The 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics
Alternatives to Cartography
Catholic University of Brussels / VLEKHO Campus
Brussels, June 25-27 2007
Defective C
Ángel J. Gallego (UAB) & Juan Uriagereka (UMD)
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Goals: - argue for the existence of a defective version of C
- explore the connectivity effects of subjunctive dependents
- provide an Agree-based account of long-distance obviation
1. Defectivity
⌦ Some Core Functional Categories (CFC) are ϕ-incomplete
vcomp / vdef
(1) [ C [ Johni Tcomp [ ti vdef [ V ti ] ] ] ]
Tcomp / Tdef
(2) [ C [ Johni Tcomp [ ti vdef seems [ ti Tdef to ti love Mary] ] ]
Raising
(3) [ C [ Iz Tcomp [ tz vcomp believe Johni [ ti Tdef to [ ti vcomp love Mary] ] ] ] ECM
⌦ The CFC asymmetry (noted by Jordi Fortuny p.c., see Fortuny 2007)
T and v come in both ‘complete’ and ‘defective’ flavors –C never does (but see
Raposo & Uriagereka 2000)
⌦ Reasons for there being a Cdef
-
C should be the locus of ‘subordination’
If T is parasitic on C (see Chomsky 2005), then T could not appear alone
1
The 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics
Alternatives to Cartography
Catholic University of Brussels / VLEKHO Campus
Brussels, June 25-27 2007
2. Subjunctive as “defective C”
⌦ Romance subjunctives as English ECMs
(4) [CP Cdef . . .
[number]
[person]
[T]
Defective features:
[TP Tdef . . . ] ]
[number]
[person]
[T]
- φ-features (see Chomsky 2000; 2001)
- Case/T features (see Pesetsky & Torrego 2007)
What does ‘defectivity’ mean? – lack of feature (see Chomsky 2000; 2001)
- lack of value (see Pesetsky & Torrego 2007)
Freezing: - maxima checking of φ-features (see Boeckx 2006)
(5)
a. [VP V
[CP C[φ-def]
b. [VP V
[CP C[φ-comp] [TP Subject T[φ-comp] . . . ]]]
[TP Subject T[φ-def] . . . ]]]
English
Romance
(Long-distance) obviation
(6) Jacki believed {*himi/himselfi} [TP t i Tdef to be immoral ]
[from Lasnik & Saito 1999]
(7) Caponei quiere
[CP C que {*proi/*éli} mate
a Ness]
Capone want-3.SG
that he he kill-SUBJ-3.SG to Ness
‘Capone wants for him to kill Ness’
(Spanish)
(8) *Capone quiere [CP C que [TP sí
(mismo) T mate
a Ness] ]
Capone want-3.SG that
SELF (same)
kill-SUBJ-3.SG to Ness
‘Capone wants himself to kill Ness’
(Spanish)
2
The 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics
Alternatives to Cartography
Catholic University of Brussels / VLEKHO Campus
Brussels, June 25-27 2007
Raising (1): English vs. Romance
(9)
a. *Juan considera [v*P a Maríai v* [TP ti ser [SC ti inteligente] ] ]
Juan consider-3.SG to María
be-INF
intelligent
‘Juan believes María to be intelligent’
b. *Juan cree
[v*P a Maríai v* [TP ti ser [SC ti inteligente] ] ]
Juan believe-3.SG to María
be-INF intelligent
‘Juan believes María to be intelligent’
c. **Juan quiere
[v*P a María v* [TP ti llamar a su hermano] ] ]
Juan want-3.SG
to María
call-INF to her brother
‘Juan wants María to call her brother’
(10)
a. Juan considera [CP que María es
inteligente]
Juan consider-3.SG that María be-3.SG intelligent
‘Juan considers that María is intelligent’
b. Juan cree
[CP que María es
inteligente]
Juan believe-3.SG that María be-3.SG intelligent
‘Juan believes that María is intelligent’
c. Juan quiere [CP que María llame
a su hermano]
Juan want-3.SG that María call-SUBJ-3.SG to her brother
‘Juan wants that María call her brother’
(Spanish)
(Spanish)
(Spanish)
(Spanish)
(Spanish)
(Spanish)
(11)
a. [CP Quel garçon i crois–tu [TP ti être [SC ti le plus intelligent de tous] ] ]?
