SUB-EXTRACTION FROM SUBJECTS
A PHASE THEORY ACCOUNT
[Draft version. Comments welcome]
ÁNGEL J. GALLEGO & JUAN URIAGEREKA
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona University of Maryland at College Park
1.
Introduction
The goal of this paper is to provide a phase-based account of the socalled Subject Condition (a subcase of Huang’s 1982 CED phenomena). 1 We
will assume, following Chomsky (2005), that the syntactic opaqueness of
subjects follows from the special status of particularly designated positions: the
phase edges; we therefore depart not only from Uniformity and Spell-out based
approaches to islands (see Takahashi 1994 and Uriagereka 1999a,
respectively), but also from those capitalizing on Chomsky’s (2000; 2001)
Activity Condition (see Boeckx 2003). A more specific aim of the paper
concerns the non-uniform status of the Subject Condition, which as noted by
Stepanov (2001) can be circumvented across languages. We propose that this is
due to an independently existing process that, under certain conditions,
modifies phase boundaries. We call it Phase Sliding.
The paper is divided as follows: section 2 briefly reviews previous
minimalist accounts of the Subject Condition, all of which coincide in SPEC-T
being a ‘freezing’ position. In section 3 we reproduce Chomsky’s (2005)
analysis of edges as Probe-proof domains for sub-extraction; section 4 focuses
on a language that systematically violates the Subject Condition, Spanish, a
fact we try to relate to an old and well-grounded intuition about the nature of T
in Romance languages (see Kayne 1989, Rizzi 1982, Uribe-Etxebarria 1992,
among many others), which we recast in phase-based terms; section 5
summarizes the main conclusions.
2.
The Subject Condition: previous accounts
Contrary to GB accounts, where the ever-present notion of government was
appealed to in order to address island effects, 2 the Minimalist Program can be
1
2
See Boeckx (2003), Stepanov (2001), and Uriagereka (1999a), for recent discussion.
See Chomsky (1981; 1986) and Lasnik & Saito (1992).
said to lack unified accounts of CED effects, 3 presumably because these do not
behave on a par: adjuncts are always strong islands, while subjects are not.
Things being so, the Adjunct Condition has been claimed to follow from
parallel-plane/late-insertion analyses (see Boeckx 2003, Chomsky 2004, and
Stepanov 2001), whereas the Subject Condition has been approached from
various perspectives: in terms of Chain Uniformity (see Ormazábal et al. 1994,
Stepanov 2001, and Takahashi 1994) or the Activity Condition (see Boeckx
2003). Although they differ in implementation, these proposals coincide in one
respect: the problem arises in derived positions, which are said to yield
‘freezing’ effects 4 . Thus only the surface position of subjects (i.e., SPEC-T)
renders DPs opaque. Then the prediction, under this class of hypotheses, is that
sub-extraction can still occur if subjects remain in their first-Merge position
(i.e., SPEC-v*). As (1b) shows, this seems correct: when there insertion blocks
DP movement to subject position, sub-extraction is allowed.
(1)
a. [CP [Which candidate]i were [TP there [vP [posters of ti ] all over the town]]]?
b. *[CP [Which candidate]z were [TP [posters of tz ]i [vP ti all over the town]]]?
[from Lasnik & Park 2003]
Let us formalize this restriction in Chomsky’s (2000; 2001) terms, by
sticking to the notion of ‘activity’, as in (2). 5 6
(2) Activity Condition
If an element α undergoes A-movement (i.e., triggered by a ϕ-Probe), it
gets frozen: neither it nor any of its parts can undergo further movement
operations. In its derived position, α is rendered ϕ-complete, and it cannot
participate in any other computational operation.
Assuming (2), the Subject Condition becomes another instance of a
more general constraint barring case marked DPs to move. In other words,
subjects are islands by the very same reason that they cannot move from a case
assigning position. 7
3
The GB framework tried to unify locality effects by means of the notion of barrier. Within
minimalism, however, no such systematic attempt has been made yet: while some islands are
taken to follow under Chomsky’s (1995) Minimal Link Condition (a minimalist reformulation
of Rizzi’s 1990 Relativized Minimality) and Chomsky’s (2000) Phase Impenetrability
Condition, others pertain to conditions on Agree (the Subject Condition) and pair-Merge (the
Adjunct Condition).
