

Moreover, matching questions only allow pair-list readings whereas conjoined questions allow both pair-list and single pair readings. RaÅ£iu (2007) argues that ordering restrictions in Romanian matching questions follow from from the assumption that multiple questions involve functional traces. Assuming an analysis of multiple questions in terms of skolem functions (see Hornstein 1995; Dayal 1996 extending proposals in Chierchia 1993) ordering restrictions in matching questions in Romanian ultimately follow from the principle responsible for WCO (governing the bound variable interpretation of a pronoun) responsible for WCO (see Rațiu 2007, for a full analysis): (7) Cinei cej ti a comandat [tj proi]? who what aux-3-sg ordered “Who ordered what?” (8) *Cej cinei [ti proj] a comandat tj ? what who aux-3-sg ordered “Who ordered what?”

Two main lines of analysis have been proposed in the literature, for conjoined questions. The mono-clausal account (Comorovski 1989; Citko & Gracanin 2010; Gribanova 2009; Haida & Repp 2010; Kazenin 2002; Lipták 2003; Merchant 2007; Skrabalova 2006; Zhang 2007), assumes that conjoined questions, just like matching questions, involve a single IP. In contrast, on the bi-clausal account (Kliashchuk 2008; Citko & Gracanin-Yuksek 2010; Tomaszewicz 2010), conjoined questions



A multidominance account for conjoined questions in Romanian 

involve a coordination of two questions.1 On this second account, matching questions differ from conjoined questions in that the former are mono-clausal while the letter are bi-clausal. 2.  The mono-clausal account Under a mono-clausal account (Comorovski 1989; Kazenin 2002; Lipták 2003; Skrabalova 2006; Gribanova 2009; Merchant 2007; Zhang, 2007; Haida & Repp 2007), conjoined questions are directly derived from matching questions. That is, conjoined questions involve a single IP from which all WHs (that appear on the surface as coordinated) have been extracted: (9) a. Ce şi cine a comandat ? what and who aux-3-sg ordered Literally: “Who and what ordered”. b.

CP IP

&P ce/whatj &0 şi/and

&′

ti cine/whoi

I′ I0 a/aux

VP V′ V0 descoperit/discov

tj

In other words, under a mono-clausal account, the conjoined question in (9) is, by hypothesis, derived from the multiple question in (10): (10) *Ce cine a comandat what who aux-3-sg ordered “Who ordered what?”

A mono-clausal accounts which treats conjoined questions as derived from matching questions, fails to account for the distribution of ordering restrictions: if the conjoined question in (9) is derived from the multiple question in (10), then what saves the derivation in (9)? Moreover, under a mono-clausal account, conjoined 1.â•… For Citko & Gracanin-Yuksek (2010), coordinated questions are in principle ambiguous between being mono-clausal and bi-clausal.

 Dafina Rațiu

questions violate the Law of the Coordination of Likes (Williams 1981). Note that Romanian does not allow for coordination of arguments with different syntactic functions in non-interrogative sentences, as shown in (11), where the subject and the object have been coordinated: (11) *Filip şi o chitară a cumpǎrat. Filip and art. guitar aux-3-sg bought Literally: “Filip and a guitar bought.”

Finally, a uniform account for conjoined questions and matching questions, as being mono-clausal, cannot account for the distribution of the interrogative head oare across these two types of questions (see Hill (2002) for arguments that oare in Romanian is an interrogative head). The interrogative head oare in Romanian only appears in interrogative clauses (be it yes-no questions, single constituent questions, matching questions or conjoined questions) and is optional: (12) Oare plouă afară ? oare rain outside “Is it raining?” (13) Oare cine bate la uşă ? oare who knocks-3-sg prep. door “Who’s knocking at the door?” (14) Oare cine ce va spune ? oare who what aux-3-sg say “Who will say what?’

In yes-no questions, single constituent or matching questions, the interrogative head oare occurs only once, as expected, since all involve a single clause (CP): (15) *Oare cine oare ce va spune ? oare who oare what aux-3-sg say “Who will say what?”

The matching question illustrated above, where the interrogative head oare appears twice, is ungrammatical. In contrast to matching questions, where oare is restricted to one occurrence, the interrogative oare can appear more than once in conjoined questions in Romanian: (16) Oare cine şi oare ce va spune ? oare who and oare what aux-3-sg say Literally: “Who and what will he say?’

On the assumption that oare in Romanian is an interrogative head (Hill 2002) and hence can only appear once per CP/clause, the contrast in (15)–(16) provides a simple and straightforward argument that matching questions are mono-clausal while conjoined questions are bi-clausal.



A multidominance account for conjoined questions in Romanian 

3.  The bi-clausal account 3.1  (Reverse) sluicing Under a bi-clausal account, the most natural assumption is that conjoined questions involve sluicing. Sluicing (Ross 1969) is exemplified in (17): the interrogative clause has been sluiced, reduced to a WHs phrase: (17) Jack bought something but I don’t know what.

Giannakidou & Merchant (GM) (1998), Kliashchuk (2008) argue for a sluicing account of conjoined questions with non selected WHs. Chung, Ladusaw & McCloskey (CLM) (1995) (1995) propose an account of sluicing which makes use of two LF operations, namely copying, merger and sprouting. To illustrate, consider the sluicing example in (18) in English: (18) PF: John ate a dinner but I don’t know with whom.

On this account, the antecedent IP 〈 [John ate a dinner] 〉 (first conjunct) is copied/ recycled into the empty IP (second conjunct) at LF: (19) LF: [IP John ate a dinner] but I don’t know with whomi 〈 [IP John ate a dinner ] 〉.

Note that the displaced WH with whomi, in the LF representation in (19), doesn’t bind anything in the recycled IP. To avoid a violation on vacuous quantification, CLM propose an LF operation – sprouting – which supplies the non-argumental variable bound by the displaced WH with whomi in the recycled IP: (20) LF: [IP John ate a dinner ] but I don’t know with whomi < [IP John ate a dinner ti ] >.

Sprout

The operation of sprouting is a structure-building operation subject to interpretability conditions at LF: it has to respect the argument structure of the predicates and the category of the WHs involved. This proposal fails however to account for cases where sluicing appears in the first conjunct (i.e. reverse sluicing, Giannakidou & Merchant 1998): (21) PF: It is not clear if and when [IP the police arrested the demonstrators ti]. (22) LF: It is not clear if < [IP the police arrested the demonstrators ti ] > and wheni [IP the police arrested the demonstrators ti ].

 Dafina Rațiu

In the LF representation in (19), the recycled IP contains an unbound variable (i.e. the variable ti). Giannakidou and Merchant (1998) propose the operation of pruning, which is the opposite of sprouting: it erases at LF the non-argumental unbound variable, in the recycled IP: (23) LF: It is not clear if 〈 [IP the police arrested the demonstrators ti] 〉 and wheni [IP the police arrested the demonstrators ti ]. prune

Pruning is subject to the same kinds of general constraints on its application as sprouting: it must satisfy the licensing constraints imposed by lexical items within the recycled IP – that is, it cannot alter the argument structure. Under a sluicing account, following in essence CLM (1995), we have to assume that in the conjoined question in (24), sluicing takes place in the first conjunct, as illustrated in the representation in (25): (24) PF: Ce şi cine a descoperit what and who aux-1-sg discovered “What and who discovered?” (25) LF: Cej 〈 [IP ti a descoperit] 〉 şi what aux-3-sg discover and cinei [IP ti a descoperit] who aux-1-sg discover

The sluicing account for the Romanian conjoined question in (24) raises however, several problems. First, the antecedent (second conjunct), in the LF representation in (24), is ill-formed since the verb discover, which is an obligatorily transitive verb, is missing its internal argument. Second, the displaced WH ce/what (first conjunct) doesn’t bind anything, in the recycled IP. (Recall that the operation of sprouting is restricted to non-argumental traces). Furthermore, and most importantly, a sluicing analysis fails to account for the distribution of the shared IP, in conjoined questions in Romanian. Consider the conjoined questions below with their LF representations, under a sluicing analysis: (26) PF: Cîne şi unde vei cînta ? where and where aux-2-sg sing “When and where will you sing?” (27) LF: Cînd 〈 [ IP vei cînta] 〉 şi unde vei cînta ? when aux-2-sg sing and where aux-2-sg sing (28) PF: Ce şi cine a descoperit? what and who aux-3-sg discover “Who discovered what?”



A multidominance account for conjoined questions in Romanian 

(29) LF: Ce 〈 [IP a descoperit ] 〉 şi cine a descoperit ? what aux-3-sg discover and who aux-3-sg discover

If the conjoined questions in (26)–(28) above involved sluicing of their first conjunct then, by hypothesis, in (30) below, where a single (non-selected) WH appears coordinated in clause final position, sluicing must have taken place in the second conjunct: (30) PF: Cînd vei cînta şi unde ? when aux.II.sg sing and where “When will you sing and where?” (31) LF: Cînd vei cînta şi unde 〈 [IP vei cînta] 〉 when aux.II.sg sing and where aux-2-sg sing

The crucial question is then why sluicing cannot take place in the second conjunct, say (32) below, where a single selected WH appears coordinated in clause final position? (32) PF: *Ce a descoperit şi cine ? what aux-3-sg discover and who Literally: “What discovered and who?” (33) LF: Ce a descoperit şi cine 〈a descoperit〉 what aux-3-sg discover and who aux-3-sg discover

Moreover, if conjoined questions in Romanian involved sluicing, than we expect sluicing to be optional, as is the case with (34) in English or with (35) in Romanian: (34) a. It is not clear if and when the police arrested the demonstrators. b. It is not clear if the police arrested the demonstrators and when the police arrested the demonstrators. (35) a. Cînd şi unde vei cînta ? when and  where aux-2-sg sing “When and where will you sing?” b. Cînd vei cînta şi unde vei cînta ? when aux.II.sg sing and where aux-2-sg sing “When will you sing and where will you sing?”

This expectation is not borne out either: pronouncing the shared IPs in both conjuncts is not an option, as shown in (36): (36) a. Ce



şi

cine a

descoperit ?

what and  who aux-2-sg discovered “What and who discovered?”

b. *Ce a descoperit şi cine a descoperit ? what aux-2-sg discovered and who aux-2-sg discover

 Dafina Rațiu

We have argued for a bi-clausal analysis for conjoined questions in Romanian. The natural assumption was that these structures involve sluicing. We then showed that the sluicing account raises two questions: (i) Why must shared IP be pronounced in the second conjunct? and (ii) Why must the shared IP be pronounced only once? In order to provide an answer for these two questions, I argue that (at least) conjoined questions with selected WHs Romanian involve multidominance (Citko & Gracanin 2010 suggest a similar account).2 What appears to be sluice in the first conjunct is the result of (different) linearization algorithms applied to multidominance structures. The only linear order which can be derived from a multidominance structure is the order where the IP can only be pronounced once and it has to be pronounced in the second conjunct. 3.2  Multidominance The basic structure-building operation within the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995) is merge, by which two syntactic objects are combined to form a new syntactic object. The operation of merge may either apply to disjoined syntactic elements – internal merge – or it may re-merge an object with a containing object – external merge –: Internal merge : (37) X, Y ⇒ Z X

Y

External merge: (38) Z ⇒ W X

Y

Z X

Y

Citko (2005) argues that if merge is a general structure-building operation, it should apply between not only disjoined objects (internal merge) or between an object and a containing object (external merge), but also across structures (parallel merge):

.  Conjoined question with non selected WHs can successfully be analyzed in terms of sluicing.



A multidominance account for conjoined questions in Romanian 

Parallel merge: (39) W ⇒ X

Y

W

U

V

Y

Z

The node Z in (39) is simultaneously dominated by two mothers, W and U (the multiply dominated node Z is said to be shared between the two mothers).3 The existence of parallel merge is a natural consequence of a system that has internal merge and external merge. I propose an analysis of conjoined questions (with at least selected WHs) in Romanian in terms of multidominance. The conjoined question in (40), is derived from the conjunction of two CP, sharing one IP: (40) Cine oare şi ce oare a descoperit ? who oare and what oare aux-3-sg discover Literally: “What and who discovered?” &P

(41) CP1 cine/whoi

&′ C′1

&0 şi/and

C01

CP2

ce/whatj

C′2

IP

C02 oare 2

I′

ti I0 a/aux

VP V′

tj V0 descoperit/discover

Whatever linearization algorithms we apply (Wilder 1999, Bachrach & Katzir 2008; de Vries 2007; Gracanin 2007), the only possible linear order which can be derived from the multidominated structure in (41), is the order where the

.  If we think of internal merge as remerge of a phrase with a node that dominates it (Frampton 2004; Bachrach & Katzir 2008) then a remerged element is multidominated (since it has two mothers).

 Dafina Rațiu

shared material, by hypothesis IP, is pronounced exactly once and it has to be pronounced at the right periphery (i.e. in the second conjunct):4 (42) cine/who < oare < şi/and < what/ce < oare < IP (43) *cine/what < oare < IP < şi/and < what/ce < oare < IP (44) *cine/what < oare < IP < şi/and < what/ce < oare

To illustrate, consider Wilder’s (1999) proposal (based on Kayne’s LCA (1994)). In the PF component, the algorithm linearises terminals of dominance-only trees by reading c-command among categories (input) and delivering precedence relations between terminals (output). If a category X asymmetrically c-commands a category Y, then the terminals of X precede the terminals of Y. Crucially, in order to allow linearization of multidominance trees, Wilder replaces the notion of dominance (in Kayne’s LCA (1994)) with the notion of “full dominance”. Relaxed version of LCA (Wilder 1999): (45) d(X) = the (unordered) set of terminals fully dominated by X X fully dominates a iff X dominates a and X does not share α α is shared by X and Y iff a. neither X nor Y dominates the other and b. both X and Y dominate α. C-command: X c-command Y only if X does not fully dominate Y.

Informally, in ordering a complex node a with respect to a complex node b, only terminals completely dominated by a are ordered with respect to terminals completely dominated by b. As a consequence, multidominated elements are required to be right-peripheral. Thus, consider the multidominance structure, repeated below:

.  Citko and Gracanin (2010) suggest a multidominance structure for conjoined questions in Romanian, where the VP is shared between the two conjuncts. Note that, if the shared material (between the two conjuncts) is VP, then we expect to find two auxiliaries (I0) in conjoined question in Romanian. This prediction is not borne out: Romanian does not allow for more than one auxiliary in conjoined questions: (1) *Cine a şi ce a descoperit ? who aux-3sg and what aux-3sg discover “Literally: What and who discovered?”



A multidominance account for conjoined questions in Romanian 

(46)

&P &′

CP1 cine/whoi

C′1

&0 şi/and

C01

CP2

ce/whatj

C′2

IP

C02 oare 2

I′

ti I0 a/aux

VP V′

tj V0 descoperit/discover

Based on asymmetric c-command, linearization within the shared node IP is (trivial): 5 (47) a/aux < descoperit/discover

Within CP1, c-command gives us the following precedence relations: (48) cine/who < oare 1

Within CP2, c-command gives us the following precedence relations: (49) şi/and < ce/what < oare 2

By the revised LCA (Wilder 1999), everything fully dominated by CP1 must precede everything that CP1 asymmetrically c-commands. CP1 fully dominates cine/who, oare1, which means that cine/who, oare1 must precede everything that CP1 asymmetrically c-commands. Under the relaxed notion of c-command, CP1 asymmetrically c-commands &0, DP2, C02 and most importantly, CP1 asymmetrically c-commands IP. This gives us the following precedence relations where the shared IP is linearised at the left periphery: (50) cine/who < oare 1 < şi/and < ce/what < oare 2 < IP [a/aux < descoperit/ discover]

.  Shared elements (here IP) count as a unit for linearization (Wilder 1999).

 Dafina Rațiu

In other words, the only possible linear order that can be derived from the multidominance structure in (46) is the order where the shared IP appears pronounced exactly once and is necessarily pronounced in the second conjunct. 4.  Summary I have defended a bi-clausal analysis of conjoined questions in Romanian. Conjoined questions with (at least) selected WHs in Romanian involve multidominance. That is, they are derived from a conjunction of two CPs, sharing a single IP. Unlike the sluicing analysis, multidominance provided a straightforward account for the distribution of the shared IP in conjoined questions in Romanian. The only linear order which can be derived from the multidominance structures is the order where the shared IP can only be pronounced once and is necessarily linearised in the second conjunct.

References Bachrach, Asaf & Roni Katzir. 2008. “Right Node Raising and Delayed Spellout”. Interphases: Phase Theoretic Investigations of Linguistic Interfaces, ed. by Kleanthes Grohmann, 283–316. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Citko, Barbara. 2005. “On the Nature of Merge: Internal Merge, External Merge and Parallel Merge”. Linguistic Inquiry 36.475–497. Citko, Barbara & Martina Gracanin. 2010. “Multiple Guises of Multiple Coordinated WHQuestions”. Paper Presented at 84th LSA Annual Meeting, Baltimore Maryland. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1993. “Questions with Quantifiers”. Natural Language Semantics 1.181–234. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press. Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw & James McCloskey. 1995. “Sluicing and Logical Form”. Natural Language Semantics 3.239–282. Comorovski, Ileana. 1989. Discourse and the Syntax of Multiple Constituent Questions. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Dayal, Vaneeta. 1996. Locality in WH- Quantification, Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Kluwer. De Vries, Mark. 2007. Internal and External Remerge: On Movement, multidominance and linearisation of syntactic objects. Ms. University of Groningen. Frampton, John. 2004. Copies, Traces, Occurrences and All That: Evidence from Bulgarian multiple Wh-movement. URL http://www.math.neu.edu/ling/pdffiles/CopiesTraces.pdf ms., Northeastern University. Giannakidou, Anastasia & Jason Merchant. 1998. “Reverse sluicing in English and Greek”. Linguistic Review 15.233–256. Gracanin-Yuksek, M. 2007. On Sharing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Gribanova, Vera. 2009. “Structural Adjacency and the Typology of Interrogatives”. Linguistic Inquiry 40.133–154.