(French)
what boy
believe-2.SG-you be-INF the most intelligent of all
‘Which boy do you believe to be the most intelligent of all?’
b. *Je crois [TP Jeani être [SC ti le plus intelligent de tous] ]
(French)
I believe-1.SG Jean be-INF
the more intelligent of all
‘I believe Jean to be the most intelligent of all’
[from Kayne 1984]
(12)
a. ?[CP Qué problema C crees [TP ti ser [SC t i irresoluble] ] ]?
what problem
believe-2.SG be-INF irresolvable
‘Which problem do you believe to be irresolvable?’
b. *[CP A qué alumno C crees [TP ti ser [SC t i inteligente] ] ]?
to what student believe-2.SG be-INF intelligent
‘What student do you believe to be intelligent?’
(Spanish)
(Spanish)
[from Torrego 1998]
Raising (1): into the matrix clause: binding
3
The 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics
Alternatives to Cartography
Catholic University of Brussels / VLEKHO Campus
Brussels, June 25-27 2007
(13) ?[CP C [TP The DA proved the defendantsi [TP ti to be guilty] . . .
. . . during each otheri’s trials] ]
(14) *[CP C [TP I wanted very much [CP C for [TP those meni to be fired ] ] . . .
. . . because of each otheri’s statements ] ]
[from Lasnik & Saito 1999]
(15) *María quería [CP C que Javier y Pedroi hicieran un brindis] ] . . .
María wanted-3.SG that Javier and Pedro made a toast
. . . durante la boda
de uno y otroi ]
during the wedding of one and other
‘María wanted Javier and Pedro to make a toast . . .
. . . during each other’s weddings’
(Spanish)
3. The Nature of Cdef: Weak (Left-) Periphery and High Connectivity
⌦ Torrego & Uriagereka (1992) note a cluster of asymmetries between indicative and
subjunctive dependents
Consecutio temporum
(16)
a. Platón dice [CP C que Aristóteles {lee/leía/leerá} a Sócrates]
(Spanish)
Plato say-3.SG
that Aristotle read-{PRES/PAST/FUT}-3.SG to Socrates
‘Plato says that Aristotle {reads/read/will read} Socrates’
b. Platón dijo [CP C que Aristóteles {lee/leía/leerá} a Sócrates]
(Spanish)
Plato say-PAST-3.SG that Aristotle read-{PRES/PAST/FUT}-3.SG to Socrates
‘Plato said that Aristotle {reads/read} Socrates’
[from Torrego & Uriagereka 1992]
(17)
a. Platón quiere [CP que Aristóteles
{lea/*leyera/*leyere} a Sócrates] (Spanish)
Plato want-3.SG that Aristotle read-SUBJ-{PRES/PAST/FUT}-3.SG to Socrates
‘Plato wants Aristotle to {read/read/will read} Socrates’
b. Platón quería [CP que Aristóteles
{*lea/leyera/*leyere} a Sócrates] (Spanish)
Plato wanted-3.SG that Aristotle read-SUBJ-{PRES/PAST/FUT}-3.SG to Socrates
‘Plato wanted Aristotle to {read/read/will read} Socrates’
[from Torrego & Uriagereka 1992]
Topicalization
4
The 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics
Alternatives to Cartography
Catholic University of Brussels / VLEKHO Campus
Brussels, June 25-27 2007
(18)
a. Aristóteles creía
[CP que, en cuanto a la Tragedia, debía . . .
Aristotle think-PAST-3.SG that, in respect to the Tragedy, must-PAST-3.SG
. . . haber
tres unidades ]
(Spanish)
there-be-INF three units
‘Aristotle thought that, as far as Tragedy was concerned, there must be three units’
b. *Aristóteles quería
[CP que, en cuanto a la Tragedia, . . .
Aristotle want-PAST-3.SG that, in respect to the Tragedy,
. . . hubiera
tres unidades]
(Spanish)
there-be-SUBJ-PAST-3.SG three units
‘Aristotle wanted that, as far as Tragedy was concerned, there were three units’
[from Torrego & Uriagereka 1992]
Focalization
(19)
a. Juan dijo
[CP
que [ muchas cosasi [TP pro había visto ti ] ] ]!