4
See Boeckx (2003), Bošković (2005), and Rizzi (2004) for much relevant discussion about
‘freezing’ effects.
5
Technically, structural Case renders DPs ‘active’. See Chomsky (2000; 2001).
6
Admittedly, (2) oversimplifies, as the various approaches attributing the Subject Condition to
derived positions differ in non-trivial respects. For the sake of exposition, however, we put
these discrepancies to the side.
7
Rizzi (2004, 2006) analyzes the Subject Condition by invoking a mechanism that triggers
freezing effects on criterial positions (e.g., SPEC-Foc, SPEC-Top, etc.): Criterial Freezing.
(3) *[CP Johni seems [CP ti likes Mary]]
In (3), the DP John is assigned nominative Case by the embedded C-T
complex, 8 so it cannot move to the matrix clause. 9 Graphically:
(4) [CP C [TP [DP … α … ]i [v*P ti ] ] ]
Freezing in ϕ-complete SPEC-T
By the logic of (2)-(4), it is expected for (1a) to allow sub-extraction:
being in its base-position, the DP is not ‘frozen’. It is important to point out,
nevertheless, that the freezing under discussion only arises if subject DPs
reach, specifically, a ϕ-complete T (in the sense of Chomsky (2001)).
Accordingly, sub-extraction is predicted to be again possible from the SPECs
of ϕ-defective Ts, such as those in raising (5b) and ECM (5c) contexts.
Chomsky (2005) provides (5) as evidence for his view: 10
(5)
a. *[ [Of which car]z did [TP [the driver tz]i [v*P ti cause a scandal]]?
b. [ [Of which car]z is [TP [the driver tz]i likely [TP ti to [v*P ti cause a scandal]]]?
c. [ [Of which car]z did they believe [the driver tz]i [TP ti to [v*P ti have caused a
scandal]]?
[from Chomsky 2005]
The examples in (5) are meant to illustrate the fact that the subject DP
the driver of which car allows sub-extraction only when it stops in the position
signalled by the boldfaced trace (i.e., t). Since those SPECs belong to the ϕdefective-T class, full Agree (T, Subj) fails and nominative case is not
assigned, resulting in those DPs still being ‘active’. 11 12
8
We assume, with Chomsky (2004; 2005) and following Pesetsky and Torrego that the Locus
of Nominative Case is C, not T.
9
Actually, the DP could not be probed under any circumstances, given Chomsky’s (2000;
2001) Phase Impenetrability Condition. See section 3.
10
Data along these lines were actually judged degraded by Kuno 1973. Sabel (2002) concurs,
judging directly ungrammatical at least those extractions that involve extraction from the
subject of a small-clause. In contrast Kayne (1984) finds some such examples acceptable. We
have nothing to say about the judgement variation.
11
The reasoning presupposes (the possibility for) successive cyclic A-movement. This is not
obvious, and takes us into the thorny issue of how different A and A-bar systems behave in
terms of, at least, cyclicity considerations and reconstruction effects. See Abels (2003), Boeckx
(2001), and Chomsky (2005).
12
The relevant aspect for sub-extraction, therefore, is not so much its being in a base-position,
but rather establishing full Agree. In other words, in (1a), the DP posters of which candidate
and T do not establish full long-distance Agree: the DP only checks [number], while [person] is
checked by external Merge of the expletive there. See Boeckx (1999; 2004) for discussion.
In conclusion, under this approach, the island status of subjects derives
from agreement and ϕ-completeness. This is distinct from (though ultimately
compatible with) the conclusion reached by Ormazábal et al. (1994), Stepanov
(2001), Takahashi (1994), and Uriagereka (1999a), whose particular
implementations leave the key idea largely unaffected: it is in SPEC-T where
subject DPs freeze.
In the next section we will see that, although Chomsky’s (2000; 2001;
2005) system also takes ϕ-complete T to be a freezing position, the Subject
Condition is related to phrase structure properties of base configurations.
3.