A multidominance account for conjoined questions in Romanian 

Haida, Andreas & Sophie Repp. (2010). “Monoclausal Question Word Coordination across Languages”. Proceedings of NELS 39. Hill, Virginia. 2002. “Complementiser Phrases (CP) in Romanian”. Rivista di Linguistica 4.223–248. Norbert, Hornstein. 1995. Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Blackwell. Oxford. Richard S. Kayne. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kazenin, Konstantin. 2002. On Coordination of Wh-Phrases in Russian. Ms. Tubingen University and Moscow State University. Kliashchuk, Michalai. 2008. “L’interrogation coordonnée dans les langues slaves”. Paper presented at the 2007. Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association. University of Western Ontario. Lipták, Anikó. 2003. “Conjoined Questions in Hungarian”. Multiple Wh-fronting, ed. by Cedric Boeckx & Kleanthes Grohmann, 141–160. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Merchant, Jason. 2007. “Spurious Coordination in Vlach Multiple Wh-fronting”. MALC Handout. http://home.uchicago.edu/~merchant/pubs/MALC.handout.pdf. RaÅ£iu, Dafina. 2007. “Evidence for (Counter)-cyclic Movement from Romanian”. Paper presented at Linguistic Symposium on Romnace Languages 37, Pittsburgh University. John. R. Ross. 1969. “Guess Who”. Papers fromf the 5th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. ed. by Robert I. Binnik, Alice Davison, Georgia M. Green & Jerry L. Morgan, 252–286. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Skrabalova, Hana. 2006. “Parataxe apparente et coordination des interrogatifs en tchèque”. Coordination et subordination, typologie et modélisation: Faits de Langue 28, ed. by Isabelle Bril & Georges Rebuschi, 231–242. Paris: Ophrys. Tomaszewicz, Barbara. 2010. “Against Spurious Coordination in Multiple Wh-Questions”. Paper Presented at WCCFL XXVIII, University of Southern California. Wilder, Chris. 1999. “Right Node Raising and the LCA”. Proceedings of WCCFL 18, ed. by Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen & Peter Norquest, 586–598. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press. Williams, Edwin. 1978. “Across-the-board Rule Application”. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 31–43. Zhang, Niina. 2007. “The Syntactic Derivations of Two Paired Dependency Constructions”. Lingua 117.2134–2158.

The Romanian verbal cluster and the theory of head movement* Ion Giurgea

Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti Institute of Linguistics, Bucharest & University of Constance In Romanian, auxiliaries, mood particles, the negation and a handful of functional items traditionally analyzed as adverbs behave as clitics on the verb, forming together with the verb the so-called ‘verbal cluster’. The analysis of this cluster as a complex head is problematic because auxiliaries, mood particles and negation display a head-initial order inside the cluster, instead of the normal head-final order inside complex heads found in Indo-European languages. Examining the alternatives proposed in the literature and a possible analysis as PF head-clitics, I conclude that the verbal cluster involves nevertheless complex head formation in syntax. I discuss the solutions proposed for the head-initial order in the literature and I offer an alternative analysis, based on the idea of PF-linearization.

1.  Introduction This paper addresses a problem of the syntax of Romanian – the clitic behavior of auxiliaries and mood particles – which has interesting consequences on the theory of head movement and complex head formation. In Romanian, not only pronominal clitics, but also auxiliaries, mood particles, the negation and a handful of functional items traditionally analyzed as adverbs behave like (pro)clitics – they cannot be separated from the verb except by another clitic (see GuÅ£u-Romalo 1962; Dobrovie-Sorin 1994): (1) a. Vom /Am (*deja /*mereu /*destul /*probabil will.1pl /would.1pl already / always / enough / probably

/*toţi /*chiar /*adesea) cânta / all / even / often sing

*╇ This paper contains part of a research financed by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) via the project “Bausteine romanischer Syntax/Components of Romance Syntax” (Freie Universität Berlin/University of Konstanz).

 Ion Giurgea

b. pentru ca să (*cineva /*deja /*mereu /*chiar for that subj somebody / already / always / even /*adesea) cânte / often sing.3sg.subj

The only elements which can intervene between auxiliaries and the lexical verb are the so-called ‘clitic adverbs’, which constitute a closed class, comprising only five items (see Section  2.2), and always occur inside the verbal cluster in the ad-verbal use: (2) Vom (mai /şi) cânta will.1pl (more /also) sing “We will sing more/again/We will also sing”

The problem I address in this article is how to explain the adjacency requirement between the elements of the verbal cluster. From a descriptive point of view the elements of the verbal cluster, except the lexical verb, can be characterized as clitics. Traditionally, (syntactic) clitics are analyzed as heads (X0 elements) adjoined to another X0 inside a complex X0. As in the other Indo-European languages, the normal order inside a complex X0 in Romanian is head-final. This order is respected for pronominal and adverbial clitics, as well as for the inflectional morphemes of the verb, which are standardly taken to represent functional heads in the extended projection of the verb (such as Tense and Aspect). However, for other elements of the verbal complex – mood particles, negation, auxiliaries – the order is head-initial. Therefore, some researchers have proposed that these elements do not form a complex X0, but head their own maximal projections (Avram 1999; Alboiu 2002). I will argue however that the verbal cluster forms a complex head in syntax (Section 3). I will distinguish two types of clitics sensitive to the syntactic structure, PF head-clitics, requiring adjacency with a head in PF, and syntactic clitics, which form a complex head in syntax (Section 4); I will show that the elements of the verbal cluster pattern with syntactic clitics. I will then address the theoretical issue of the unexpected head-initial order inside the complex head. I will discuss some existing solution and I will propose an alternative, couched in the minimalist framework, based on the idea that linearization is postsyntactic and parameterizable (Section 5). 2.  The structure of the Romanian verbal cluster The elements of the verbal cluster have a fixed order, which is given in (3), for finite tenses, and exemplified in (4). The special position for the clitic o is only used when there is an auxiliary that begins with a vowel.



The Romanian verbal cluster and the theory of head movement 



(3) Mood particle | Negation | Clitic pronouns | Tense/mood auxiliary | Clitic adverb | (finite or non-finite) lexical verb / fi + Participle | special position for clitic pronoun -o 3fsg.acc



Lexical verb/ Clitic o perfect fi +part. (special pos.)

(4) Mood Neg Clitics Aux Adv a. să nu -l subj not- 3rd.msg.acc

mai fi more be

b. să nu -l subj not- 3rd.msg.acc

mai văd more see.1sg

c.

nu l -am mai luat not 3rd.msg.acc -perf.1sg more taken

d.

n not

-aş mai fi cond.1sg more be

e. a nu -i inf not -3rdcl.sg.dat

luat taken

luat -o taken -3rd. fsg.acc

mai da more give.inf

The heading mood particle comprises subjunctive să, infinitive a and supine de, which resemble complementizers by being capable of introducing finite or nonfinite subordinate clauses but are distinguished from complementizers by the fact that they belong to the verbal cluster and, in the case of să, by the possibility to Â�co-occur with a complementizer. Mood is not always expressed by mood particles, but can be expressed by auxiliaries: conditional aş, presumptive oi (a mood expressing epistemic possibility). Auxiliaries can also encode tense (future voi) or tense + aspect ( perfect, i.e. perfective preterit, am). Anteriority or past is expressed by the fi element (lit. “be”) in non-indicative moods and in the future, followed by the part participle. Fi + gerund can also build the present or progressive of some mood forms (presumptive, e.g. o fi mâncând “(s)he may be eating” and conjectural, e.g. va fi zicând “(s)he’s probably saying”). The fact that mood may be expressed either by mood particles or by auxiliaries led to some uncertainty in the labeling of the syntactic position occupied by these particles: while some researchers have proposed Mood (Cornilescu 1997; Avram 1999), others proposed Fin (Isac & Jakab 2004). The position occupied by auxiliaries was uncontroversially identified as Tense. For the element fi, a functional head lower than T has been proposed, called Asp by Alboiu (2002). The so-called clitic adverbs form a closed class, comprising only five items, which suggests a functional character: i. mai (‘again, still, more’, with negation – ‘any longer’, with perfect – ‘already, on some other occasion’), an item very often used and not always easy to translate, can be called a temporal additive: it introduces the presupposition that

 Ion Giurgea

there is some other temporal interval in which the event holds (mai merge – ‘(s)he goes again/(s)he’s still walking’, am mai văzut – ‘I’ve already seen (on another occasion)’); it can also function as a degree quantifier (more) with respect to the theme (mai are – ‘he has some more’, mai are copii – ‘he has other children’); ii. cam ‘rather, quite’; iii. tot ‘over and over, repeatedly’; iv. prea (with negation) ‘really, exactly’ (e.g. ‘He doesn’t really…’);1 v. şi ‘(resultative) already, also’: ambiguous between additive particle (‘also’) and aspectual (resultative ‘already’) The label ‘clitic’ is justified not only by the possibility to occur inside the verbal cluster, but also by the fact that this is the only position in which they can occur, when they modify the verb – while most other adverbs have a great deal of freedom of placement. All these forms can also appear in non-verbal contexts. In some cases, the meaning allows us to consider that we are dealing with the one and the same item (şi ‘also’ as an additive particle; cam ‘rather’, prea ‘too’ as degree heads), in other cases a homonymy analysis is more plausible (mai ‘more’ as a degree head, tot as an additive particle roughly meaning ‘same’). As can be seen in (3)–(4), clitic adverbs do not have the same position with respect to all finite forms: they precede finite lexical verbs but follow auxiliaries. At first look, this seems to indicate that subject agreement is not always realized in the same position (see Motapanyane 1995). However, Alboiu (2002) has shown that the distribution of clitic adverbs can be reconciled with the idea that subject agreement is always realized in the same position by assuming that clitic adverbs are generated as clitics on a lower head Asp, through which the lexical verb passes on its way to T, while auxiliaries are base-generated in T. Since clitic adverbs are head-adjoined to Asp, the whole complex [Adv-V-Asp] raises when Asp is moved to T, deriving thus the order Adv-Vfin. When T is occupied by Aux, V stays in Asp, yielding the order T-Adv-Vnon-fin. Turning now to auxiliaries, their clitic character is correlated with other properties, which taken together suggest that auxiliaries have lost their verbal properties, becoming purely functional elements base-generated in Tense (as proposed by Dobrovie-Sorin 1994):

.  In affirmative sentences, prea precedes the verbal cluster, meaning ‘too much’. It can occur inside the cluster only in the fixed expression se prea poate ‘refl too can.3sg’ = “it’s quite possible”.



i.

The Romanian verbal cluster and the theory of head movement 

As shown in Table 1, they often have different forms from the lexical verb they come from (the forms which are different are bold-faced):

Table 1.╇ Auxiliaries and the corresponding lexical verbs Have (lexical)

Perfect

Conditional

Want (lexical)

Future

‘Presumptive’

am

am

aş

vreau

voi

oi

ai

ai

ai

vrei

vei

oi

a

ar

vrea

va

o

avem

am

am

vrem

vom

om

aveţi

aţi

aţi

vreţi

veţi

oţi

au

au

ar

vor

vor

or

are

ii. They do not have tense oppositions. Thus, the perfect auxiliary is only used for perfective past/perfect anterior to the present; the pluperfect is expressed by a suffix, the future perfect is built of the future auxiliary + the perfect marker fi (coming from the verb ‘be’). Compare French, where all these tenses are expressed by tense morphemes attached to the auxiliary: (5) perfective anterior to the present:

French

Romanian

j’ai mangé

am mâncat

‘I ate/have eaten’

anterior to the past (‘pluperf.’):

j’avais mangé

mâncasem

‘I had eaten’

anterior to the future (‘future perf.’):

j’aurai mangé voi fi mâncat ‘I will have eaten’

The future auxiliaries o and am, which select a subjunctive (să + inflected verb) also behave as clitics, being obligatorily adjacent to the subjunctive. In this case, clitic pronouns and adverbs appear after the mood particle să, like in a normal subjunctive; however the negation cannot appear after să, but must precede the higher auxiliary: (6) n- o să -l mai iau not will subj-3msg.acc more take.1sg “I won’t take him/it again /any longer”

3.  Projections without specifiers vs. complex X0s The fact that some elements of the cluster – auxiliaries, mood particles, negation – display head-initial order inside the cluster has led some researchers to propose

 Ion Giurgea

that these elements do not form a complex X0 (Avram 1999; Alboiu 2002), and the adjacency follows from the fact that the projections headed by the participle/ infinitive (including perfect fi), auxiliaries and negation lack specifiers. These projections are labelled Asp, AgrS+T and Neg by Alboiu (2002), whose analysis is given below: (7) [CP că/ca [M(ood)P să/a [NegP nu [CliticP [AgrS+TP Aux/VFin [AspP (fi)(Adv) VPart [vP.. the ‘verbal cluster’

This analysis faces several problems, both theoretical and empirical. On the theoretical side, the assumption that adverbs are specifiers is problematic, as various authors have argued, especially with reference to Cinque’s (1999) cartographic theory (see Bobaljik 1999; Ernst 2004; Costa 2004). Since adverbs are optional, are not c-selected and may appear in various positions with respect to the major constituents of the clause (the verb, auxiliaries, the subject, the object or negation), they are best analyzable as adjuncts, in which case they should be able to modify the projection hosting the lexical verb (be it AspP, vP or TP) in Romanian just as they do in French, Italian or English. It is true that Alboiu’s analysis does not make reference to dedicated projections and is compatible with the view that adverbs are licensed as specifiers of categories assumed on independent grounds (such as Tense, Aspect, Mood etc.), escaping thus part of the problems which the cartographic system faces. But even in this formulation, the ban that certain heads impose on adverbs remains mysterious. Thus, we must assume that temporal and aspectual adverbs can be licensed by Mood or v, but, surprisingly, not by Asp or T: (8) ca (îndată /adesea /deja /mereu) să fie (îndată /adesea that soon /often /already /always subj be.3 soon /often /deja/ mereu) aici /already always here

While this is conceivable, it is surely not in the spirit of the theory of adverb licensing by functional heads, which normally assumes a correlation between the meaning of the adverbs and the meaning of the functional heads which serve as licensors. Moreover, adverbs can of course precede the cluster when the mood particle is absent, so that one must assume an empty Mood head in this case, as T is not supposed to allow a specifier: (9) {îndată /adesea /deja /mereu} e aici soon /often /already /always is here



The Romanian verbal cluster and the theory of head movement 

On the empirical side, the Avram-Alboiu analysis faces two important problems: the behavior of the cluster with respect to coordination and the placement of the clitic o. Coordination under a proclitic element of the cluster is severely restricted. The situation is similar to that of pronominal clitics in other Romance languages (except Portuguese). Thus, auxiliaries and negation can exceptionally take a conjunction of heads, but never of phrases, while mood particles disallow any conjunction. As can be seen in (10) below, the reason cannot be simply phonological weakness: the complementizer că and the subjunctive particle să are phonologically alike – they are monosyllabic and always unstressed (they are phonological proclitics). However, while că may introduce a coordination of TPs, să cannot: (10) a. Cred că [va veni şi va vedea] believe.1sg that will.3sg come and will.3sg see “I think he will come and see” b. *Sper să [vină şi vadă] hope.1sg subj come.3sg.subj and see.3sg.subj

Auxiliaries too normally cannot be omitted in coordination: (11) a. *voi [câştiga şi fi fericit] will.1sg win and be happy b. *au [plecat şi încuiat uşa] have.3pl left and locked door-the

This property suggests that a complex head is formed at some level of the derivation. There are however some exceptions: verbs which may be viewed as describing a single event or a regular sequence can exceptionally be coordinated under an auxiliary or negation: (12) a. Voi corecta şi nota toate lucrările will.1sg revise and mark all copies-the “I will revise and mark all the copies” b. (?) L-am spălat şi curăţat bine 3msg.ac.cl -have.1 washed and cleaned well “I/We washed and cleaned it well”

But, crucially, even in these cases no material can intervene between the two verbs: (13) a. *Voi corecta mâine şi nota toate lucrările will.1sg revise tomorrow and mark all copies-the b. *L-am spălat bine şi curăţat 3msg.ac.cl -have.1 washed well and cleaned

 Ion Giurgea

Moreover, the construction is only possible if all the complements or ad-verbal adjuncts belong to both verbs (hence the ungrammaticality of (11)). These restrictions show that (12) involves X0-coordination. The restriction to X0-coordination can only be explained if the verbal cluster involves a complex X0 formation of sorts, which can exceptionally comprise two coordinated X0s. The second empirical argument in favor of complex head formation is the special placement of the 3rd singular feminine accusative clitic o. This clitic appears at the end of the cluster iff the normal clitic position is followed by an auxiliary that begins with a vowel: (14) a. m- /te- /l- /ne-/v- /i me /you(sg) /3msg.acc /us-/you(pl) /3mpl.acc /le- a luat /3fpl.acc has taken b. a luat-o has taken-3fsg.acc c. o ia /o va lua 3fsg.acc takes /3fsg.acc will.3sg take

Note that this displacement rule makes reference to phonological features: it affects a clitic which only consists in a vowel – o – in the context _[AuxVowel..], so that it can be described as a euphony rule aimed at avoiding the hiatus. Therefore, this rule should be considered a PF rule, which applies at or after Vocabulary Insertion (the point at which phonological material is inserted). But PF-rules applying at this point of the derivation typically target words or morphemes, not phrases, as shown by Embick & Noyer (2001), who use the term ‘local dislocation’ for this type of displacement. This means that o is placed at the end of the complex X0 to which it attaches. But, as can be seen from the examples, o is in fact attached at the end of the whole cluster. Therefore, we are entitled to claim that at least at the level of Vocabulary Insertion the verbal cluster is treated as a complex X0. The conclusion so far is that the adjacency between the elements in the verbal cluster cannot be explained by assuming projections without specifiers, but the verbal cluster forms a complex X0 at some point of the derivation. 4.  PF- clitics vs. syntactic clitics Having established that a complex X0 is formed at some point of the derivation, the issue to be addressed now is where this takes place. Is it in syntax or in PF? One possibility which has to be considered is that the elements which form the verbal cluster and have a head-initial order (i.e. mood particles, negation, auxiliaries) head independent projections in syntax, as in Alboiu’s analysis, but



The Romanian verbal cluster and the theory of head movement 

require adjacency with the head of their complement in PF, so that adverb interpolation is excluded not by syntax, but by a post-syntactic filter. The simple fact of being unaccented words (i.e. phonological proclitics) does not explain the adjacency requirement or the restrictions on coordination. As can be seen in (10) above and (15) below, there are unaccented monosyllabic words which do not show these restrictions (the indefinite article, the differential object marker): (15) a. un [foarte bun] [ministru] a very good minister b. îi aştept pe [[prietenii Otiliei] şi [rudele lor]] cl wait.1sg dom friends.the Otilia.gen and relatives.the their “I’m expecting Otilia’s friends and their relatives”

But if we adopt a more complex layering of the PF-processing, as proposed by Embick & Noyer (2001), it is possible to distinguish an intermediate stage of cliticization between syntax and phonology, where a requirement of adjacency with the head of the complement can be formulated. Embick & Noyer (2001) argue that there are two types of PF-rules, applying at different stages of the PF processing (They are mostly concerned with displacement rules): (i) Rules applying before Vocabulary Insertion, where some structural information is preserved, can make reference to the notion ‘head of the complement’. Thus, English Affix Â�Hopping, analyzed as Lowering, targets the head of the complement of the affixal head. (ii) Rules applying after Vocabulary Insertion are only sensitive to linear adjacency and the grouping of morphemes into words. At Vocabulary Insertion, linearization applies, so that all hierarchical information is lost, except for the grouping of morphemes into morphosyntactic words. Displacement rules applying at this stage, called local dislocations, target adjacent words or morphemes (they may reverse the linear order between adjacent morphemes inside an m-word, or between a morpheme and the following m-word). Adopting this framework, we may describe the complex head formation involved in the verbal cluster as a rule of type (i), applying before Vocabulary Insertion, and requiring adjacency with the head of the complement. The heads bearing this requirement can be called PF head-clitics, as opposed to the purely phonological clitics which do not introduce any structural constraint, illustrated in (15), which can be labelled PF linear clitics. The clearest examples of PF head-clitics are French subject-clitics. As shown in (16) below, they must be adjacent with the tensed verb: (16) a. Il (*déjà /*apparemment /*probablement…) est venu. he already apparently probably is come

 Ion Giurgea b. *Il, je suppose, est venu



he I suspect is come

However, they do not form a complex head in syntax, as can be seen from the fact that they do not take part in verb movement, yielding the phenomenon of subjectclitic inversion (the following example shows, by the same token, that object clitics and the negative marker ne are syntactic clitics): (17) Ne le ferait-il pas? neg 3rd.msg.cl do.cond-he not “Wouldn’t he do it?”