(Spanish)
Juan say-PAST-3.SG that many things
have-PAST-3.SG seen
‘Juan said that a lot of things he had seen!’
b. *Juan quería [CP
que [ muchas cosasi [TP pro viera ti ]!
(Spanish)
Juan wanted
that many things
see-SUBJ-3SG
‘Juan wanted a lot of things for him to see!’
[from Torrego & Uriagereka 1992]
Speaker oriented adverbs
(20)
a. Juan dice [C*P C* que [ francamente [TP el Deportivo ganará la Liga] ] ]
(Spanish)
Juan say-3.SG
that frankly
the Deportivo win-FUT-3.SG the League
‘Juan says that frankly Deportivo will win the League’
b. *Juan quiere [CP C que [ francamente [TP el Deportivo gane la Liga] ] ]
(Spanish)
Juan want-3.SG
that frankly
the Deportivo win-SUBJ-3.SG the League
‘Juan wants frankly for the Deportivo to win the League’
5
The 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics
Alternatives to Cartography
Catholic University of Brussels / VLEKHO Campus
Brussels, June 25-27 2007
NEG raising
(21)
a. Sancho no decía [CP que Don Quijote desvariaba]
(Spanish)
Sancho not said-3.SG that Don Quijote acted-crazily-3.SG
‘Sancho did not say that Don Quijote acted crazily’
b. Sancho no quería
[CP que Don Quijote desvariase]
(Spanish)
Sancho not wanted-3.SG that Don Quijote acted-crazily-SUBJ-3.SG
‘Sancho did not want Don Quijote to act crazily’
[from Torrego & Uriagereka 1992]
NPI Licensing
(22)
a. *El Cid no dijo
[CP que lo
vio
moro ni cristiano]
(Spanish)
the Cid not said-3.SG
that CL-him saw-3.SG moor nor Christian
‘The Cid did not say that nor moor nor Christian saw him’
b. El Cid no quería
[CP que lo
viese
moro ni cristiano] (Spanish)
the Cid not wanted-3.SG that CL-him saw-SUBJ-3.SG moor nor Christian
‘The Cid did not want for moor nor Christian to see him’
[from Torrego & Uriagereka 1992]
No embedded indirect questions
(23)
a. *Juan {desea/pregunta} [CP cuántos
libros tengas]
(Spanish)
Juan {wish/ ask}-3.SG
how-many books have-SUBJ-3.SG
‘Juan wishes/asks how many books you have’
b. No sé
[CP qué te
diga]
(non-Peninsular Spanish)
not know-1.SG what CL-to-you say-SUBJ-3.SG
‘I do not know what to tell you’
Que deletion
(24)
a. Me
rogaron [CP ?(que) tuviese
cuidado con la carretera]
CL-to-me begged-3.PL that had-SUBJ-1.SG care
with the road
‘They told me to be careful while driving’
b. Me
dijeron [CP *(que) vienen
mañana]
CL-to-me said-3.PL
that come-3.PL tomorrow
‘They told me that they are coming tomorrow’
(Spanish)
(Spanish)
In sum, Cdef manifests: - weak left peripheral (fronting-like) activity
- high (long-distance) connectivity effects
6
The 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics
Alternatives to Cartography
Catholic University of Brussels / VLEKHO Campus
Brussels, June 25-27 2007
(25) A Morphological Parameter
Morphological tense richness ‘boosts’ the fronting capacity of phase heads
(creation of ‘extra SPECs’)
(26a) Indicative Mood
Present tense
Yo canto
I sing-1.SG
Simple past tense
Yo canté
I sing-PAST-1.SG
Imperfect past tense
Yo cantaba
I sing-PAST-1.SG
Present perfect tense
Yo he
cantado
I have-1.SG sung
Anterior past tense *
Yo hube
cantado
I have-PAST-1.SG sung
Past perfect tense
Yo había
cantado
I have-PAST-1.SG sung
Future tense
Yo cantaré
I sing-FUT-1.SG
Future perfect tense
Yo habré
cantado
I have-FUT-1.SG sung
Conditional tense
Yo cantaría
I sing-COND-1.SG
Conditional perfect tense
Yo habría
cantado
I have-COND-1.SG sung
(26b) Subjunctive Mood
Present tense
Yo cante
I sing-SUBJ-1.SG
Simple past tense
Yo cantase
I sing-SUBJ-PAST-1.SG
Present perfect tense
Yo haya
cantado
I have-SUBJ-PAST-1.SG sung
Past perfect tense
Yo hubiera
cantado
I have-SUBJ-PAST-1.SG sung
Future tense *
Yo cantare
I sing-SUBJ-FUT-1.SG
Future perfect tense *
Yo hubiere
cantado
I have-SUBJ-PAST1.SG sung
(*) Not used in present-day Spanish
7
The 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics
Alternatives to Cartography
Catholic University of Brussels / VLEKHO Campus
Brussels, June 25-27 2007
An extra-SPECs strategy for Wh-islands (see Bošković 2005 and Rizzi 1990)
(27)
a. *[CP Which studenti do you wonder [CP howj ti could solve the problem tj] ]?