Phase theory and phase edges
The discussion in the previous section concentrated on accounts whereby the
Subject Condition is explained through the freezing nature of SPEC-T, by
means of Chomsky’s (2000; 2001) Activity Condition. As we saw, such an
approach nicely predicts that only in situ subjects (those remaining in their
first-Merge position, like that of (1a)) can ‘obviate islandhood’. This view has
recently been challenged by Chomsky (2005), who claims that the Subject
Condition is related to what he calls phase edges. As Chomsky (2005) argues,
if SPEC-T were the offending position, both (6a) and (6b) should be out.
Unexpectedly, only (6a) is:
(6)
a. *[CP [Of which car]z did [TP [the driver tz ]i [v*P ti cause a scandal]]]?
b. [CP [Of which car]z was [TP [the driver tz ]i [vP awarded ti a prize]]]]?
[from Chomsky 2005]
Chomsky (2005) takes the facts in (6) to indicate that it is base positions
that matter for sub-extraction. 13 Chomsky (2005), however, is cryptic about
what the specific cause of this locality problem is:
It remains to explain why the probe for wh-movement cannot readily
access the wh-phrase within the external argument of α. That could
reduce to a locality condition: which in α is embedded in the lower phase,
which has already been passed in the derivation. We know that the
external argument itself can be accessed in the next higher phase, but
there is a cost to extracting something embedded in it.
[from Chomsky 2005:14]
Plausibly, this formulation of the Subject Condition aims to strengthen
the computational role of phase edges: in Chomsky’s phase system these alone
are the positions involved in successive cyclic movement, counting as full
13
The precise derivational history pursued by Chomsky (2005) is far more complex, involving
operations being carried out ‘in parallel’. See previous footnote.
reconstruction sites and yielding various interpretive semantic effects. It is thus
good to, yet again, ascertain their somewhat privileged status.
By parity of reasoning, Chomsky (2005) pushes the general logic to C’s
edge, where the same locality problems are expected. As far as we can tell, this
is basically true, as Lasnik & Saito (1992) observed:
(7)
a. ??[CP Whoz do you wonder [CP [which picture of tz]i Mary bought ti]]?
b. ??[CP Whoz do you wonder [CP [which picture of tz]i ti is on sale]]?
[from Lasnik & Saito 1992]
Simply put, the relevantly peculiar configuration is one where XPs hang
from edge positions. These seem to be exploited by the semantic component(s)
(SEM) in order to obtain familiar semantic effects (specificity, focus,
recontruction, and the like). However, for some reason syntax cannot operate
with their internal structure. This observation can be stated as in (8) (or an
analogous counterpart like Rizzi’s 2004 Criterial Freezing):
(8) Edge Condition
Syntactic Objects in phase edges become internally frozen.
Given (8), all that counts for subjects to be ‘Probe-proof’ is whether
they occupy a phase edge. 14 The question then is whether (8) can account for
apparent counterexamples like (1a), which we repeat below as (9).
(9) [CP [Which candidate]i were [TP there [vP [posters of ti ] all over the town]]]?
Chomsky’s (2005) analysis can essentially be maintained in cases like
(9). The key is that (9)’s verbal phrase is headed by a weak (unaccusative)
phase head, a ϕ-defective v (see Chomsky 2001), whose SPEC(s) do(es) not
qualify as a phase edge in relevant regards. 15
Also pertinent in this context is the fact that only weak phases allow for
higher Probes to target their complement domain, hence overriding Chomsky’s
(2000; 2001) Phase Impenetrability Condition.
(10) Phase Impenetrability Condition
The domain of [a strong phase head] H is not accessible to operations
outside HP; only H and its edge are accessible to such operations.
[from Chomsky 2001]
14
(8) is not a ban on moved XPs as such, but rather a ban on XPs moved to particular
derivational positions (again, strong edges). The analysis can be extended to shifted objects, if
those occupy SPEC-v*, but we do not explore this possibility here, due to space limitations.
15
At first glance, this is at odds with Legate’s (2003) findings about passive and unaccusative
verbs, which also leave reconstruction sites. The question to ask, then, is why weak edges,
although fine for reconstruction purposes, pose no locality problems.
Since v is not a strong phase head, the formulation of (10) allows for C
and T to respectively target the wh-phrase of which car and the driver of which
car in the base position of passive structures like (6b), repeated here as (11): 16
(11) [CP C [TP T [vP awarded [DP the driver of which car] a prize]]]]?