Notice now the behavior of French subject clitics with respect to coordination. Unlike the elements of the Romanian verbal cluster, they can combine with a coordination of phrasal constituents: (18) a. Il [[leva les yeux] et [commença à parler]] (Fr.) he raised the eyes and started to talk b. *A [[ridicat ochii ] şi [început să vorbească]] (Rom.) has raised eyes-the and started subj talks

We may conclude that Romanian auxiliaries and mood particles are somehow weaker, closer to syntactic clitics, than French subject clitics. Should then the verbal cluster be considered to form a complex head in syntax (despite the headinitial order and the possibility of coordination in some exceptional cases)? The strongest evidence for such an analysis would be the movement of the entire verbal cluster as a head, like in the French inversion illustrated in (17). Although there is no certain evidence for raising of the verbal cluster as a unit, there are some data which receive a straightforward explanation if such a raising is assumed. Thus, the VS(O) order in examples (19) are licensed by focus or emphasis on the verbal cluster. Neutral VS(O) orders in Romanian require thetic sentences, but verbs such as know and love cannot enter such sentences, but can only yield categorical sentences (see Giurgea & Remberger (2009)). Therefore, VS(O) orders in (19) require marked contexts, with narrow focus on either the verb (which can be focus on assertion – ‘verum’ focus) or the subject. (19) a. A ŞTIUT el cum să facă faţă has known he how subj makes face “He did know how to withstand” b. L-a IUBIT Maria pe George cl-has loved Maria obj George “Maria did love George”



The Romanian verbal cluster and the theory of head movement 

If we assume that focus fronting involves a head higher than T, we may conclude that these examples display movement of the verbal complex to this position, Â�checking the emphatic/contrastive focus feature by a sisterhood configuration of the type head-head (for this kind of EPP-checking, see Alexiadou & Â�Anagnastopoulou (1998) for the classical EPP, Giurgea & Remberger (2009) for Â�information-structure features). Hill (2006) proposed indeed raising of the emphatically stressed verbal cluster to a high position in a split CP in the Â�so-called ‘double subject construction’: (20) Maria, A CALCULAT *(ea) precis (*ea) deja datele Maria has computed (she) surely (she) already data-the “(Don’t worry), for sure Maria already computed the data!”

Putting together this evidence for movement and the contrast with respect to coordination between Romanian auxiliaries and mood particles and French subject clitics, we may conclude that the verbal cluster forms a complex X0 in syntax. In the next section we will address the theoretical problems this analysis faces. 5.  The verbal cluster, head movement and complex head formation Remember that the idea that the verbal cluster forms a complex head in syntax was first of all rejected because of the fact that some elements of the cluster (auxiliaries, mood particles, negation) show a head-initial order, instead of the head-final order which normally characterizes complex heads in Indo-European languages. In this section, I discuss two possible solutions to this problem. 5.1  Restructuring. Complex head formation divorced from head-movement Dobrovie-Sorin (1994), which first addressed the issue of the Romanian verbal cluster in the GB-framework, proposed that auxiliaries, negation and mood markers are heads of independent phrasal projections which are later reanalyzed as forming one X0-complex by an operation called Restructuring incorporation, affecting co-indexed functional categories, which she describes as follows: (21) i. Functional Coindexation: Coindex adjacent functional X0 categories  (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994 2.38) ii. Merging/ Restructuring Incorporation: Adjoin a to an adjacent Â�element b, where a and b bear the same functional index  (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994:â•›2.77)

The author does not define the notion of ‘adjacency’ used here. If it refers to a relation directly mapped to linear adjacency, the account is circular: (21) presupposes

 Ion Giurgea

already that the projections inside the cluster lack specifiers or leftward adjuncts, but the issue was exactly to explain why this is so. A similar idea has been recently used, in a more theoretically explicit way, by Matushansky (2006) in her discussion of head movement. Her main concern was to reconcile Head Movement with the Extension Condition.2 To this effect, she decomposes Head movement into two operations: (i) movement of the head of the target’s complement to the specifier of the target and (ii) ‘m-merger’, by which the target head and the head moved to the specifier position merge, creating a complex X0. She considers that the latter is an operation of the morphological component. By (i), the Head Movement Constraint is built into the definition of head movement. M-merger is essentially the same operation as Dobrovie-Sorin’s Merging or Restructuring Incorporation. It affects adjacent heads in the trees and destroys constituency: (22)

YP

YP →

YP

X Y

XP

Y X

XP Y

…tX…

…tX…

It is easy to see that Matushansky’s m-merger can account for the head-initial orders inside the verbal cluster: these would simply be cases where m-merger has applied without head-movement. However, an additional assumption is needed to explain the impossibility of adverb interpolation: the clitic heads must have a property which forces m-merger, so that structures with intervening adverbs should be filtered out. Another problem for Matushansky’s analysis is the idea that the m-merger operation is morphological. We would expect that it shouldn’t feed further syntactic operations. But complex heads may move as a unit (see (17), (19), (20)). Note finally that there is another solution to the problem of the Extension Condition for head movement. As proposed by Bobaljik & Brown (1997) and Dobrovie-Sorin & Galves (2000), the configuration [HP[X H] [XP]], characteristic

.  The Extension Condition (Chomsky 1995) requires that Merge should apply at the root (a syntactic object cannot be merged inside another one, Merge only takes two syntactic objects and forms a third one, which dominates both). Movement is decomposed into Copy and Merge. The Merge step of head movement contravenes to the Extension Condition, because it does not apply at the root: the moved head is merged inside a syntactic object ([X YP] → [[Y X] YP]).



The Romanian verbal cluster and the theory of head movement 

of ‘head movement’, can be derived in compliance with the Extension Condition by changing the order of the application of Merge and allowing ‘interarboreal’ Merge: Merge applies first with a copy of the head of the complement (H is merged with X), then with the complement (the resulting [X H] is merged with XP). DobrovieSorin (2001) uses this derivational mechanism in order to explain the Romanian verbal cluster, which she analyzes as a syntactic complex head. 5.2  Parameterization of linear order inside complex heads There is another possibility of deriving the head-initial order inside syntactic complex heads. Let’s first assume that the [HP[X H] [XP]] structures characterizing complex heads are part of syntax, as shown by the capacity of complex heads ([X H]) to undergo movement. As for their exact derivation, we may either assume a weakening of the Extension Condition or the mechanism proposed by Bobaljik & Brown (1997) and Dobrovie-Sorin & Galves (2000). Head movement and syntactic complex head formation fall thus together, as representing the result of a sisterhood requirement between a head and the head of its complement, realized by merging the head H with a copy of the head of H’s complement.3 Let us further assume that linear order is established at PF (more precisely, at Vocabulary Insertion, see Embick & Noyer 2001)), by rules which are parameterized (see Bobaljik 2002; Kremers 2003). We can then consider the head-final ordering inside complex heads as a default rule rather than as an exceptionless principle. This rule itself is a parameter, set as head-final in Indo-European, but possibly as head-initial in languages where prefixation is predominant. The headinitial order found with mood particles, auxiliaries and negation can then be analyzed as the result of a linearization instruction assigned to these heads, which overrides the general default rule. Although the introduction of such special rules linked to individual heads may seem theoretically costly, it can be argued that since morphology is the place where the bigger discrepancies between languages as well as between structures of one and the same language can be found, and the head-head combinations inside a morpho-syntactic word are typically a matter of morphology, it is expected that the linear ordering of the heads inside a complex head may show idiosyncrasies, which can be considered special morphological properties of the relevant heads. I propose thus that auxiliaries, negation and mood particles bear, in addition to the syntactic feature which triggers headmovement (i.e. complex head formation by copying, see above), a morphological feature triggering prefixation (overriding the default head-final ordering inside

.  For evidence that head movement takes place in syntax, see Zwart (2001), Lechner (2005).

 Ion Giurgea

complex heads in Romanian). Calling this feature PREF, we have the following linearization rules in Romanian (where ‘*’ notates linear precedence): (23) a. [X0 X0+pref Y0] → X0 *Y0 b. [X0 X0 Y0] → Y0 *X0

(default rule)

An argument in favor of this analysis is that it can be applied to other phenomena, in other languages. For reasons of space, I only mention here two other instances of head-initial order in what appears to be a complex head formed in syntax. (i) There is evidence that preverbal negation may form a complex head with the verb in other Romance languages: thus, in French, it moves together with the verb in interrogative inversion, as shown in (17) above. (ii) The Hebrew definite article has been argued to have affixal status (see Wintner 1997), and it precedes the noun; under the DP hypothesis, N is the complement of D, so the D–N order reflects a head-first complex head. Summing up, by assuming that the Romanian verbal cluster is formed by the syntactic operation of head movement, there is no need to use special filters to explain the absence of adverb interpolation. The possibility of raising of the whole complex for checking a focus or emphatic feature is also explained. For coordination cases such as (12), which are restricted to coordination of heads, it can be assumed that complex head formation may exceptionally allow a coordination of heads. 6.  Conclusions In our discussion of the Romanian verbal cluster, we have distinguished three sources for grouping of morphemes into a single m-word: (i) syntactic complex head formation (which, if it involves internal merge, amounts to head movement); (ii) head cliticization (applying at PF before Vocabulary Insertion); (iii) linear cliticization (applying at PF at or after Vocabulary Insertion). PF head-clitics impose adjacency with a head at PF, but are distinguished from syntactic clitics by not participating to the movement of their host and by being allowed to combine with a conjunction of phrases. Syntactic clitics allow at most a coordination of heads, under restricted circumstances. Based on these criteria, the Romanian verbal cluster falls under syntactic complex head formation (supporting Dobrovie-Sorin’s (2001) analysis). Since the linear order inside the Romanian verbal cluster does not always correspond to the standard head-final order found inside complex heads in Indo-European languages, we have concluded that the head-final order is not a necessary property of complex heads.



The Romanian verbal cluster and the theory of head movement 

Based on the idea that linearization applies at PF, we have proposed that the exceptions to the head-final order can result from a linearization instruction idiosyncratically associated with certain heads, which overrides the general rule. These exceptions can also be explained by adopting Matushansky’s (2006) idea of divorcing complex head formation from head movement: under this hypothesis, head-final complex heads result from head movement followed by restructuring incorporation, while head-initial complex heads result from restructuring incorporation alone. A problem of this analysis is that head-final-ness of complex heads is more widespread in head-initial Indo-European languages, although it requires more operations. We therefore find the explanation based on special linearization instructions preferable. The facts discussed here show the importance of distinguishing the part played by syntax and by postsyntactic processes when examining constructions involving clitics and complex heads. Although head movement is part of syntax, the order inside complex heads can be affected by special morphological properties of the items involved. Moreover, complex head formation in syntax, by head movement, must be distinguished from PF-cliticization phenomena.

References Alboiu, Gabriela. 2002. The Features of Movement in Romanian. Bucharest: Editura UniversităÅ£ii Bucureşti. Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. “Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and the EPP-checking”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16.491–539. Avram, Larisa. 1999. Auxiliaries and the Structure of Language. Bucharest: Editura UniversităÅ£ii Bucureşti. Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 1999. “Adverbs: The hierarchy paradox”. Glot International, 4. Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2002. “A-Chains at the PF-Interface: Copies and covert movement”. Â�Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20.197–267. Bobaljik, Jonathan D. & Samuel Brown. 1997. “Inter-arboreal Operations: Head-movement and the extension requirement”. Linguistic Inquiry 28.2:345–356. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cornilescu, Alexandra. 1997. “The Double Subject Construction in Romanian. Notes on the syntax of the subject”. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 42.3–4:101–147. Costa, João. 2004. “A Multifactorial Approach to Adverb Placement: Assumptions, facts, and problems”. Lingua 114.711–753. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, 1994, The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2001. “Head-to-Head Merge in Balkan Subjunctives and Locality”. Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages, ed. by Angela Ralli, & María Luisa Rivero, 44–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Ion Giurgea Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Charlotte Galves. 2000. “Proclisis, Enclisis and Head-to-head Merge”. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 2.1:35–51. Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2001. “Movement Operations after Syntax”. Linguistic Inquiry 32.555–595. Ernst, Thomas. 2004. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giurgea, Ion & Eva-Maria Remberger. 2009. “Postverbal Subjects in Romance Null-subject Â�Languages: Information-structural conditions and variation”. Talk given at Going Romance, Nice, December 3–5. GuÅ£u-Romalo, Valeria. 1962. “Forme verbale compuse”. Studii şi cercetări de lingvistică 13.2:191–199. Hill, Virginia. 2006. “Stylistic Inversion in Romanian”. Studia linguistica 60.2:156–180. Isac, Daniela & Edit Jakab. 2004. “Mood and Force Features in the Languages of the Balkan”. Â�Balkan Syntax and Semantics, ed. by Olga M. Tomic, 315–338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kremers, Joost. 2003. The Arabic Noun Phrase. A minimalist approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Â�University of Nijmegen. Lechner, Winfried. 2005. “Interpretive Effects of Head Movement”. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Tübingen. Matushansky, Ora. 2006. “Head Movement in Linguistic Theory”. Linguistic Inquiry 37.1:69–109. Motapanyane, Virginia. 1995. Theoretical Implications of Complementation in Romanian. Padova: Unipress. Wintner, Shuly. 1997. “The Affixal Nature of the Definite Article in Hebrew”. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands. Selected papers from the Eighth CLIN Meeting, ed. by Peter-Arno Coppen, Hans van Halsteren & Lisanne Teunissen, 145–168. Zwart, Jan Wouter. 2001. “Syntactic and Phonological Verb Movement”. Syntax 4.34–62.

New challenges in the area of semantic dependencies The Romanian epistemic constraint* Anamaria Fălăuş

University of the Basque Country This paper investigates the parameters of variation in the area of semantically dependent indefinites, by focusing on the distribution of the Romanian dependent determiner vreun. Refining previous descriptions in the literature (Farkas 2002, 2006), I argue that the occurrence of vreun in intensional contexts is sensitive to epistemic alternatives. To account for this, I endorse the unitary approach to polarity-sensitivity due to Chierchia (2006) and argue that the differences between vreun and other dependent indefinites stem from the types of alternatives they activate and the way these alternatives contribute to the overall meaning.

1.  Introduction This paper focuses on the properties of the Romanian indefinite determiner vreun, previously studied in work by Farkas (2002, 2006) and Fălăuș (2009), and seeks to provide an adequate description of its pattern of use. I propose a novel generalization, arguing that its restricted distribution is sensitive to epistemic alternatives, a property that raises the issue of its similarity to other epistemic or modal indefinites recently discussed in the literature (for Romance languages, see Jayez & Tovena 2006, 2007; Alonso-Ovalle & Menéndez-Benito 2008, 2010, and references therein). The discussion of the Romanian pattern contributes to our knowledge of parameters of variation in this area, paving the way for a better understanding of semantically dependent indefinites. At a theoretical level, I endorse a unitary theory of polarity-sensitivity, following Chierchia (2006, 2010), arguing that the differences between vreun and other dependent indefinites come from the types

*╇ This research was partly founded by the Basque Government, through the project GIC07/144-IT-210–07.

 Anamaria Fălăuş

of alternatives they activate and the way these alternatives contribute to the overall meaning. 2.  The distribution of vreun – the epistemic constraint The special determiner vreun (masculine)/vreo (feminine) is a complex variant of  the standard indefinite article un (masculine)/o (feminine), which combines with the morpheme vre- (from the Latin verb volere>*vere “want”), and occurs with singular countable nouns. As illustrated by the ungrammaticality of the Â�episodic sentence in (1) below, vreun has a restricted distribution, unlike the indefinite article form on which it builds: (1) *Monica s–a întâlnit cu vreun prieten / vreo prietenă Monica refl-have.3sg met with vreun friend vreun friend.f

On the basis of the exclusion from episodic sentences, vreun can be classified as a polarity-sensitive or, more generally, dependent determiner (cf. Giannakidou 1997, 2011).1 However, as originally shown by Farkas (2002), the precise type of dependency instantiated by vreun is not easy to capture and situate with respect to other patterns of polarity-sensitivity. 2.1  The empirical challenge The first thing to be noted about the distribution of vreun is that it occurs in all contexts that typically license negative polarity items (NPIs like any or ever), such as questions (2), if-antecedents (3), or the scope of downward-entailing operators like few or rarely:2 (2) Ai vreo veste despre rezultatul concursului? Have.2sg vreun news about result.def contest-the.gen “Do you have any news on the result of the contest?” (3) Dacă găseşti vreun zbor după-amiază, anunţă-mă. if find.2sg vreun flight afternoon, announce-me.acc “If you find any flight in the afternoon, let me know.”

The typical NPI-behavior of vreun does not constitute the primary concern of this paper (discussed in detail in Fălăuș 2009), so in the following, I focus on its

1.  In this paper, I use the terms ‘polarity-sensitive’ and ‘dependent’ item as synonymous. .  For an overview of the issues raised by polarity items, see Tovena (2001) and Giannakidou (2011).