b. [CP Che studentei non sai
[CP comej ti potrà risolvere il problema tj ] ]? (Italian)
what student not know-2.SG how
will-be-able solve-INF the problem
‘Which student don’t you know how could solve the problem?’
[from Rizzi 1990]
(28)
a. (?)No sé
[CP quiéni a quiénz C ha enviadok [TP ti tk una carta tz ] ]
(Spanish)
not know-1.SG who to whom have-3SG sent
a letter
‘I do not know who has sent a letter to whom’
b. *No sé [CP por quéi cómoz C han derrotadok [TP pro tk al Barcelona ti tz ]
(Spanish)
not know-1.SG for what how have-3.PL defeated
to-the Barcelona
‘I do not know why Barcelona has been defeated how’
[from Uriagereka 2005]
⌦ The analysis
Torrego & Uriagereka’s (1992) paratactic analysis
(29)
a. Platón quiere [CP C que Aristóteles lea
a Sócrates]
(Spanish)
Plato want-3.SG that Aristotle read-SUBJ-3.SG to Socrates
‘Plato wants Aristotle to read Socrates’
b. Platón dice [DP pro] [CP que Aristóteles lee
a Sócrates]
(Spanish)
Plato say-3.SG
that Aristotle read-3.SG to Socrates
‘Plato says that Aristotle reads Socrates’
[from Torrego & Uriagereka 1992]
Our account: Ccomp vs. Cdef
(30)
a. V [CP Ccomp . . . [TP Tcomp . . . ] ]
--- subject to PIC ---
Indicative Dependent
b. V [CP Cdef . . .
Subjunctive Dependent
[TP Tdef . . . ] ]
--- immune to PIC ---
8
The 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics
Alternatives to Cartography
Catholic University of Brussels / VLEKHO Campus
Brussels, June 25-27 2007
⌦ Reprojection: subjunctives as “indefinites” and LF Islands (see Hornstein & Uriagereka
2002 and Quer 1998; 2001; 2006)
In the spirit of Hornstein & Uriagereka (2002), we take Tcomp / Tdef to be a quantifier
that moves to Ccomp / Cdef in order to get its second complement (its scope).
Importantly, only Tcomp forces reprojection at LF.
(31) Reprojection (step 1)
C*P
3
C*
TSP
3
TS = ∃
v*P = e = restriction
6
(32) Reprojection (step 2)
TS/C*P
= scope
3
Whoi
TS/C*’
3
TS/C*
TSP
did
3
John
TS’
3
tdid
v*P = e = restriction
6
John kiss ti
9
The 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics
Alternatives to Cartography
Catholic University of Brussels / VLEKHO Campus
Brussels, June 25-27 2007
4. Long-Distance Obviation: Binding through Multiple Agree
⌦ Accounts we build on: most notably, Kempchinsky (1987) and Picallo (1985)
(33)
a. *La Mariai vol
[CP que proi tingui
pocs problemes]
the Maria want-3.SG that pro have-SUBJ-3.SG few problems
‘Maria wants that she have few problems’
b. La Mariai diu
[CP que proi té
molts problemes]
the Maria say-3.SG that pro have-3.SG many problems
‘Maria says that she has many problems’
(Catalan)
(Catalan)
but:
(34)
a. O Rei Sabio espera
de si mesmo que pro solucione …
the king wise expect-3.SG of SE same that
solve-SUBJ-3.SG
… a paradoxa que lle
puñeron
os matemáticos.