The Romanian epistemic constraint 

non-negative polarity contexts of occurrence, which are more puzzling in view of current classifications of semantic dependencies.3 Farkas (2002) shows that vreun occurs in hypothetical contexts, like the one in (4), where vreun conveys some kind of ignorance from the speaker: (4) E posibil ca Maria să se fi întâlnit cu vreun prieten Be.3sg possible that Maria subj refl be met with vreun friend şi să fi rămas cu el în oraş. and subj be remained with him in town “It is possible that Maria met some friend and stayed with him in town.”

In (4), vreun occurs in the scope of the modal operator ‘it’s possible’, and the sentence conveys that Maria might have met a friend, the speaker doesn’t know which friend, and she might have stayed with him in town. This interpretation is very similar to that of the Romanian existential free-choice item (FCI) un NP oarecare ‘some NP or other’ (Săvescu-Ciucivara 2007), which also makes reference to an individual whose identity the speaker ignores (or does not care about). However, vreun cannot occur in all contexts where an existential-FCI is possible, as shown by the imperative in (5): (5) Alege *vreo carte/ ✓o carte oarecare! Pick-imp vreun card/ a card whatsoever “Pick some card (or other).”

This example indicates that vreun is not an existential-FCI, although it is clearly an existential determiner which occurs in modalized contexts, and which conveys an ignorance flavor. The following contrasts further illustrate the classification challenges raised by vreun: i. it occurs in some modal contexts (6), but not others (7): (6) E multă lume pe stradă, trebuie să fie vreo demonstraţie. is much crowd on street must subj be.3sg vreun demonstration “There are a lot of people on the street, there must be some demonstration” (7) *Trebuie să trimit vreun articol până mâine dimineaţă. must subj send.1sg vreun article by tomorrow morning “I must send some paper by tomorrow morning.”

.  As shown in Fălăuș (2009), the distribution of vreun below clause-mate sentential negation is more complex than in the case of NPIs like any, as a result of the fact that Romanian is a strict negative concord language.

 Anamaria Fălăuş

ii. it occurs under some attitude verbs (e.g. believe, suppose, assume, hope, prefer) as illustrated in (8), but not others (e.g. know, say, ask, insist, want), as in (9): (8) Cred că a intrat vreun hoţ. Believe.1sg that have.3sg entered vreun burglar “I think some/a burglar got in.” (9) *Roxana mi-a cerut să aduc vreun cadou. Roxana me-have.3sg requested subj bring. 1sg vreun present “Roxana asked me to bring some present.”

The contrasts above are unexpected given the patterns of polarity-sensitivity attested in the literature and call for a fine-grained analysis of the contexts of occurrence. In view of this situation, the first thing that needs to be established concerns the property governing the use of vreun in non-negative contexts, which we have seen to include modal operators and attitude verbs. In the following, I argue that the distribution of vreun is sensitive to epistemic alternatives. More precisely, I propose that vreun is an epistemic determiner, i.e. an item sensitive to what the speaker holds to be true, as captured by the following generalization: (10) the epistemic constraint Context of occurrence: Op[…vreun…] Op p entails that the speaker’s epistemic alternatives include non p-worlds

According to (10), vreun only occurs in the scope of propositional operators that entail that not all of the speaker’s epistemic alternatives are such that the proposition below the operator, p, is true, i.e. the speaker countenances (possibly unlikely) non p-worlds.4 Let us now see how the epistemic constraint in (10) captures the distribution of vreun in non-negative contexts of occurrence, focusing on attitude predicates (Section 2.2) and modal contexts (Section 2.3).

.  The epistemic constraint in (10) might seem very similar to Giannakidou’s account of polarity in terms of nonveridicality (Giannakidou 1997 et seq). Whereas there is Â�interesting overlap between vreun and nonveridical items like Greek kanenas, there are important Â�empirical differences: vreun is used in contexts which are claimed to be veridical (e.g. believe, suppose) and ruled out in some nonveridical contexts (deontic modals, verbs like want, insist). A more detailed comparison between a nonveridicality-based approach and the one defended here goes beyond the purpose of this paper.



The Romanian epistemic constraint 

2.2  The distribution of vreun under attitude verbs According to the generalization in (10) above, vreun occurs below operators which cannot be used in situations where their complement proposition is established to be true. This hypothesis captures the distribution under attitude verbs. An important empirical fact, previously unnoticed, is that vreun can ocur under epistemic verbs like a crede ‘to think/believe’ or a bănui ‘to suppose’ (11). In contrast to this, as already observed in Farkas (2002), vreun is ruled out in the complement of factive epistemic verbs like know (12): (11) Cred că a intrat vreun hoţ. Believe.1sg that have.3sg entered vreun burglar “I think some/a burglar got in.” (12) *Ştiu că a intrat vreun hoţ. know.1sg that have.3sg entered vreun burglar “I know a burglar got in.”

The predicate know entails that its complement proposition is true, a situation which renders the use of vreun ungrammatical, as attested by (12). In contrast to this, predicates like think or assume allow for the possibility that their complement proposition be false. When we assert something like ‘I think/suppose/assume p’ we not only communicate that it is compatible with our beliefs that a certain state of affairs holds (denoted by the complement proposition p), but also that we are not excluding the possibility that p is false. Crucially, if the proposition under consideration is established to be true, the speaker cannot use think or assume. For example, imagine a context where the speaker sees the burglar in the house: in this situation, she obviously cannot truthfully utter (11). Accordingly, these verbs allow the occurrence of vreun in their complement proposition. The contrast between think and know does not suffice to motivate the Â�(arguably) strong formulation of the generalization in (10). A stronger argument comes from the following contrast between the volitional verbs want and hope: (13) *Vreau să cumpăr vreo carte despre India. want.1sg subj buy.1sg vreun book about India “I want to buy some book about India.” (14) Sper să găsesc vreo carte despre India. hope.1sg subj find.1sg vreun book about India “I hope to find some book about India.”

This contrast is surprising: both want and hope are non-factive predicates and express that the worlds in which the embedded proposition holds are ranked high with respect to the attitude holder’s preferences. Crucially however, hope and want

 Anamaria Fălăuş

differ with respect to their epistemic properties, a distinction which plays a role in the distribution of vreun. More precisely, Scheffler (2008) identifies an epistemic component in the meaning of hope, which only makes it compatible with situations where the truth of the embedded proposition is not established, a property that want lacks. The relevant contrast is given in (15) which shows that want is compatible with a situation where the complement proposition is established to hold, unlike hope: (15) I have a cookie and I {want/#hope} to have a cookie.5

These examples show that hope cannot be used to refer to an established state of affairs, a restriction which does not apply to want. In other words, whenever we use hope, we necessarily allow for non p-worlds among our beliefs, in line with the epistemic constraint in (10). Summarizing, we have seen that vreun only occurs below attitudes interpreted with respect to a set of epistemic alternatives that satisfy the epistemic constraint in (10). Verbs for which epistemic alternatives are not relevant (such as verbs of suggestion or request) do not comply with this requirement and hence vreun is ruled out in their complement proposition. 2.3  The distribution of vreun in modal contexts The constraint in (10) captures the intuition (originally discussed in Farkas 2002) that vreun occurs in contexts that are ‘hypothetical’: the speaker is not in a position to rule out the possibility that the proposition containing vreun is false. In the previous section, I have argued that we can implement this intuition by making use of the types of epistemic alternatives entertained by the speaker, and have applied this to the distribution of vreun under attitudes. I now make use of this hypothesis to capture the restriction of vreun to epistemic modal contexts. The context that shows in a straightforward way the role of this uncertainty component is the presumptive mood, one of the prototypical contexts of occurrence of vreun.6 Morphologically, it presents different paradigms, following the pattern future/conditional + be + present/past participle. Abstracting

.  I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this way of illustrating the difference between want and hope. .  This ‘uncertainty’/‘ignorance’ flavor makes vreun very similar to other epistemic Â�determiners discussed in the literature, such as Spanish algun (Alonso-Ovalle 2008, 2010), French quelque (Jayez & Tovena 2007), Italian un qualche (Zamparelli 2007) or Greek kanenas (Giannakidou 1997 et seq), but a cross-linguistic survey of epistemic determiners must be left for another occasion.



The Romanian epistemic constraint 

away from its properties, the only point that is relevant for our present discussion is that presumptive forms convey a meaning of indirect evidentiality: there is indirect evidence that a certain state of affairs might hold or have held (Irimia 2008). By using the presumptive, the speaker necessarily conveys that her assertion is only a hypothesis, i.e. she is not in a position to exclude that things might be/have been different. As expected under the hypothesis in (10) above, the presumptive plays a crucial role in the distribution of vreun: (16) Lipsesc banii. “The money is missing.” a. *A intrat vreun hoţ. have.3sg entered vreun burglar b. O fi intrat vreun hoţ. fut2.3sg be enter.past-part vreun burglar “Some burglar might have got in.”

The intended meaning of (16a) is a hypothesis about why the money is missing, but despite this hypothetical set-up, vreun is ruled out. In contrast to this, as soon as the indicative is replaced by a presumptive form, vreun can be used (16b). Since presumptive forms always convey hypotheses, the epistemic constraint is automatically satisfied, a situation which renders the presumptive mood the most frequent context of use for vreun. The other set of data illustrating the role of epistemic alternatives in the distribution of vreun concerns modal operators: empirical investigation reveals that vreun is restricted to epistemic modal contexts. Vreun can occur under both necessity and possibility modals, but crucially, only when they are interpreted with respect to an epistemic modal base. To illustrate, consider the following examples, with the necessity modal: (17) Epistemic necessity modal: Trebuie că are Simona vreo soluţie, ea mereu ne ajută. must that have.3sg Simona vreun solution she always cl help.3sg “Simona must have a solution, she always helps us out.” (18) Non-epistemic necessity modal *Trebuie să trimit vreun articol până mâine dimineaţă. must subj send.1sg vreun article by tomorrow morning “I must send some paper by tomorrow morning.”

The modal operator in (18) acquires a deontic interpretation, conveying something about the speaker’s obligations, without any reference to her epistemic alternatives. In (17) on the other hand, the necessity modal is clearly epistemic, and the speaker is expressing her certainty that Simona has a solution of some kind.

 Anamaria Fălăuş

How does an epistemic modal satisfy the epistemic constraint? Strictly speaking, an epistemic necessity modal like must conveys that in all worlds compatible with what the speaker knows, its complement proposition is true. On this position, must  p entails that p is true. This might seem problematic for the epistemic constraint advocated so far. However, it has often been noted that in addition to quantification over epistemically accessible worlds, the meaning of an epistemic modal involves an indirect evidentiality component (for a recent discussion, see von Fintel & Gillies 2010). More precisely, in using an epistemic modal, the speaker is not only conveying something about her beliefs, but also that she only has indirect evidence for her claim, i.e. she is not in a position to assert whether p is true or false. Accordingly, when the context sets the value of p, and in particular when p is established to be true, the speaker cannot use an epistemic modal: for example, upon looking at pouring rain, we cannot utter something like It must be raining. The speaker only uses an epistemic modal in situations where her belief worlds include (however unlikely) worlds where p might be false, a property that is crucial for the distribution of vreun. Summarizing, the data considered in this section show that vreun is restricted to modal operators whose interpretation involves an epistemic modal base and which satisfy the epistemic constraint. The discussion here is not exhaustive, and more empirical work is required to investigate issues like possible locality restrictions on the constraint in (10) or the behavior of vreun in contexts with more than one possible epistemic agent, but the restriction of vreun to epistemic contexts makes an interesting contribution to our knowledge of parameters of variation in the area of polarity-sensitivity.

3.  An alternative-based approach for ‘vreun’ The main intuition underlying the use of vreun, also present in Farkas (2002), is that we are dealing with an alternative-introducing element. In order to implement this intuition, I pursue an alternative-based approach, due to Chierchia (2006), who seeks to provide a unified account for patterns of polarity in natural language, by making use of a small set of parameters of variation. I briefly introduce the main components of the approach (Section 3.1), and then propose an account for vreun within this framework and discuss the issues it raises (3.2). 3.1  A unitary approach to polarity-sensitivity Building on insights in Kadmon & Landman (1993), Krifka (1995) and Kratzer & Shimoyama (2002), Chierchia (2006 et seq) develops a unified account of polarity-sensitivity which locates the source of dependency for polarity items in their meaning. More precisely, the core property shared by all polarity items is the fact



The Romanian epistemic constraint 

that they activate alternatives, which speakers use for meaning enrichment. The basic idea is that utterances are interpreted with respect to a set of alternatives that the speaker could have also chosen, alternatives which serve as a basis for an inference process leading to an enriched interpretation. In this framework, meaning enrichment takes place through a form of exhaustification of the assertion, roughly equivalent to the insertion of a silent only operator. Simplifying, when we enrich the meaning of an assertion with an exhaustification operator, we assert that the original assertion is true and all stronger alternatives that the speaker might have uttered are false. This implicature gets added to the initial assertion, which is thus enriched/strengthened. As illustrated below, depending on the types of alternatives polarity items introduce (domain or scalar), and the way exhaustification proceeds, we can derive the properties of the various subclasses of polarity items (e.g. NPIs, universal and existential-FCIs or minimizers like budge an inch), which on this account are reduced to the logical interaction of their lexical meaning and the ensuing inferences. Without getting into the details of this approach, let us focus on Chierchia’s proposal for existential-FCIs like German irgendein or Romanian un NP oarecare and show how it can be extended to capture the main properties of vreun. 3.2  Existential dependent determiners: Un NP oarecare versus vreun Adopting this approach to polarity-sensitivity, I take as a point of departure Chierchia’s analysis for items like irgendein, i.e. items which can be used both as NPIs and existential FCIs. Vreun is similar to some extent, in the sense that it has a typical NPI-use and also functions as an existential dependent item, on its epistemic use. The account I pursue for vreun relies on the following assumptions: A. Like all polarity items, vreun activates alternatives which need to be used for meaning enrichment. More precisely, the presence of vreun triggers the insertion of the exhaustification operator O, defined as in (19): (19) O(p,ALT(p)) = O(p,ALT(p)), if [p ⊄∩ALT(p)]→[O(p,ALT(p))⊂p], ^, otherwise

The exhaustification operator associated with all items that can function as NPIs, and hence with vreun, applies to a proposition p and the set of its alternatives (ALT(p)) and is defined in two situations: either if the assertion entails its true alternatives (as arguably the case in all downward-entailing contexts) or if the result of enrichment is stronger than the assertion (asymmetrically entails it). The operator in (19) allows the polarity item to function in both downwardentailing and non-polarity contexts – whenever we use a dependent item like vreun, instead of a simple indefinite, this must be for meaning strengthening purposes. Since the hypothesis that meaning enrichment is responsible for the

 Anamaria Fălăuş

restriction of NPIs to downward-entailing contexts is well-known (since Kadmon & Landman 1993), I now focus on non-negative polarity contexts, where the behavior of vreun is more puzzling. B. Chierchia’s proposal for existential-FCIs like un NP qualsiasi or by extension, the Romanian un NP oarecare relies on the assumption that these items bring in two types of alternatives, both requiring exhaustification: (i) like all indefinites, they trigger scalar alternatives, which give rise to an ‘exactly’ implicature: the assertion holds for exactly one alternative; and (ii) like all polarity-sensitive items, they activate domain alternatives, which give rise to a ‘free-choice’ implicature: if the assertion holds of one alternative, it holds of all. These two implicatures give rise to a clash, which can only be obviated in the presence of a (possibly covert) modal operator. This provides a principled explanation for the restriction of existential FCIs to modal(ized) contexts. Adopting this proposal, let us now see how it can be extended to capture the distribution of vreun, which I have also argued to be sensitive to (a subset of) modal operators. There are two main differences between un NP oarecare and vreun, which any unitary theory of semantically dependent items should derive. The first one seems to be a systematic difference between existential FCIs like un NP oarecare/ qualsiasi/quelconque and ‘epistemic’ items like algún, quelque or vreun, as originally shown by Jayez & Tovena (2006), and later discussed in Alonso-Ovalle & Menéndez-Benito (2008,2010). More precisely, the two classes of elements differ with respect to the extent of variation (‘freedom of choice’) among the members of the restriction set. On the one hand, existential-FCIs require that all relevant alternatives in the domain of quantification qualify as possible options, as confirmed by the fact that they disallow overt exclusion of one possible value (20): (20) Vino la petrecere cu un coleg oarecare, # dar nu cu Paul. “Come to the party with a colleague whomsoever, but not with Paul.”

In contrast to this, items like vreun (and algún, quelque) associate with ‘partial’ variation: some, but not necessarily all alternatives qualify as possible options, as illustrated by (21) below: (21) E posibil ca Maria să se fi întâlnit cu vreun be.3sg possible that Maria subj refl be met with vreun prieten, dar nu poate fi Luca, tocmai l-am văzut. friend but neg can be Luca, just cl-have.1sg seen “It’s possible that Maria met some friend, but it cannot be Luca, I have just seen him.”



The Romanian epistemic constraint 

Building on a proposal in Alonso-Ovalle & Menéndez-Benito (2010), but making use of the regular elements responsible for variation on the approach to polarity-sensitivity adopted here, namely types of alternatives, I argue that partial vs total variation stems from different sizes in the domain alternatives we consider for exhaustification: if the domain alternatives are non-minimal, we obtain a total free-choice interpretation: there is a single individual satisfying the existential claim, and all relevant alternatives qualify as possible options Â�(existential-FCI like un NP oarecare); if the domain alternatives to which we apply the exhaustification operator are minimal (singletons), the resulting meaning is partial variation – some, but not necessarily all, alternatives qualify as possible options (epistemic items like vreun). In order to understand how we derive the meaning of a sentence where vreun occurs, consider the example in (22): (22) Sper să găsesc vreo carte (interesantă). Hope.1sg subj find.1sg vreun book interesting “I hope to find some (interesting) book.”

The exhaustification operator applies to a proposition and the set of its propositional alternatives. In order to obtain these propositional alternatives, we replace the polarity item vreun, which is an existential quantifier, with other members from the relevant domain of quantification D. Assuming that D contains three books, {b1,b2,b3}, and following Chierchia’s notation, I represent the set of alternatives to the original assertion using disjunction of propositions a, b and c, where ‘a’ stands for find(I,b1), ‘b’ stands for find(I,b2), ‘c’ stands for find(I,b3); the verb hope is represented as universal quantification over worlds compatible with a subject’s hopes (☐). The assertion to which exhaustification will apply is in (22a), equivalent to (a∨b∨c): a. ∃x ∈ D [book(x) ∧ find(I, x)]

Next, we exhaustify, i.e. we exclude stronger scalar alternatives – all propositions conveying that I found two books in D, alternatives we can represent as (a∧b), (a∧c), and (b∧c) (set abbreviated as SC-ALT). Once we compute this implicature, we get a meaning paraphrasable as ‘I find exactly one book’:

b. O (a∨b∨c, SC-ALT(a∨b∨c)) =(a∨b∨c) ∧ ¬(a∧b)∧¬ (a∧c)∧¬(b∧c)

At the next level, we apply the necessity operator (i.e. hope) to the assertion: c. ☐O(a∨b∨c, SC-ALT(a∨b∨c))=☐((a∨b∨c) ∧ ¬(a∧b)∧¬(a∧c)∧¬(b∧c))

 Anamaria Fălăuş

The final step of the derivation consists in considering the following singleton domain alternatives (DOM-ALT) for enrichment:7 d. ☐a ☐b ☐c (I hope to find book1) (I hope to find book2) (I hope to find book3)

Exhaustifying over the propositional alternatives obtained on the basis of these domain alternatives, we get the following:

e. O (☐((a∨b∨c) ∧ ¬(a∧b) ∧ ¬(a∧c) ∧ ¬(b∧c))) =

☐((a∨b∨c) ∧ ¬(a∧b) ∧ ¬(a∧c) ∧ ¬(b∧c)) ∧¬☐a ∧ ¬☐b ∧ ¬☐c = ☐((a∨b∨c) ∧ ¬(a∧b) ∧ ¬(a∧c) ∧ ¬(b∧c)) ∧ ◊¬a ∧ ◊¬b ∧ ◊¬c

The enriched meaning amounts to something like ‘it’s necessary that some alternative holds, but also that no two of them hold at once, and it’s possible that ‘a’ does not hold, it’s possible that ‘b’ does not hold, and it’s possible that ‘c’ does not hold’. In other words, all the speaker’s hope-worlds are such that she finds a book in that world, but at the same time there are some such worlds in which she fails to find a book that is b1, others in which she fails to find b2, and others in which she fails to find b3. This is a very simplified derivation, only intended to give some content to the meaning we obtain by computing the relevant implicatures triggered by scalar and singleton domain alternatives activated by vreun.8 What is relevant for our current purpose is the fact that the switch to singleton alternatives derives the main difference between the epistemic determiner vreun and existential-FCIs like un NP oarecare, namely the extent of variation they require. This proposal allows us to integrate vreun (and possibly other epistemic items) into this unitary account of semantic dependencies. The semantic properties of these various subclasses of polarity elements get reduced to a small and precise set of primitive switches, namely the kinds of alternatives that are relevant for a given type of polarity item. At this point, we have ways to derive the interpretation of vreun, so let us briefly return to its most puzzling property, namely the restriction to epistemic

.  For space considerations, I will not provide the meaning calculation associated with the existential FCI un NP oarecare, where the set of non-minimal domain alternatives over which we exhaustify is DOM-ALT={☐(a∨b), ☐(b∨c), ☐(a∨c)}. .  The reader is referred to work by Chierchia (2006, 2010) and Fălăuş (2009) for more justification and details on the assumptions adopted here.



The Romanian epistemic constraint 

contexts. Once again, it might be useful to think about this property in connection with the existential free-choice element. In addition to the extent of variation they require, vreun and un NP oarecare differ with respect to the type of modal contexts where they occur: while the former is restricted to epistemic contexts, the latter seems to have a strong connection with non-epistemic, in particular deontic, modality. The following example illustrates this split: (23) Trebuie să găsesc un zbor oarecare / vreun zbor. Must subj find.1sg a flight whatsoever / vreun flight “I must find some flight.”

Both the existential FCI un NP oarecare and the epistemic determiner vreun can occur in the example in (23) with the necessity modal trebuie. Crucially, however, the necessity modal acquires different interpretations in the two cases: (i) deontic interpretation with un NP oarecare and (ii) epistemic interpretation for vreun. The approach pursued so far provides elements to account for the interpretation of these two types of elements and their association with modalized contexts. However, the distributional restrictions to (non-)epistemic contexts remain mysterious. On the view of polarity-sensitivity endorsed here, any further restriction on the distribution of vreun should ultimately be reducible to a difference concerning (i) alternatives or (ii) modes of exhaustification. At this point of research however, I don’t see any non-stipulative way to derive this property, under the present (or any other) approach to semantically dependent indefinites. Further empirical investigation on the competition illustrated in (23) might serve to determine whether these restrictions are due to some property of the dependent items or they are amenable to the properties of the modal operators with which they interact, but for now this remains an open issue.

4.  Conclusion and open issues Summarizing, this paper explores the properties of the Romanian determiner vreun and proposes a new generalization on its use in non-negative polarity contexts. It offers elements to account for its puzzling distribution, within a unitary alternative-based approach to polarity-sensitivity (due to Chierchia). Romance languages have a wide variety of determiners and modifiers which express ignorance or indifference (as shown in work by Aloni 2007; Â�Alonso-Ovalle & Menéndez-Benito 2008, 2010; Chierchia 2006; Jayez & Tovena 2006, 2007; Farkas 2002, 2006; Fălăuş 2009). The existing descriptions do not yet allow to establish the properties shared by these dependent indefinites, but they do set the stage for a research program which aims to understand the parameters of variation in this

 Anamaria Fălăuş

area and to provide a principled explanation for this diversity. The relevance of vreun with respect to the (still emergent) typology of existential dependent items is at least twofold: on the one hand, it emphasizes the crucial role of the distinction epistemic vs non-epistemic in the area of the operators with which these items interact, a distinction hitherto underestimated; on the other hand, the many existing connections between vreun and other dependent items (NPIs, total and partial existential-FCIs) provide support for a unitary account of polarity-sensitivity. The theory endorsed here establishes a close connection between the meaning and the use of polarity items, through the inferences speakers make on the basis of the alternatives introduced by polarity-sensitive items. Although more work is needed to determine the exact properties of epistemic items like vreun, I think it is only when we consider them in a typological perspective that we can hope to gain a better understanding of their restricted distribution, and in particular of why it is precisely epistemic alternatives that are relevant, as opposed to other semantic properties.

References Aloni, Maria. 2007. “Free Choice, Modals and Imperatives”. Natural Language Semantics 15: 1. 65–94. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Paula Menéndez-Benito. 2008. “Minimal Domain Widening”. Â�Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Natasha Abner & Jason Bishop, 36–44. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Menéndez-Benito. 2010. “Modal Indefinites”. Natural Language Semantics 18: 1. 1–31. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. “Broaden your Views. Implicatures of Domain Widening and the Spontaneous Logicality of Language”. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 4. 535–590. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2010. “Meaning as Inference: the Polarity System”, Unpublished Manuscript, Harvard University. Fălăuş, Anamaria. 2009. Polarity Items and Dependent Indefinites. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Nantes. Farkas, Donka. 2002. “Extreme Non-Specificity in Romanian”. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000. ed. by Claire Beyssade et al., 127–153. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Farkas, Donka. 2006. “Free Choice in Romanian”. Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning, Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn ed. by Betty Birner & Gregory Ward, 71–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. von Fintel, Kai & Anthony Gillies. 2010. “Must…Stay…Strong!”. Natural Language Semantics 18: 4. 1–33. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1997. The Landscape of Polarity Items. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Groningen. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2011. “Negative and Positive Polarity Items: Licensing, Compositionality and Variation”. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning ed. by Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, & Paul Portner. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.



The Romanian epistemic constraint 

Irimia, Monica. 2008. “Romanian Evidentiality”. Paper presented at Going Romance 2008. Jayez, Jacques & Lucia Tovena. 2006. “Epistemic Determiners”. Journal of Semantics 23.217–250. Jayez, Jacques & Lucia Tovena. 2007. “Evidentiality and Determination”. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12.271–286. Kadmon, Nirit & Fred Landman. 1993. “Any”. Linguistics and Philosophy 16.353–422. Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama. 2002. “Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from Japanese”. Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics ed. by Yukio Otso, 1–25. Hituzi Syobo: Tokyo. Krifka, Manfred. 1995. “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items”. Linguistic Analysis 25.209–257. Săvescu–Ciucivara, Oana. 2007. “Oarecare Indefinites Are Not Just Any Indefinites”. Pitar Mos: A Building with a View. Papers in Honour of Alexandra Cornilescu ed. by A. Cornilescu et al., 205–225. Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti: Bucharest. Scheffler, Tatjana. 2008. Semantic Operators in Different Dimensions. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Tovena, Lucia. 2001. “The Phenomenon of Polarity-Sensitivity: Questions and Answers”. Lingua e Stile, XXXVI:1.131–167. Zamparelli, Roberto. 2007. “On Singular Existential Quantifiers in Italian”. Existence: Semantics and Syntax ed. by Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger, 293–328. Springer.

Polarity particles in English and Romanian* Donka F. Farkas

University of California, Santa Cruz This paper contrasts the distribution and interpretation of ‘polarity particles’ in English and Romanian. Polarity particles (yes, no in English, da, nu, ba in Romanian) occur at the left edge of utterances that react to assertions, polar questions and imperatives but cannot be used in ‘out of the blue’ contexts. The paper makes sense of this distribution as well as of the contrasts between the two languages against the background of a context structure proposed in earlier work, which allows us to understand in what sense assertions, polar questions and imperatives form a natural class. Of particular interest here are cases where both yes and no can be used in otherwise identical responses in English as well as the distribution of these particles in reactions to imperatives.

1.  Introduction This paper summarizes, applies and extends results of earlier work to the question Â� of understanding how polarity particles function in English and Romanian. The theoretical framework adopted is based on Farkas & Bruce (2010), and the Â�Romanian data is given in more detail in Farkas (2010). The novel empirical questions we address here concern the English system and the similarities and differences between English and Romanian, the incorporation of the notions of source and dependent from Gunlogson (2008), and the extension of the approach to imperatives. Polarity particles are morphemes occurring at the left edge of a

*╇ I am grateful to Kim Bruce, from the Department of Computer Science at Pomona, for many discussions relevant to the content of this paper. I am also grateful to the participants at the Santa Cruz Polarity Particle conference, in January 2010, the audience at a Princeton Colloquium, in April 2010, and to Floris Roelofsen for comments and suggestions. Most of all, I am grateful to the organizers of LSRL 40 for inviting me to a superb conference, and to the participants at that conference for stimulating questions and discussion. Finally, the comments of two anonymous referees were helpful in the process of preparing the final draft.

 Donka F. Farkas

certain class of reactive utterances, exemplified for Romanian and English by the boldfaced items in (1).1 (1) A: Ioana a sosit. / A sosit Ioana? I. has arrived Has Ioana arrived? “Ioana has arrived. / Has Ioana arrived?” B: Da, (a sosit). / Nu, (nu a sosit). yes, has arrived / no, not has arrived “Yes, (she has arrived). / No, (she has not arrived).”

A first question that arises is how to account for the fact that these particles occur in reactions to assertions and polar questions, as seen above, but not in out of the blue utterances exemplified in (2) or in answers to alternative questions of the type in (3).2 (2) #Da, Ioana a sosit. yes, I. has arrived “#Yes, Ioana arrived.” #Nu, Ioana nu a sosit. no, I. not has arrived “#No, Ioana didn’t arrive.” (3) A: Ioana a sosit sau Silvia? I. has arrived or Silvia “Ioana has arrived or Silvia?” B: #Da, Silvia. “#Yes, Silvia.” #Nu, Livia. “#No, Livia.”

We give below an answer to this question based on Farkas & Bruce (2010), and extend it to account for the use of polarity particles in reactions to imperative utterances, exemplified in (4): (4) Mother: Fă ordine în cameră! make order in room “Clean your room!”

.  For reasons of space, whenever the English and Romanian data are completely parallel, the English data is given as the translation of the Romanian examples. When divergences significant for our purposes occur the examples are separated. .  The campaign slogan Yes, we can! appears to violate the first part of this generalization. I  suggest that, in fact, it does not and that part of its effectiveness lies precisely in that it Â�presupposes a dialogue with the electorate during which the electorate has just asked the burning though elliptical polar question Can we?



Polarity particles in English and Romanian 

Father: Da, fă ordine în cameră! / Nu, nu fă yes make order in room no not make

ordine în cameră! order in room



“Yes, clean your room! / No, don’t clean your room!”

Child: Bine. / Nu! / #Da. “Ok. / No! / #Yes.”

The first puzzle then is how to make sense of the fact that polarity particles may occur in reactions to assertions, polar questions and imperatives but not in out of the blue contexts or in responses to alternative questions. This is a puzzle since it is not clear what the common denominator of these reactions is, given the diversity of the speech acts they react to. A sub-question that arises is how to account for the fact that an acceptance reaction to an imperative cannot be signaled with a bare yes/da, as shown in (4), while an acceptance reaction to a positive declarative can be so signaled, as shown in (1). When it comes to the contrast between English and Romanian, we have to account for the fact that Romanian has a third polarity particle, ba, exemplified in (5), which English lacks. (5) A: Ioana nu a sosit. I. not has arrived “Ioana has not arrived.” B: Ba da, a sosit. ba yes, has arrived “No / Yes, she has arrived.”

The English translation of B’s reaction above is a case of ‘neutralization’, discussed in Kramer & Rawlins (to appear). The defining property of neutralization cases is that both yes and no are acceptable in an otherwise identical reaction. After reviewing the relevant background in Sections 2–4, I give a detailed account of the English data and of neutralization in Section 5. Sections 6 and 7 extend the account to include the notions of source and dependent and address the imperative data, and Section 8 concludes.

2.  Inner and outer polarity The type of sentences we are interested in here are uttered as reactions to a previous discourse move. If they involve a polarity particle followed by a sentence or a sentence remnant, as in (1B), the polarity of that sentence is often expressed twice,

 Donka F. Farkas

once within the sentence and once by the particle. In this section we discuss these two loci for polarity expression and their relationship. 2.1  Inner polarity I will assume here that sentences involve a proposition-denoting radical, the IP node. What we call the inner polarity of a sentence is expressed by a node called SP that houses a Fregean affirmation or negation operator that takes the IP as its argument, schematized in (6).3 (6) SP (IP)

The effect of the two inner polarity operators in SP on the polarity of their argument is given in (7), where aff stands for affirmation and neg stands for negation: (7) a. aff(p) = p b. neg(p) = ¬â•›p

Following a venerable tradition (see Horn 2001), we assume the markedness scale in (8): (8) aff < neg

Negation is more marked than affirmation given that affirmation does not affect the polarity of its argument while negation does. Assuming now that there is a parallelism between semantic and morphological markedness, we correctly predict that negation will be morphologically realized across languages while affirmation may remain unrealized, in which case its presence is signaled by the absence of negative morphology. Both English and Romanian conform to this prediction: ordinary affirmative sentences do not involve a special affirmation morpheme while negative sentences are morphologically marked as being negative. I am assuming here that affirmative sentences affirm that the relation denoted by the predicate holds of the denotation of its arguments while negative sentences deny that this relation holds. 2.2  Outer polarity Given the existence of sentences such as (9), (9) Da, Ana a venit. / Nu, Ana nu a venit. yes, Ana has arrived. / no, Ana not has arrived “Yes, Ana arrived. / No, Ana didn’t arrive.” .  There is a vast syntactic literature relevant to this point. See Zanuttini (1991), Laka (1994) and Haegemann (1995) for early proposals based on seminal work by Klima 1964.



Polarity particles in English and Romanian 

we have to recognize an outer polarity layer realized at the left of the inner polarity one, which hosts polarity particles. At least in some cases, these particles may correlate with the inner polarity operators. In (9) yes/da express aff and no/nu express neg. Following Farkas (2010), I assume that the outer polarity of a sentence is realized in a node at the left edge, or periphery of the sentence, called here PolP.4 As we shall see below, this node relates the current utterance to an immediately preceding one with special attention to the polarity feature of the two utterances. Before getting into the discourse properties encoded in this node we suggest that it hosts an absolute polarity feature whose possible values are [+] and [–]. The absolute polarity feature in PolP must be the same as the inner polarity feature of the SP, as shown in (10): (10) [PolP[+] … SP[aff] …] [PolP[–] … SP[neg] …]

The relationship between the inner and outer polarity features of a sentence can be thought of in terms of an agreement relation, as in Kramer & Rawlins (to appear). Turning now to polarity particles, the first observation to make is that they occur in PolP and that yes/da realize [+] and no/nu realize [–]. The absolute polarity features [+] and [–] are semantically inactive features that agree with aff and neg respectively. The next questions to address are: (i) What other information may be conveyed by these particles? (ii) When can utterances introduced by them be used? (iii) What does the third particle, ba, do in Romanian and how can Â�English get by without it? The next section defines a special subtype of discourse move that is crucial to answering these questions. 3.  Assertions, polar questions and responding moves In order to account for the fact that utterances involving polarity particles cannot occur ‘out of the blue’ we will assume that they are discourse anaphoric. More specifically, they require a salient proposition denoting antecedent placed on the conversational table by a previous discourse move. Utterances preceded by these particles signal either their author’s commitment to the antecedent proposition or their author’s commitment to the complement of that antecedent. In the former case the move performed by the utterance will be called confirming, and in the .  I follow here Rizzi (1997) and the large body of work following it in assuming that the left edge of clauses encodes a rich variety of information at least partly related to discourse properties, such as Topic and Focus. I will not discuss here the details of how PolP is to be integrated into the rest of the edge nodes.

 Donka F. Farkas

latter, reversing. To make these observations more precise, we first give the discourse structure background we assume here against which we discuss assertions and polar questions and the class of relevant responses. 3.1  Discourse structure We follow Farkas & Bruce (2010) in assuming that the structure of discourses includes at least the components in Figure 1, where A and B are the participants in the conversation. Table

A DCA Common Ground cg

B

S

DCB Projected Set ps

Figure 1.╇ Discourse structure components

We follow a tradition starting from Hamblin (1971) in assuming that each discourse participant X is associated with a set of propositions, DCX, that form the discourse commitments of X. (The term ‘discourse commitment’ is taken from Gunlogson 2003.) The propositions in DCX are the propositions that X has publicly accepted as being true of w0, the world in which the conversation takes place, for the purposes of the current conversation.5 The fact that for any p in DCX, p is taken by X to be true in w0 ensures that the propositions in DCX are consistent, at least as far as X is concerned. We follow Hamblin (1971) and Stalnaker (1978) in taking the common ground (cg) to be the set of propositions publicly accepted as true of w0 by all the participants in the conversation. The propositions in this set have to be consistent given that they are taken as true of w0 by a group of individuals; for any participant X, the union of cg and DCX has to be consistent as well. Note, however, that there is no consistency requirement on the union of the discourse commitments of any two participants. This is as it should be, since conversations may well record and survive public disagreements on particular issues. The Table is the component that records the issues that are raised during the conversation. When an issue is raised by the utterance of a sentence S with .  Grice’s quality maxim in this set up amounts to the default assumption that a participant’s public commitments are a subset of her actual doxastic base, i.e. the propositions that she in fact believes to be true of the world in which she locates herself. This default assumption can be publicly overridden, for instance in cases of conversations shaped by the knowledge that someone is eavesdropping or when two participants are colluding in misleading another.