(Galician)
the paradox that CL-to-him put-PAST-3.SG the mathematicians
‘The Wise King expects of himself to solve the paradox that the mathematicians put on
him’
[from Uriagereka 1988]
(35) John called him. (where John ≠ him)
(36) TRANSPARENCY CONDITION
In the absence of a more specific indication to proceed otherwise, where formal
feature bags α and β are grammatically distinct, the speaker cofines the range of
α’s context variable differently from the range of β’s context variable.
[from Uriagereka 1997]
(37) PROBE-GOAL BINDING
α binds β if they are both Goals of a single relevant Probe; otherwise, α and β are
obviative
[from Uriagereka & Gallego in progress]
(38)
a. [CP C [TP Subject TS [v*P tSubject [Object-v*] [VP V tObject ] ] ] ] Binding // Condition (A)
b. [CP C [TP Subject TS [v*P tSubject v* [VP V Object ] ] ] ]
Obviation // Condition (B)
10
The 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics
Alternatives to Cartography
Catholic University of Brussels / VLEKHO Campus
Brussels, June 25-27 2007
(39) John[T
]
NOM
called him[T
(40) Assumptions:
(41)
a. P. quiere [ TO[T
ACC
ACC
]
Tdef bears [uT/Case]
[uTense]
] [TNS:present]
[ que C[T] [TNS] Aristóteles[T] lea TS[T] [TNS] [ . . . a Sócrates]]]
Multiple Agree
b. P. quiere [TO[T
ACC
] [TNS:present]
[ que C[T
ACC
] [TNS:present]
Aristóteles[T
ACC
]
lea TS[T
ACC
] [TNS:present]
...]]
(42)
a. Juani desea [CP C que él{*i/k} admire
a Charlie Mingus]
(Spanish)
Juan wish-3.SG that he
admire-SUBJ-3.SG to Charlie Mingus
‘Juan wants that he admire Charli Mingus’
b. Juani desea [CP C que a él{i/k} le
guste
Charlie Mingus]
(Spanish)
Juan wish-3.SG that to him CL-to-him like-3.SG Charlie Mingus
‘Juan wants that he like Charlie Mingus’
[from Uriagereka & Gallego in progress]
(43) Pedro obligó
a María a [CP que pro limpiase
la habitación] (Spanish)
Pedro forced-3.SG to María to that she clean-SUBJ-3.SG the room
‘Pedro forced María to clean the room
5. Conclusions
Both v and C come into defective and complete versions –thus filling a gap.
Subjunctives manifest two particularly interesting properties:
a) Weak peripheral activity (related to morphological richness)
b) Strong long-distance connectivity (related to lack of PIC application)
Both local and non-local obviation fall into place from this analysis, as long as the
embedded subject receives Case (here, independent from ϕ-fetaures, in line with
Pesetsky & Torrego 2001; 2004; 2007) from matrix TO.
11
The 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics
Alternatives to Cartography
Catholic University of Brussels / VLEKHO Campus
Brussels, June 25-27 2007
REFERENCES
Bošković, Željko (2005): “On the Operator Freezing Effect,” Ms., University of
Connecticut.
Bosque, Ignacio (1990): Indicativo y subjuntivo, Madrid: Taurus.
Chomsky, Noam (2000): “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” in R. Martin, D.
Michaels, & J. Uriagereka, Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honour of
Howard Lasnik, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 89-155.
--- (2001): “Derivation by Phase,” in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language,
Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1-52.
--- (2005): “On Phases,” Ms., MIT.
Fortuny, Jordi (2007): The Emergence of Order in Syntax, Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat
de Barcelona.
Hernanz, M. Lluïsa (1999): “El infinitivo,” I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática
descriptiva de la lengua española, Madrid: Espasa, 2197-2356.
--- (2001): “¡En bonito lío me he metido!: Notas sobre la afectividad en español,” Moenia
7: 93-109.
--- (2003): “From polarity to modality: the case of bien,” Ms., UAB.
Hiraiwa, Ken (2005): Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal
Architecture, Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kayne, Richard (1984): Connectedness and Binary Branching, Dordrecht: Foris
--- (1991): “Romance Clitics, Verb Movement and PRO,” Linguistic Inquiry 22: 647-686.
--- (2000): Paramenters and Universals, Oxford (New York): Oxford University Press
--- (2002): “Pronouns and their Antecedents,” in S. Epstein & T. Seely (eds.), Derivation
and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Malden (Mass.): Blackwell, 133-166.
Kempchinsky, Paula (1987): Romance Subjunctive Clauses and Logical Form, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California.
--- (1998): “Mood Phrase, Case Checking and Obviation,” in A. Schwegler, B. Tranel, &
M. Uribe-Etxebarria (eds.), Romance Linguistics: Theoretical Perspectives,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 143-154.
Lasnik, Howard (2001): “Subjects, Objects, and the EPP,” in W. Davies & S. Dubinsky
(eds.), Objects and other subjects, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 103-121.
--- (2002): “Clause-mate conditions revisited,” Glot International 6: 94-96.
--- (2003): “Levels of Representation and the elements of Anaphora,” in H. Lasnik,
Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory, New York: Routledge, 42-54.
--- & Mamoru Saito (1999): “On the Subject of infinitives,” in H. Lasnik, Minimalist
Analysis, Oxford: Blackwell, 7-24.
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego (2001): “T-to-C Movement: Causes and
Consequences”, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Cambridge
(Mass.): MIT Press, 355-426.
--- (2004): “Tense, Case, and the Nature of Syntactic Categories”, in. J. Guéron & J.
Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 495-537.
--- (2007): “The Syntax of Valuation and the Interpretability of Features,” in S. Karimi et
al (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 262-294.
Picallo, M. Carme (1984): “The Infl node and the null subject parameter,” Linguistic
Inquiry 15: 75-102.
--- (1985): Opaque Domains, Ph.D. Dissertation, City University of New York.
Quer, Josep (1998): Mood at the Interface, The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
--- (2001): “Interpreting Mood,” Probus : 81-111.
12
The 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics
Alternatives to Cartography
Catholic University of Brussels / VLEKHO Campus
Brussels, June 25-27 2007
--- (2006): “Subjunctives,” in M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell
Companion to Syntax, vol. IV, Oxford: Blackwell, 660-684.
Raposo, Eduardo & Juan Uriagereka (2000): “T,” University of California & University
of Maryland.
--- (2005): “Clitic Placement in Western Iberian: A Minimalist View”, in G. Cinque & R.
Kayne (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Oxford (New York):
Oxford University Press, 639-697.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997): “The Fine Structure of The Left Periphery,” in L. Haegeman (ed.),
Elements of Grammar. Handbook in Generative Syntax, Dordrecht: Kluwer: 281-337.
San Martín, Itziar (2004): On Subordination and the Distribution of PRO, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Maryland.
--- (2006): “Beyond the Infinitive vs. Subjunctive Rivalry: Surviving Changes in Mood,”
paper presented in XVI Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Universidad
Autònoma de Madrid, Madrid, April 20-22, 2006.
Suñer, Margarita (1999): “La subordinación sustantiva: la interrogación indirecta,” in I.
Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Espasa:
Madrid, 2149-2195.
Torrego, Esther (1983): “More Effects of Successive Cyclic Movement”, Linguistic
Inquiry 14: 361-365.
--- (1984): “On Inversion in Spanish and Some of Its Effects,” Linguistic Inquiry 15: 103129.
--- (1998): The Dependencies of Objects, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
--- & Juan Uriagereka (1992): “Indicative Dependents”, Ms. U.Mass Boston/UMD.
Uriagereka, Juan (1988): On Government, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
--- (1995a): “An F Position in Western Romance,” in K. Kiss (ed.), Discourse
configurational languages, Oxford (New York): Oxford University Press, 153-175.
--- (1995b): “Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance,” Linguistic
Inquiry 26: 79-123
--- (1997): “Formal and Substantive Elegance in the Minimalist Program,” in M.
Bierwisch et al. (eds.), The role of economy principles in linguistic theory, Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, 170-204.
--- (2005): “A Markovian Syntax for Adjuncts,” Ms., University of Maryland.
--- (2006): “Complete and Partial Infl,” in C. Boeckx (ed.), Agreement Systems,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 267-298.
--- & Ángel J. Gallego (in progress): “(Multiple) Agree as Local (Binding and)
Obviation,” Ms., UMD & UAB.
Zubizarreta, M. Luisa (1998): Prosody, focus, and word order, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT
Press.
13