Polarity particles in English and Romanian 

denotation p, the syntactic representation of S paired with p is entered on the Table. This means that the immediate goal of the conversation is to ‘settle’ p.6 The items on the Table form a stack, with the most recently entered item on the top. Novel to our approach is the inclusion of the component called the Projected set (ps). It records privileged future discourse states in the form of a set of common grounds, in each of which the items on the Table are settled in a canonical fashion, i.e. in a way that increases the current cg, while maintaining consistency. Once the cg reaches one of these states, the issue is settled and the relevant items are removed from the Table. In this view then, discourse moves that raise an issue automatically steer the conversation towards a discourse state that resolves the issue. When the Table is empty, the ps contains a single projected common ground that is identical to the cg of the conversation. In the next subsection we exemplify the function of these components by looking at the effect of assertions and polar questions on the input context state. 3.2  Assertions and polar questions Let us assume that the sentence Alice has just arrived is uttered out of the blue by a conversational participant A, and let us also assume that the denotation of the sentence radical here is the proposition p. Let us further assume that the input context state had an empty Table. The effects of this assertion are the following: (i) p is added to DCA; (ii) the pair 〈 S[D], {p} 〉 is entered on the top of the Table stack. The feature [D] marks the sentence as declarative. I am assuming that the denotation of full sentences are sets of propositions, with declarative sentences denoting singleton sets. (See Hamblin 1971 and, more recently, Kratzer & Shimoyama 2002 and Groenendijk & Roelofsen 2009.) (iii) The ps contains now a projected common ground made up of the current cg to which p has been added, i.e. ps: { cg ∪ p}. This change in the ps records the fact that an assertion proposes the inclusion of the propositional content of the asserted sentence into the common ground of the conversation. This inclusion, however, does not happen until the other conversational participants agree (or fail to disagree). Let us look now at what happens when a participant A asks the polar question Has Alice just arrived? Let us assume that the denotation of the sentence radical Alice has just arrived is the proposition p. Following Hamblin (1971) and much current work I take it that the denotation of the polar interrogative sentence is {p, ¬â•›p}, where p is the denotation of the sentence radical and ¬â•›p is added by the interrogative operator. When it comes to the effect of asking this question in dis.  For present purposes it is sufficient to stay at the sentence/propositional level, leaving finer grained issues open.

 Donka F. Farkas

course, the discourse commitments of both speaker and addressee remain unaffected; the Table is affected by the addition of 〈 S[I], {p, ¬â•›p} 〉 on the top of the stack; the ps is affected too, by the addition of each element of the denotation of S[I] to each element of the input ps. In our case then, the output ps is { cg ∪ p, cg ∪ ¬â•›p}, reflecting the fact that the discourse has been steered toward the resolution of p either by adding p or by adding ¬â•›p to the current cg. New to the proposal made here is that when there are several propositions on the table, one of them may be foregrounded. Thus, when giving the denotation of the interrogative sentence, p, the denotation of the sentence radical, has been boldfaced. This is to signal an asymmetry between the two elements of the denotation of an interrogative with respect to their discourse status. The proposal is that the denotation of the sentence radical is placed in the foreground, and its complement in the background. Note that this treatment of the denotation of polar interrogatives essentially treats them as having the polarity operator in focus. The denotation of the interrogative is analogous to its regular denotation and is placed in the foreground, while the denotation of the focus alternative, in our case ¬â•›p, is in the background. (See Roelofsen & van Gool (2010) for a similar proposal. For an analysis of high negation polar questions in terms of verum focus, see Romero & Han 2004 and references therein.) This treatment of polar interrogatives allows us to capture both the similarities and the differences between a positive and an (inner) negative polar question. The elements of their denotation sets are identical, but the positive question places p in the foreground, while the negative question places ¬â•›p in the foreground. Furthermore, under the assumption that the Table records actual syntactic structure, there will be a difference in the inner polarity of the sentence on the top of the Table stack. Polar questions differ from alternative questions such as Has Ioana arrived or Sylvia? in that the latter places two propositions in the foreground, the proposition denoted by Ioana has arrived and the proposition that Sylvia has arrived. The two types of questions are similar and contrast with assertions in two respects: (i) they do not change the speaker’s discourse commitments; (ii) they project multiple resolutions, i.e. they add more than one proposition to each element of the input ps. In this sense then, both types of questions are inquisitive while assertions are not. Note also that one can generalize over the effect of assertions and (polar) questions on the ps: in all cases, each of the elements in the denotation set on the Table is added to each element of the input ps. Crucial for our purposes is that assertions and polar questions differ from alternative polar questions in that the former but not the latter place a unique proposition in the foreground of the Table and project a future discourse in which that proposition is decided, i.e. where either that proposition or its complement are added to the current cg. Such a foregrounded proposition will be called a topic proposition in what follows.



Polarity particles in English and Romanian 

3.3  Responding discourse moves We can now get back to utterances involving a PolP node and specify the nature of the anaphoric requirement associated with it. This node is anaphoric in that it presupposes the presence of a unique topic proposition on the Table in the input context state. Assertions and polar questions provide such a proposition while alternative questions and out of the blue contexts do not, which is what explains the observation that utterances involving polarity particles may be used in responses to assertions and polar questions but not out of the blue or in responses to alternative questions. In what follows, we will call a discourse move responding in case it presupposes a topic proposition on the Table, and thus is a reaction to a preceding move that places such a proposition on the Table, and in case the move commits its author to that proposition or to its complement. In the former case the responding move is confirming while in the latter, it is reversing. Responses to both assertions and polar questions can be either confirming or reversing. Confirming responses to an assertion express agreement, while a reversing move made in response to an assertion is a contradiction. No such drastic consequences follow from confirming or reversing a polar question. We will come back to this issue below. Responding moves can be realized by assertions or by various other linguistic or non-linguistic means such as nodding, shaking one’s head or, in English, saying uh huh, huh huh, ok, sure, no way etc. Responding assertions are responding moves that have asserted propositional content and where the asserted sentence parallels the topic proposition. Polarity particles mark an assertion as responding. An important question that we leave open here is whether utterances made up solely of a polarity particle involve an elided asserted sentence or an empty sentential pronoun or are to be treated as sentential fragments of some sort. For discussion and arguments for the ellipsis account, see Kramer & Rawlins (to appear). We will assume that such ‘solo’ particles involve an element that is anaphoric to the topic proposition. The elided sentence (or the anaphoric element in these utterances) is identical to the antecedent sentence up to the polarity feature in SP. While we now understand why sentences involving polarity particles occur in responses to assertions and polar questions but not out of the blue or in responses to certain alternative questions, we still do not know what the Romanian third particle, ba is used for and what is responsible for the possibility of neutralization between yes and no in English, illustrated in (5), repeated here as (11): (11) A: Ioana has not arrived. B: No, she hasn’t. / Yes, she hasn’t.

In order to answer these questions we take a close look at the content of PolP in the next section.

 Donka F. Farkas

4.  Absolute and relative polarity features 4.1  Absolute polarity features We have seen above that PolP hosts polarity particles that may agree with the inner polarity of the SP of the sister of the PolP node (or, alternatively, the inner polarity of the asserted sentence pronoun). In more detail, we assume that PolP hosts an absolute binary polarity feature, with values [+] or [–], that agrees with the inner polarity of the asserted sentence. A responding assertion then will have the feature [+] iff the asserted sentence has aff in SP and the feature [–] iff the asserted sentence has neg in SP. 4.2  Relative polarity features We have also established above that responding moves can be confirming or reversing. Farkas & Bruce (2010) propose to encode this information in a binary relative polarity feature with values [same] for confirming moves and [reverse] for reversing ones. The relative polarity feature encodes the relationship between the current asserted proposition and the topic proposition that it reacts to. The two sets of features are illustrated in the responses in (12): (12) A: Alice has just arrived. / Has Alice just arrived? B: Yes, she has. [ same, +] B: No, she hasn’t. [reverse, –]

In the case of [same] responses, the absolute polarity of the response is anaphoric in the sense that it is the same as the absolute polarity of the topic sentence. In the case of [reverse] responses, the absolute polarity of the response is contrastive in the sense that it is different in value from that of the topic sentence, and since absolute polarity is a binary feature, its value is the opposite of that of the topic sentence. Turning now to Romanian ba, Farkas & Bruce (2010) and Farkas (2010) analyze it as marking a response as [reverse], or, alternatively, as marking the absolute polarity feature of the response as contrastive.7 The crucial data is given below: (13) a. A: Ana a plecat. “Ana left.” B: Ba nu, nu a plecat. “No, she didn’t.” [ reverse, – ]

.  An anonymous referee notices that Greek and other Balkan languages also have a reverse particle, and therefore that the presence of such a particle might be a mark of the Balkan Sprachbund. Drawing up a typology of such particles in Balkan languages and beyond is a task that cannot be undertaken here.



Polarity particles in English and Romanian 

b. A: Ana nu a plecat. “Ana didn’t leave.” B: Ba da, a plecat. “No, she DID leave.” [reverse, +] c. A: Ana nu a pleact? “Did Ana not leave?” B: Ba da, a plecat. “Yes, she DID leave.” [reverse, +]

We see here that ba co-occurs with the polarity particles da and nu, which realize the absolute polarity feature of the response, and that ba occurs in reverse assertions that react both to assertions and to polar questions. Example (14) shows that ba cannot occur in [same] responses, whether [+] or [–]: (14) a. A: Ana a plecat. / A plecat Ana? “Ana left. / Did Ana leave?” B: (*Ba) da, a plecat. “Yes, she did.” [same, +] b. A:  Ana nu a plecat. / Ana nu a plecat? “Ana didn’t leave. / Did Ana not leave?” B: (*Ba) nu, nu a plecat. “No, she didn’t leave.” [same, –]

The generalizations that can be drawn based on these data for Romanian are given in (15): (15) a. ba realizes [reverse] b. da realizes [+] c. nu realizes [–]

The essential difference then between Romanian and English is that English, unlike Romanian, does not have a dedicated reverse particle. Going further into the details of the Romanian facts, we are faced with the Â�following series of puzzles. The first question is why the feature [reverse] is realized by a dedicated particle in Romanian while the feature [same] is not. Second, there is a difference concerning the possibility of using ba depending on whether the reversing move reacts to an assertion or to a question. As shown in (16), ba cannot be used in a [reverse, –] response to a question, while it is possible (though not obligatory) in case the [reverse, –] response reacts to an assertion: (16) a. A: Ana a plecat? “Did Ana leave?” B: Nu, nu a plecat.*Ba nu, nu a plecat. “No, she didn’t.”[reverse –] b. A: Ana a plecat. “Ana left.” B: (Ba) nu, nu a plecat. “No, she didn’t.” [reverse, –]

Third, note that the difference between reactions to questions and reactions to assertions just exemplified, disappears in [reverse, +] reactions, where ba is felicitous in both: (17) A: Ana nu a plecat. / Ana nu a plecat? “Ana didn’t leave. Did Ana not leave?” B: Ba da, a plecat. “Yes, she DID.”

 Donka F. Farkas

The series of questions we have raised here are: (i) Why is there a dedicated [reverse] particle and no dedicated [same] particle in Romanian? (ii) Why is the reverse particle used more readily in reactions to assertions than in reactions to questions? (iii) What is the difference between [reverse, +] and [reverse, –] reactions that is responsible for the disappearance of the contrast mentioned in (ii) in [reverse, +] reactions? (iv) Finally, one wonders whether a two particle language like English ever expresses relative polarity, and if so, how. In order to answer these questions we discuss in the next subsection a series of markedness scales relevant to the posited features, discourse moves and their combinations. 4.3  Markedness scales Given the features we have posited so far, the question arises of what expectations should one have concerning the relationship between polarity particles and the features they express. The goal is to arrive at a typology of polarity particle systems that makes testable predictions. We will make some progress in this respect and, on the way, answer the questions raised at the end of the previous subsection. The first scale, given in (18), concerns absolute polarity values. (18) Absolute polarity scale [+] < [–]

This scale is justified by the fact that [+] agrees with unmarked aff and [–] agrees with marked neg. Given this scale, and given the assumption that morphological markedness is sensitive to semantic markedness, we expect [–] to be more readily expressed than [+] and in particular, we expect that there might be languages that lack a [+] particle but have a [–] one, but not the other way around. This seems to be the situation in Latin. Relative polarity values form the markedness scale in (19): (19) Relative polarity scale [same] < [reverse]

The justification for this distinction is that [same] responses express identity between the absolute polarity of the antecedent and that of the response, while [reverse] moves express opposition, and identity is the simplest relation there can be. Given this scale, we expect [reverse] to be more formally marked than [same] and therefore we are not surprised at a language like Romanian, which has a dedicated [reverse] particle but no dedicated [same] particle. This situation is the analogue of Latin but in the realm of relative polarity. What would be unexpected, under these assumptions, is a language that had a dedicated [same] particle in the absence of a dedicated [reverse] one.



Polarity particles in English and Romanian 

So far then, we have answered the first question raised at the end of the previous subsection. To answer the second, we propose the move-type markedness scale in (20) according to which a move reversing a question (q-reversal) is less marked than a move reversing an assertion (a-reversal): (20) Reverse response scale q-reversal < a-reversal

We are assuming here that a move that pushes the conversation towards one of the projected states is unmarked while a move that leads to an inconsistent projected set is quite marked. Note now that question reversal is of the former type while assertion reversal is of the latter. Assertion reversal (or contradiction) is a move that places the conversation in crisis since it leads to inconsistent projected sets. Given the scale in (20) then, we expect languages that have a reversal particle, to use it more readily in assertion reversals than in question reversals, which is exactly what we find in the Romanian data in (16), which answers the second question posed above. Turning now to the last two questions, namely the special nature of [reverse, +] moves and the way two particle languages like English function, we consider next how the two types of polarity features interact. First, note that [same] aligns with [+] and [reverse] aligns with [–] given that [same] and [+] are the unmarked members of their respective scales and [reverse] and [–] are the marked members. Note also that [same] and [+] are essentially connected to identity, while [reverse] and [–] are connected to complementation. Given this parallelism, we arrive at the expectation formulated in (21) (see Pope 1976 for a similar claim couched in Â�different terms): (21) Languages may use a [+] particle to express [same] and a [–] particle to express [reverse].

We will see that exactly this option is exploited in English, where both yes and no do double duty, the former expressing [+] and [same] and the latter, [–] and [reverse]. We can now finally turn to the difference between the two types of possible reversals, [reverse, +] and [reverse, –] and propose the scale in (22): (22) Absolute reversal scale [reverse, –] < [reverse, +]

In justification of (22), note that in [reverse, –] reactions, the two features are both marked and therefore, given (21), they may both be expressed by a single particle, [–] or [reverse]. In [reverse, +] responses on the other hand, there is no alignment between the two features and therefore no single particle may express both. Note

 Donka F. Farkas

also that exactly in this combination we would expect both features to have high expression needs because [reverse] is marked and therefore in need of expression, and [+], in [reverse] moves is contrastive, and therefore, I assume, also more likely to be overtly realized than when it is anaphoric. Taken these observations together, we predict that the combination [reverse, +] is special and languages may involve special requirements in such moves to express either one of these features or both. We conclude then that it is the presence of [+] in combination with [reverse] that makes ba possible in question reversals, illustrated in (13c). The principles governing the use of ba in Romanian are given in (23) below, both of which conform to our expectations. (23) a. Express [reverse] in a-reversal. b. Express [reverse] in [reverse, +] moves.

Note that what was said above leads to the expectation that a language may choose to mark [reverse, +] moves by a special contrastive [+] particle rather than by the use of a special reversal marker. This is, in fact, precisely what we find in French, where si is used precisely in [reverse, +] cases, as illustrated in (24): (24) A:  Pierre n’est pas à la maison. / Pierre n’est-il pas à la maison? “Pierre is not at home. / Is Pierre not at home?” B: (Mais) si, il y est. “Yes, he IS.” [reverse, +]

In (25) we see that si cannot be used in [reverse, –] responses or in [same] responses: (25) a. A: Pierre est à la maison. “Pierre is at home.” B: Mais non, il n’y est pas. / *Mais si, il n’y est pas. “But he IS.” [reverse, –] b. A: Pierre est à la maison. “Pierre is at home.” B: Oui, il y est. / *Si, il y est. “Yes, he is.” [same, +] c. A: Pierre n’est pas à la maison. “Pierre is not home.” B: Non, il n’y est pas. / *Si, il n’y est pas. “No, he isn’t.” [same, –]

We have now answered the series of questions we raised at the end of the last subsection and are ready to turn to a more detailed discussion of the English facts. 5.  Polarity particles in English In this section we characterize the polarity particle system of English and contrast it with what we found for Romanian. English is a two-polarity particle language, using yes and no in root clauses. We give the essentials of the data below. Since there is no significant discrepancy



Polarity particles in English and Romanian 

between reactions to assertions and reactions to polar questions, we exemplify only with the latter. (26) A: Has Alice arrived? B: Yes, she has. / #No, she has. [same, +] (27) A: Has Alice not arrived yet? B: Yes, (she hasn’t). / No, (she hasn’t). / Yeah no, (she hasn’t). [same, –] (28) A: Has Alice just arrived? B: No, she hasn’t. / *Yes, she hasn’t. [reverse, –] (29) A: Has Alice not arrived yet? B: Yes, she HAS. / No, she HAS. [reverse, +]

The features realized by yes are the following: –â•fi [same], exemplified by (27) –â•fi [+], exemplified by (29) –â•fi [same] or [+] or both, exemplified by (26) Note that yes is fine only in the presence of [+] or [same]; in [reverse, –] responses, exemplified in (28), yes is not possible. Note also that the connection between [+] and [same] that we find here is not surprising given the discussion in the previous section. The features realized by no are the following: –â•fi [–], exemplified by (27) –â•fi [reverse], exemplified by (29) –â•fi [–] or [reverse] or both, exemplified in (28) Unsurprisingly by now, we see that no is fine only in the presence of [–] or [reverse] and thus it is not appropriate in [same.+] responses, exemplified in (26). Again, the connection between [–] and [reverse] is expected. The crucial difference between Romanian and English is the fact that the polarity particles of English perform double duty, as both absolute and relative particles. Romanian distinguishes between the two kinds of polarity given that it has the special reverse particle ba. Turning back to English, given what was said above, we correctly predict that the particles yes and no can occur in otherwise identical moves just in case of [reverse, +] or [same, –] responses. In the former case if no is used, it realizes [reverse], while if yes is used, it realizes the feature [same]; in the latter case, no realizes [reverse] and yes realizes [+]. In a [same, +] response only yes will be

 Donka F. Farkas

appropriate, while in a [reverse. –] response, only no is predicted to be possible. In Romanian, the connection between polarity particles and absolute polarity feature values is tighter and therefore we predict that in [reverse, +] moves da expresses [+] and if [reverse] is expressed, it is expressed by ba, while in [same, –] moves the feature [same] remains unexpressed and the feature [–] is expressed by nu.8 The next issue, addressed in Kramer & Rawlins (to appear), is raised by those ‘neutralization’ cases where yes and no appear alone in otherwise identical moves, exemplified in (30). (30) A: Has Alice not arrived yet? B: Yes. / No. [same, –]

The first observation to make is that these solo particle responses do not appear natural to all speakers and that even for those who do find them natural, there seems to be a preference for the no response. Second, these solo particle responses tend to be interpreted as being [same, –] rather than as being [reverse, +]. In order to shed some light on these data, first, recall that the absolute polarity of a response can be realized both by a particle in PolP and within the sentence, in SP. The crucial difference between the solo particle responses in (30) and the ones that involve a sentence remnant in (26)–(29) is that the former only involves PolP and therefore one possible locus for the realization of the absolute feature is absent. Second, recall that we have assumed throughout that various features have various ‘realization’ needs, determined by their values and by context. The relative realization needs assumed here are summarized in (31): (31) a. [–] > [+] b. [reverse] > [same] c. contrastive absolute polarity > anaphoric absolute polarity

The values [–] and [reverse] are the marked values of their respective feature types, which is what motivates (31a) and (31b); (31c) is justified by the general observation that contrastive material is new and therefore of higher informative value than anaphoric material. Under these assumptions, we expect solo particles to be used in [same, –] cases in English but not in [reverse, +] cases. In [same, –] responses both features have low realization needs, the former because it is the unmarked value of the relative polarity feature, the latter because, although marked, it is anaphoric. Thus, a solo yes can be interpreted as expressing [same] and leaving anaphoric [–] unrealized, .  There are speakers who accept da ‘yes’ in [same, –] moves as well. For these speakers, da may express not only [+] but also [same].



Polarity particles in English and Romanian 

while a solo no can be interpreted as expressing [–] and leaving unmarked [same] unrealized. For speakers who prefer no in these cases, there is an unsurprising preference for expressing [–] over [same]. In [reverse, +] responses, on the other hand, the contrastive [+] feature has to be realized by special intonation on the V and therefore no solo particle responses are possible.9 Note also that in yeah no [same, –] responses (whether solo or not), both features in PolP are realized, [same] by yeah and [–] by no. This completes our account of the contrast in polarity particle use between Romanian and English. In the next section we turn to extending the account to reactions to imperative utterances, an area where the two languages overlap to a large extent. 6.  Sources and dependents in default assertions and default questions In this section we introduce the notions of source and dependent relative to discourse commitments from Gunlogson (2008), starting from her observation that yes is inappropriate if followed by an assertion entailing that the speaker is basing her agreement purely on the epistemic authority of the addressee: (32) a. Ana a sosit. A. has arrived “Ana arrived.” b. #Da. N-am ştiut. yes not have known “#Yes. I didn’t know.”

Gunlogson proposes that discourse commitments normally have one or several sources, where a participant X is a source for a particular discourse commitment d if X’s epistemic authority provides the basis for d’s presence on DCX. A participant X is dependent relative to a discourse commitment d if d is on DCX but X is not a source for d. In importing these notions, we indicate sources as superscripts on the propositional content of a commitment, and dependents as subscripts. In the case of assertions, the default situation is one where the author of the assertion is a source for the relevant commitment, and thus in case A has asserted p what is added to DCA is pA. Back to polarity particles, we add that they express commitment to the topic proposition or its complement, with the addition of the author of the move .  Recall that it is precisely in these cases that French uses the special contrastive [+] particle si.

 Donka F. Farkas

Â� containing them as source. This, of course, explains immediately why B’s response in (32) is inappropriate. There are forms of assertion acceptance that register their author as dependent, rather than source. Saying aha or ok, whose Romanian equivalent is the adverb bine ‘well’, or French d’accord are such signals. Thus, the crucial difference between yes/da on the one hand and ok/bine on the other, is that the former marks the author of the move as source while the latter simply signals the acceptance of whatever the previous move has proposed without attributing sourcehood to the author of the acceptance. Returning now to default (polar) questions, we suggest that they project a discourse state where the answer is added to the current common ground with the addressee (A) as source and the speaker (S) as dependent. The effect of a default polar question on the projected set, then, is as given in (33), where pso and psi are the output and input projected sets respectively and under the simplifying assumption that psi = cg. (33) pso = {cg ∪ pAS, cg ∪ ¬â•›pASâ•›}

There are some immediate welcome consequences of the set up so far. First, note that a questioner may signal that he accepts the addressee’s answer to his default question with aha/ok/bine but not with yes/da. This is so because a yes/da response marks him as source while the ordinary question projected a future with the original addressee as source and the questioner as dependent: (34) A: Is Johnny coming with us to the movies? B: He is. A: Aha / Ok / Fine / #Yes.

Acceptance of answers to quiz questions, on the other hand, may be signaled with yes/da, given that quiz questions differ from default questions precisely in that the questioner projects himself as co-source of the answer. Thus, the dialogue in (35) is perfectly acceptable in the context of a geography bee, for instance: (35) A: So, Johnny, what is the capital of California? J: Sacramento. A: Yes. Let’s go on to a more difficult question now.

The facts are the same, mutatis mutandis, in Romanian, so we will not repeat them here. We turn, in the next section, to offering some preliminary observations towards extending the account to imperatives and reactions to imperatives. 7.  Response particles in imperatives From the perspective of polarity particles, the basic data to account for are repeated in (36):



Polarity particles in English and Romanian 

(36) Mother: Fă ordine în cameră! make order in room “Clean your room!” Father: Da, fă ordine în cameră! / Nu, nu fă yes make order in room no not make

ordine în cameră! order in room

“Yes, clean your room! / No, don’t clean your room!” Child: Bine. / Nu! / #Da. “Ok. / No! / #Yes.”

Polarity particles may be used in responses that confirm or reverse a command issued in previous discourse. A solo yes particle is degraded as a signal for accepting the imperative on the part of the addressee of the original imperative while ok/bine are fine for this purpose, while nu/no are perfectly good ways of rejecting an imperative. We start by outlining a general approach to the contextual effect of imperatives after which we examine its consequences concerning particle usage. 7.1  Core imperative force in context First, note that just like with other sentence types and speech act types, one has to distinguish between imperative sentence forms and the speech act types they are typically used to perform. In the case of imperative sentence forms, crosslinguistic variation is particularly wide. Both Romanian and English have specialized imperative sentences, exemplified above, whose structure is assumed here to be along the lines of (37), (37) [Imp [IP [you will clean your room ]]

where the IP is a proposition denoting sentence radical. There are, however, languages that lack imperative sentence forms altogether. In Hungarian, for instance, ‘imperative’ sentences are not distinguished either morphologically or syntactically from subjunctive sentences. Furthermore, even in languages with a distinct imperative sentence type, the range of use of imperatives varies widely, depending partly on what other morphological forms the languages distinguish. In English, for instance, imperatives can be used with a wide variety of forces, as illustrated in (38) (adapted from Condoravdi & Lauer 2009): (38) a. Clean your room! (command) b. Go to the party then, if you want it this much. (permission) c. When you get to the intersection, take a left. (advice, instruction) d. Get well soon! (wish) e. Go to hell! / Drop dead! (curse)

 Donka F. Farkas

f. Be blond! (absent wish – uttered on one’s way to a blind date) g. Don’t have broken another vase! (past wish)

In other languages that have imperative forms, they can be used only with a subset of these forces, with other moods being used for the remaining forms. As illustrated in (39), Romanian uses the imperative for commands, permissions, advice, and curses and has recourse to other forms for the rest: (39) a. Fă ordine în cameră! make.II. imp order in room “Clean your room!” b. Du-te la petrecere dacă vrei. go.imp.II-refl. at party if want.II “Go to the party if you want.” c. La intersecţie, ia-o la dreapta. at intersection, take. imp.II.it at right “At the intersection, take a right.” d. (Îţi urez) însănătoşire grabnică! (to.you wish.I) recovery speedy “(I wish you) a speedy recovery.” e. Du-te dracului! go. imp.II-refl. devil.Dative “Go to the devil!” f. De-ar fi blond! Prep. have.opt. be blond g. De n-ar fi spart încă o vază! Prep. not have.opt be broken yet a vase

For ordinary wishes, Romanian uses elided indicatives, as in (d). In cases of sentences expressing wishes involving the actions of an absent individual, relative to the past or the future, Romanian uses ‘optative’ (Opt) forms marked by the preposition de and a special form of the auxiliary a avea ‘to have’. We narrow our attention here to the areas of overlap between English and Romanian imperatives in the hope that this overlap is not accidental. We call here core imperative force speech act types that subsume commands, requests, permission and advice. Speech acts with this force contrast with assertions and questions in that the latter target truth commitments only while the former target commitment to action. Thus, assertions and questions steer the conversation towards states where more is assumed to be known about w0; imperatives with core imperative force steer the conversation towards states where the addressee becomes publicly committed to bringing about the truth of the propositional radical p expressed in the imperative sentence. As a result, such imperatives involve the addressee in the



Polarity particles in English and Romanian 

role of initiator of the minimal event that exemplifies p, the proposition is future oriented in that it is not yet assumed to be true at the time of the imperative speech act, and the speaker (the author of the imperative) is assumed to believe that it is possible for the addressee to be the initiator of the relevant event at the relevant future time. (For discussion, see Isaacs 2007 and references therein.) To capture this peculiarity of core imperative force we follow the spirit (but not the letter) of Portner (2007) in enriching discourse structures with sets of propositions called TODO lists. I assume that these lists are distinguished subsets of the discourse commitments of participants in the conversation. If a proposition p is an element of TODOX at a particular time t1 in a conversation c, X is publicly committed to bringing about ep, the minimal event that exemplifies p at some time tn that is subsequent to t1. It follows that X is also publicly committed to the truth of p. The main difference between Portner (2007) and this proposal is that here items on TODO lists are propositions that have a parallel status to items on regular discourse commitments lists. As such, they have sources and dependents. The source of an item p on TODOX is the individual responsible for the presence of p on TODOx. If p is on TODOX and X is not a source for p, X is a dependent for p. If Y is a source and X a dependent for p on TODOX Y may have epistemic authority over X in the sense that Y is assumed to possess more relevant information than X, in which case we will talk about e-sources and e-dependents. These notions are relevant for characterizing imperatives with the force of advice. It may also be the case that Y simply has deontic authority over X in the sense that Y can determine X’s actions. In that case we talk of d-sources and d-dependents. These notions are relevant for imperatives used with command or order force. Deontic sourcehood is rooted in asymmetric power relations between the source and the dependent. The main effect of an imperative used with core force on the context is to add the imperative sentence and its interpretation to the Table, with p in the foreground, and to steer the conversation towards a state where p is added to the TODO list of the addressee, with the speaker as source and the addressee as dependent.10 â•›The output ps then is as in (40), where TODOAd,i is the input TODO list associated with the addressee: (40) ps0 = TODOA,i ∪ p SA

.  I leave open here the important issue of whether or not the imperative operator has a semantic contribution different from determining the effect of imperatives on their input context.

 Donka F. Farkas

The propositional content of the sentence radical is also added to the discourse commitments of the author of the imperative since the author of the imperative assumes acceptance of the imperative by the addressee and therefore assumes that the future oriented proposition radical is true. The addressee accepts the imperative iff she adds p to her TODO list thereby bringing the conversation to the state proposed by the imperative. The addressee complies with the imperative once she in fact brings about ep. 7.2  Types of imperatives Properties of imperatives derive partly from what it means to be an item on a TODO list and partly from finer distinctions having to do, for instance, with the type of source and dependent involved as well as with assumed conditions concerning imperative acceptance by the addressee. A further important ingredient of imperative force that has not been Â�mentioned so far is a buletic component having to do with preference for futures where the imperative is complied with (futures where A does, in fact, bring p about), over futures where it is not. The participant who has a preference for worlds where the imperative is complied with will be called the buletic anchor of the imperative. Types of imperatives may be distinguished with respect to who the buletic anchor is. Bringing these parameters together, commands involve imperatives where the speaker is deonting source and has deontic authority over the addressee.11 Requests are like commands except the speaker is buletic anchor for p, and acceptance is conditionalized on the addressee’s buletic state in that acceptance of the imperative by the addressee is assumed to be conditioned on her being a buletic anchor for p as well. In the case of permissions, the addressee is assumed to be the buletic anchor for p and the proposed addition to TODOA removes an obstacle and thus makes it possible for the addressee to actually bring p about. Were there no such obstacle, p would be on TODOA already, and the imperative speech act would be redundant. In the case of advice, the speaker has deontic authority because he is an e-source with respect to p or some other related issue. The assumption here is that

.  The connection between imperatives and the assumption that the speaker is always the buletic anchor for p is rooted in the fact that normally a speaker wants her proposals to be accepted. I do not think the buletic anchoring of the speaker is essential however since there are cases where the speaker issues an imperative because she is obeying a higher law that has nothing to do with her wishes. Cases of various devices (such as computers or traffic lights), devoid of buletic states issuing what appear to be perfect imperatives also show that buletic anchoring to the speaker is not crucial for imperative speech acts.



Polarity particles in English and Romanian 

the addressee has some goal in mind; bringing p about is a step toward reaching that goal, as far as the epistemic state of the speaker (but not of the addressee) is concerned. In all these cases, however, the addressee is dependent and the speaker is source. Acceptance of an imperative utterance by its addressee A is one of the many ways in which a proposition may end up on TODOA. Other ways are issuing a promise or accepting an absolute deontic modal statement or committing to bringing p about because the speaker has expressed his being a buletic anchor for p or simply accepting that it is in A’s interest to bring p about. Thus, indirect imperative speech acts may be performed by sentences like (41): (41) a. You must clean your room. (absolute deontic modal) b.  I want you to clean your room. (Speaker’s wish is addressee’s command) c.  You want to turn left at the intersection. (Speaker informs the Addressee that it is in her interest to bring p about.)

In the view put forward here these sentences may be uttered with the indirect aim of getting their addressee to publicly add p to her TODO list but differ in form and direct force from imperatives such as Clean your room!/Turn left at the intersection! For relevant discussion see Schwager 2005, Ninan 2005, Portner 2007, among many others. 7.3  Particle use in responses to imperatives In all the cases discussed here, the act of accepting an imperative involves a public commitment to comply in the future with the imperative, registering the speaker as source and the author of the acceptance, i.e. the addressee of the imperative, as dependent. Rejecting an imperative on the other hand registers a public commitment to bring about that the sentence radical is not true, i.e. it involves adding ¬â•›pA to TODOA, this time with A as source. Turning back to polarity particles, first recall that their use presupposes the presence of a foregrounded proposition denoting sentence radical on the Table. Imperatives provide such a radical and therefore we correctly predict that these particles can be used in reaction to imperatives. The father’s supportive or undermining imperatives in (36) then are predicted to be possible since they qualify as responding utterances. Note that in the case in which a speaker re-issues an imperative, he registers himself as source for p and therefore we predict that both yes/da and no/nu are appropriate in such utterances. Furthermore, we correctly predict that ba will also be fine in Romanian: (42) Father: Nu fă ordine în cameră! not make order in room “Don’t clean your room!”

 Donka F. Farkas

Mother: Ba da, fă ordine în cameră! ba yes make order in room “DO clean your room!”

Note that given the requirement of both yes/da and no/nu to register speaker as source, we also predict that canonical imperative acceptance acts cannot be signaled by a solo yes while canonical imperative rejection acts can be signaled by a solo no. We repeat the relevant data in (43): (43) Mother: Fă ordine în cameră! make order in room “Clean your room!” Child: Bine. / Nu! / #Da. “Ok. / No! / #Yes.”

While much more work needs to be done both in order to understand imperatives in context and to account for the form of utterances that react to them, the observations here constitute a step in the right direction. In particular, the data points to the relevance of the study of polarity particle use to larger questions having to do with the nature of the relation between imperative and declarative sentences and their force. 8.  Conclusions Polarity particles have been claimed to express relative and absolute polarity features housed in a node we called PolP, a node that is anaphoric to a unique topic proposition. Absolute polarity features are redundant in that they simply agree with the absolute polarity of the anaphoric sentence. Relative polarity features are not redundant in the sense that they signal the relation between the response and its antecedent. Polarity particles are predicted to be fine in reactions to assertions, polar questions and imperatives because these speech acts provide a unique foregrounded proposition. The role of relative polarity is particularly relevant to understanding the role of the third particle in Romanian and the neutralization cases in English. The markedness scales we reviewed as well as Gunlogson’s notions of source and dependent help us understand further details concerning the use of polarity particles in the languages under consideration and allow us to make testable cross linguistic predictions. Understanding polarity particles along the lines given here helps us make sense of the response system typology in Sadock & Zwicky (1985), once it has



Polarity particles in English and Romanian 

been generalized to cover not just responses to polar questions but also acceptance/reversal moves in reaction to assertions and imperatives as well. Languages may rely primarily on absolute polarity particles, as English does, or they may rely primarily on relative polarity particles, as in Japanese, or, finally, they may involve a mixed system with both relative and absolute features connected to specialized particles, as in Romanian. Finally, languages may lack particles for both [+] and [same] and rely on responses that overtly express that part of the sentence that contains SP so as to express the affirmation or negation operator of their response, as in the case of Modern Irish. There are several questions one could raise at this point, of which I mention two. First, there is the issue of what happens in embedded contexts, exemplified in (44): (44) A: Has Susan had breakfast already? B: Mary thinks so (*she did) /*yes, (she did)

Second, within the realm of unembedded contexts, there is the vexing issue of ‘agreeing’ no uses exemplified in (45): (45) A: Are you parked close by? B: I think we should walk. It’s just a few blocks. A:  No, I agree. I was just asking because I would like to leave my briefcase in your car.

These, and many other pressing issues will, hopefully, be addressed in future work.

References Condoravdi, Cleo & Sven Lauer. 2009. “Performing a Wish: Desiderative assertions and performativity”. Talk given at CUSP 2, November 2009, Santa Cruz, CA. Farkas, Donka F. 2010, “The Grammar of Polarity Particles in Romanian”. Edges, Heads and Â�Projections ed. by Anna Maria Di Sciullo & Virgina Hill, 87–127. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Farkas, Donka F. & Kim Bruce. 2010. “On Reacting to Assertions and Polar Questions”. Journal of Semantics 27.81–118. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Floris Roelofsen. 2009. “Inquisitive Semantics and Pragmatics”. Presented at the Workshop on Language, Communication, and Rational Agency at Stanford. Available via www.illc.uva. nl/inquisitive-semantics. Gunlogson, Christine. 2003. True to Form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series. London: Routledge. Gunlogson, Christine. 2008. “A Question of Commitment”. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22.101–136. Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Donka F. Farkas Hamblin, Charles L. 1971. “Mathematical Models of Dialogue”. Theoria 37.130–155. Horn, Laurence R. 2001. A Natural History of Negation. Stanford: CSLI. Isaacs, James. 2007. Suppositions in Discourse, Ph.D. Dissertation, UCSC. Klima, Edward. 1964. “Negation in English”. The Structure of Language ed. by Jerry Fodor & Â�Jerrold J. Katz, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kramer, Ruth & Kyle Rawlins. To appear. “Polarity Particles: an ellipsis account.” Proceedings of NELS 39. Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama. 2002. “Indeterminate Pronouns: The view from Japanese”. The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics ed. by Yukio Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi. Laka, Itziar. 1994. On the Syntax of Negation. New York: Garland. Ninan, Dilip. 2005. “Two Puzzles about Deontic Necessity”. New Work on Modality: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 51 ed. by Jonathan Gajewski et al. 149–178. Cambridge: MIT. Pope, Emily. 1976. Questions and Answers in English. The Hague: Mouton. Portner, Paul. 2007. “Imperatives and Modals”. Natural Language Semantics 15.351–383. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery”. Elements of Grammar ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Romero, Maribel & Chung-Hye Han. 2004. “On Negative Yes/No Questions”. Linguistics and Philosophy 27.609–658. Roelofsen, Floris & Sam van Gool. 2010. “Disjunctive Questions, Intonation and Highlighting”. Logic, Language, and Meaning: Selected Papers from the Seventeenth AmsterdamÂ� Colloquium ed. by Maria Aloni et al., 384–394. Berlin: Springer. Sadock, Jerrold. M. & Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. “Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax”. Language Typology and Syntactic Description ed. by Timothy Shopen, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schwager, Magdalena. 2005. Interpreting Imperatives. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Frankfurt/Main. Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. “Assertion”. Syntax and Semantics: 9 ed. by Peter Cole, 315–332. New York: Academic Press. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Index

A abilities╇ 223, 229 acoustic phonetic analysis╇ 33–48, 49–59 active voice╇ 117–118, 132–133, 137–138, 140–142, 145–148 adverbs╇ 196, 212, 214, 218, 271–276, 282 Afro-Bolivian Spanish╇ 191–203 agentivity╇ 143 Agree╇ 105–106, 155–156, 177–178, 183–188 agreement╇ 104–105, 111–112, 137, 139, 149–150, 156–157, 167–169, 177–189, 239–242, 244–245, 250–254, 274, 307, 311, 319 agreement mismatches╇ 177, 188 allophony╇ 27, 65 alternatives╇ 287–288, 290, 292–293, 295–300 alveolarization╇ 33–47 analogical change╇ 3 anaphor╇ 147 anticausative╇ 137–144, 146–151 approximants╇ 49–50, 54–59, 73 Aragonese╇ 64–66, 69, 74–76 Aramaic╇ 139, 141, 149–151 argument structure╇ 117–118, 261–262 articles╇ 155–161, 168, 173, 193–194, 197–198, 200, 202 articulatory╇ 43–46, 48, 63–65, 69–71, 73, 85 aspect╇ 102, 149, 196, 272–273, 276 assertion╇ 280, 293, 295–297, 309, 311–313, 315, 319–320 assibilation╇ 49, 51, 54, 57 assimilation╇ 8, 33–35, 45, 47–48, 58, 84

Astur-Leonese╇ 64–66, 69, 74–76 atomic/non-atomic readings╇ 253 auxiliaries╇ 266, 271–278, 280–281, 283 B bare nouns╇ 191–192, 194–203, 243 Brazilian Portuguese╇ 68, 191, 193–194, 198, 202–203, 205 case╇ 102, 104–108, 110–114, 118, 124–125, 127, 142–143, 149, 151, 164, 167, 173, 178, 181–183, 185–188, 195, 203, 209, 214, 216, 230–231, 235–236, 240, 243 C Castilian Spanish╇ 64–65 Catalan╇ 64, 67–69, 71, 73–76 categorical╇ 33–35, 43, 45, 47–48 clitics╇ 137, 157, 159–161, 164, 170, 174, 209–210, 217, 271–285 Closest Conjunct Agreement╇ 177–179 coarticulation╇ 54, 65 codas╇ 22, 33–36, 44, 46, 48, 80, 87, 92, 96 collective noun╇ 182, 239–240, 252, 254 common ground╇ 200–203, 308–309, 320 complement╇ 101–114, 117, 126–127, 143, 145, 155, 159–165, 173–174, 191, 206, 210, 214, 244, 279, 282–284, 291–292, 294 complex head╇ 271–284 compounding╇ 118, 123–125 Concord╇ 177–188, 289

conditioning╇ 17, 20–21, 23, 25, 30 conjoined questions╇ 257–266, 268 conjoined subject╇ 178–188 consonant cluster╇ 35, 39, 79–81, 83, 86, 94, 96 constraint hierarchy╇ 73–76, 83–96 continuancy╇ 42, 44, 50, 57–59 continuant╇ 58, 83, 85–86, 92 coordination╇ 159, 179–187, 259–260, 277–281, 284 copy╇ 107, 111–114, 155–169, 217, 282–283 cornonal trills╇ 69–70, 76╇ count / mass╇ 192–194, 202 CP╇ 101–114, 161, 163, 167–170, 209, 211–213, 260, 265, 281 CREA╇ 189 creole languages╇ 197 D debuccalization╇ 34–35 default╇ 33–34, 43, 45–47, 83–84, 160, 197, 203, 231, 249, 283–284, 308, 319–320 definite╇ 19, 28, 155–172, 178, 191–203, 223–224, 235, 243, 249, 253, 284 deletion╇ 79–84, 90, 94–96, 107–112, 162, 178 deontic╇ 226, 234, 290, 293, 299, 323–325 dependent indefinite╇ 287, 299 determiners╇ 156–166, 178–183, 194, 197, 200–203, 292, 295, 299 diachronic╇ 5, 7, 9, 17–31, 33, 79, 83 directed motion╇ 117–133 disagreement╇ 108, 224 discourse structure╇ 308 Distance╇ 73

 Index DP╇ 101–114, 125, 143, 155–174, 177–188, 193, 202, 223–224, 234, 240–254, 284 Dutch╇ 117–120, 123, 125, 128–129 E ellipsis╇ 155–174, 257, 311 English╇ 6, 10, 26, 37, 106, 108–110, 114, 117, 120, 123–125, 127–129, 133, 137, 187, 196, 198, 203, 206, 224, 228, 234, 239, 241, 243, 245, 261, 263, 276, 279, 303–307, 311, 313–319, 321–322, 326–327 epenthesis╇ 33–34, 43, 46, 65, 74, 79, 81, 83, 86–91, 94, 96 epistemic╇ 273, 287–288, 290–300, 319, 323, 325 ergative╇ 137, 139–140, 149–150 European Portuguese╇ 205, 212–213 evidentiality╇ 293–294 exhaustification╇ 295–297, 299 F factorial typology╇ 63, 73, 75, 81, 92 Faithfulness Constraints╇ 63–64, 73, 76, 83 feature sharing╇ 177–178, 184–185 features morphosyntactic╇ 106, 110–112, 114, 138, 140, 156, 160, 164, 174–178, 181–189, 194, 197, 209–210, 214, 216, 244, 278, 281 phonological╇ 11, 33–35, 43–45, 47, 63–66, 73–74, 76, 83–85, 88, 91, 95 semantic╇ 307, 309–319, 326–327 French╇ 6, 101, 103–106, 109–111, 113, 117–120, 123–130, 132–133, 137–151, 165, 167, 187, 193, 225, 233, 275–276, 279–281, 284, 292, 316, 319–320

G Galician╇ 79–81, 83–85, 87–92, 96 geminates╇ 33, 76 gender╇ 60, 81, 83, 106, 112, 155–158, 178–179, 182–186, 188, 194, 241 generic╇ 192, 195–200, 223–234 Germanic╇ 117–118, 120, 187–188, 192 gestures╇ 45–47, 63–64, 70–71 glides╇ 80, 84–85, 89–90, 92, 95–96 goal╇ 35, 117–118, 120, 125, 127, 130, 132–133, 177, 184–185, 188 grammaticalization╇ 7 group denoting╇ 239 H head initial╇ 271–272, 275, 278, 280, 281–285 head movement╇ 209, 271, 281–285 hierarchy╇ 35, 63–64, 68, 73–75, 162, 188 Homogeneity Constraint╇ 246–247, 249–250 humanistic linguistics╇ 2, 11 I Ident╇ 74–75, 83–96 imperatives╇ 205–218, 234, 303, 305, 320–327 imperfective╇ 149, 223, 228, 233, 237 implicational hierarchy╇ 63–64, 68, 73, 75 implicatures╇ 296, 298 indefinite╇ 165, 178, 191–203, 223–224, 228–229, 233–234, 279, 287–288, 295 index features╇ 177╇ inner/outer polarity╇ 305–307 intensional contexts╇ 287 IP╇ 101, 108–112, 114, 163–164, 167–170, 212, 257–259, 261–268 Italian╇ 6, 65, 68, 142, 165, 187, 195, 197–198, 205–208, 210–212, 214–215, 218, 223–225, 227–228, 231, 233, 236, 276, 292

J Judeo-Spanish╇ 64–67 K kind terms╇ 193, 196 L La Rioja Spanish╇ 57 laterals╇ 71, 73, 82, 89, 91–92, 95–96 Latin╇ 3, 6–7, 9–10, 18–21, 26–27, 69, 79, 83, 214, 288, 314 left periphery╇ 211, 267 linearization╇ 257, 264–267, 271–272, 279, 283–285 liquids╇ 22–23, 25, 63, 69 loanword╇ 18, 26–27 M macro/micro parameters╇ 123–126, 132–133 marginal contrast╇ 17, 30 markedness╇ 34–35, 42, 47, 63–64, 73–76, 96, 306, 314–315, 326 matching questions╇ 257–260 Maximization Principle╇ 177, 185 Medieval French (see also Old French)╇ 117–133 middle voice╇ 137–148 mid-front vowel lowering╇ 64–69 minimalism╇ 101–114, 155–174, 177–188, 257–268 modality╇ 214, 227, 232–234, 299 mood particles╇ 271–273, 275, 277–278, 280–281, 283 morphological╇ 5–6, 10, 29, 102–103, 108–109, 113, 123,€133, 137–140, 181, 183, 188, 192–194, 202–203, 208–209, 215–216, 282–283, 285, 306, 314, 321 motion verb╇ 118–128 multidominance╇ 257, 264–266, 268 multiple WH╇ 257–268 N nasal╇ 19–24, 30–31, 33–48, 79, 81–86, 88, 90, 92–94, 96,

Index  negation╇ 196–198, 205–218, 271–278, 280–290, 306, 310, 327 negative imperatives╇ 205–218 Neogrammarian╇ 1, 3, 8–9, 11–12 neutralization╇ 33–35, 43–47, 74, 305, 311, 318, 326 nominal╇ 155–174, 177, 188, 191–194, 201–202 Nominal Mapping Parameter╇ 191–193, 202 nominative╇ 102, 105, 107, 111, 113, 159, 186 NP╇ 123, 155, 157, 159, 161–162, 164, 167–170, 181, 197, 229, 241, 243, 289, 295–299 number╇ 79–80, 82–84, 86, 90–92, 96, 104, 108, 112, 117–118, 123–124, 132, 142–143, 147, 155–158, 178–179, 181–183, 185–188, 191–200, 203, 223, 235, 241–250, 252, 254 number agreement╇ 188 O oblique╇ 102, 105, 107, 111, 113 Old French╇ 101–113, 117–133 onset clusters╇ 22, 49–50, 52, 57–59 operators╇ 198, 202–203, 228, 231, 288, 290–291, 293–294, 296, 299–300, 306–307 Optimality Theory╇ 7, 63–76, 79–96 P parametric variation╇ 188 parataxis╇ 101, 106–110, 112, 114 particles╇ 108, 111, 117–118, 123, 132–133, 271–283, 303–307, 311–321, 325–327 partitive╇ 239–245, 247–250, 252–254 passive╇ 141 path╇ 117–118, 120, 125–133 path encoding╇ 118–123, 125–126, 130 Peninsular╇ 47, 65, 81, 155, 159, 162, 174 perfective╇ 145, 149, 223, 228, 233, 237, 273, 275

person╇ 103–104, 108, 156, 170, 179, 182–184, 186, 188, 206, 208, 218 PF╇ 107, 109, 112, 114, 162, 182, 186, 205, 209, 215–218, 261–263, 266, 271–272, 278–279, 283–285 PF head clitics╇ 272, 282, 284 phase╇ 112, 155, 158–159, 161, 165–167, 173–174 phi features╇ 216 philology╇ 2–3, 7, 11 phonemic contrast╇ 17 phonemic status 22, 25–27, 30 phonological╇ 1–3, 5, 8, 10, 17–19, 21, 23–27, 29–30, 34–35, 37, 42–45, 47–49, 57, 59, 63–64, 68, 70, 76–77, 79, 81, 84, 88, 96, 107, 158–159, 217, 277–279 phonological conditioning╇ 17╇ plurals╇ 79–80, 82–84, 86, 90, 92, 96, 191–192, 196, 223, 235, 243, 245, 248–250, 252, 254 polar questions╇ 303–327 polarity╇ 287–290, 294–300, 303–327 Portuguese╇ 68, 79–80, 84–85, 89, 91–92, 96, 188, 191, 193–194, 196, 198, 202–203, 205, 210, 212–214, 277 possessive╇ 138, 148, 155, 158, 161–162, 174, 243 prenominal╇ 155–175, 182 prepositional phrase╇ 118╇ Probe-Goal╇ 177 projected set╇ 308–309, 315, 320 Proto-Romance╇ 2 pruning╇ 262 Q quantifiers╇ 178, 225, 239, 242–250, 252–254 questions╇ 106, 110, 117, 137, 213, 234, 241, 257–266, 268, 288, 303–305, 307–311, 313–317, 319–320, 322, 326–327 R reduced relative╇ 159, 163–165, 169–171, 174, 261 reflexive╇ 137–138, 142, 147–148

relative clause╇ 101–114, 159, 167, 169 responding move╇ 311 responses╇ 303, 305, 308, 311–319, 321, 325, 327 resultative╇ 274 rhotics╇ 49–50, 54–59, 63–64, 67–71, 73–77, 91–92, 95–96, Richness of the Base╇ 64, 76–77 Romance╇ 1–12, 29, 49, 63–65, 68–69, 75–77, 79–80, 83, 118–119, 140, 151, 155, 187–188, 191–192, 205, 209, 224, 233, 241, 271, 277, 284, 287, 299 Romanian╇ 17–31, 187, 239–241, 243–245, 249–254, 257–258, 260, 262–266, 268, 271–272, 275–276, 280–281, 283–284, 287, 289, 295–296, 299, 303–307, 311–322, 325–327 S satellite-framed╇ 117–118, 123, 133 sensitivity╇ 287–288, 290, 294–295, 297, 299–300 sentential negation╇ 205–206, 289 Slavic╇ 17–19, 21–25, 27, 30, 192 sluicing╇ 257, 261–264, 268 sound laws╇ 3 Spanish╇ 6, 33–35, 37–38, 42–44, 47, 49–51, 57–59, 63–65, 69–71, 76, 79–81, 84, 87–88, 90, 92, 96, 124, 142, 155–156, 158–160, 162, 165–170, 174, 177–178, 182, 186, 188, 191, 197, 205–207, 209–210, 212, 214–215, 218, 292 sprouting╇ 261–262 stress╇ 19–20, 50–51, 81–82, 87, 91, 155, 159–163, 165, 168–169, 173–174 Stress Condition on Remnants╇ 155, 159–163, 165, 168–169, 173–174 strong agreement╇ 156–157, 167–169, 172 Structuralism╇ 8–9

 Index subjunctive╇ 102–105, 110–111, 113–114, 206–208, 214, 273, 275, 277, 321 substratum╇ 3 sum denoting╇ 239 Svarabhakti vowel╇ 49–50, 58, 71 synchronic╇ 5, 9–10, 17, 27, 29–30, 79–80, 83, 106, 110, 114 syntactic╇ 1, 9–10, 101, 106, 108, 111–114, 118, 123, 130, 132–133, 140, 161, 178–179, 181, 185, 188–189, 191, 209, 244, 257, 260, 264, 272–273, 278–280, 282–284, 306, 309–310 Syntactic clitics╇ 272, 278, 280, 284

T taps╇ 49, 52–58, 63–71, 75–76 thematic roles╇ 141 trills╇ 49, 53–54, 58, 63, 65–71, 73–77 Turkish╇ 17–19, 21, 24–26, 30, 34 type frequency╇ 17, 27–28, 30 U underspecification╇ 10, 33, 35, 46, 48 uninterpretable features╇ 106 V V to C movement╇ 211, 215 valency╇ 137, 140 velarization╇ 47, 84 verb framed╇ 117–120, 130, 133

verbal cluster╇ 271–274, 278–284 verb-second (V2)╇ 101, 104–105, 110–112, 114 Voice╇ 137–143, 145–148 voicing╇ 49–52, 54–56, 58–59 vowel╇ 17–20, 22, 24–28, 30–31, 37–42, 45, 47, 49–52, 54, 56, 58, 63–71, 73–74, 76–77, 83–85, 90, 272, 278 Vulgar Latin╇ 3 W WH constructions╇ 257–268 word order╇ 101, 104–105, 110–112, 114