_ _ _ A-Probe (φ-triggered)
____ A’-Probe (EPP-triggered)
The analysis just sketched, although plausible on conceptual and
empirical grounds, is not without difficulties. 17 Here we want concentrate on
Romance languages such as Spanish, which allow sub-extraction from
subjects. In particular, as noted by Uriagereka (1988), post-verbal subjects
(which we take to be in situ), allow sub-extraction:
(12) De qué conferenciantesi te parece que ...
Of what speakers
CL-to-you seem-3SG that...
(Spanish)
a. ... mez van a impresionarv [v*P [DP las propuestas ti ] tz tv ]?
(Spanish)
CL-to-me go-3SG to to-impress the proposals
b. ... *[DP las propuestas ti]j mez van a impresionarv [v*P tj tz tv ]?
(Spanish)
the proposals CL-to-me go-3SG to to-impress
‘Which speakers does it seem to you that the proposals by will impress me?’
[from Uriagereka 1988]
The relevance of examples such as (12a) is that the post-verbal subject
las propuestas de qué conferenciantes (Eng. the proposals by which speakers)
is in the base (first-Merge) position of a transitive predicate, 18 19 that is, in a
16
It could be claimed that the operations in (11), which Chomsky (2005) takes to apply ‘in
parallel’, do not respect the Extension Condition (see Chomsky 1993), requiring some version
of Richards’s (1997) tucking-in instead. This possibility is not forced upon us if all operations
within a phase (in 11, the entire CP) take place at the same time, with no real step-by-step
chronological ordering (see Chomsky 2006).
17
Due to space restrictions we cannot assess here the facts concerning sub-extraction from XPs
moved to SPEC-C. See Gallego & Uriagereka (2006) for an analysis.
18
We limit the data to structures where the object is either not realized at all (incorporated, as
in Hale & Keyser’s 2002 treatment of unergatives) or else realized as a clitic, concentrating on
whether the verb is transitive or not, for this is the criterion that identifies strong phases.
19
It is perhaps worth emphasizing that the verb in (12) might be analyzed as a psychological
predicate (see Pesetsky 1995 for discussion), favoring a post-verbal position for subjects, as M.
Lluïsa Hernanz and Luisa Martí observe through personal communication. However, such a
possibility should not force dramatic changes, as long as v* assigns accusative case; their
observation does raise, though, the issue of whether being a psych-verb has some bearing on
the base structure, somehow ameliorating sub-extraction (as pointed out by Chomsky himself;
bona fide strong edge. The prediction, under Chomsky’s (2005) phase system,
is clear: (12a) should be out, contrary to fact. There may be different routes to
overcome the puzzle this raises, but two particular possibilities rapidly come to
mind: one, the subject has passed through a position analogous to φ-defective
T, freeing sub-extraction; two, sub-extraction is possible due to the special
interpretive (focal) properties of post-verbal subjects. The first possibility is
tempting, but unfortunately unavailable within our restricted framework, where
we assume just two subject positions: SPEC-v* and SPEC-T, for post-verbal
and pre-verbal subjects. 20 It is unlikely that SPEC-T has this freeing effect,
since it always creates opacity (by any of the analyses we have seen so far),
which leaves us with SPEC-v*, a strong edge, as the remaining possibility. In
this respect, Belletti (2004) provides strong arguments in favor of taking postverbal subjects to move to a left-peripheral functional projection above the v*P
where a focal interpretation is assigned. 21 That said, however, Belletti’s (2004)
analysis does not help us either: if such a FocusP meets some criterion (as
expected under Rizzi’s 2004 system), post-verbal subjects should directly
undergo Criterial Freezing, thus becoming islands. 22
For the purposes of this section, we can stop here. Having noted a
potential counterexample to Chomsky’s (2005) proposal, in the next section we
pursue a phase-based account of (12), in the hope that it will prove to be
consistent not only with Chomsky’s (2005) system, but also with the old
intuition that Romance T (INFL) has a special status.
4.
Phase Sliding
Before laying out our proposal, we must make sure that the system we are
assuming makes the right predictions for Spanish. That is, we must make sure
that, say, object positions always allow sub-extraction. As the data show,
expectations are met whit unaccusative (13) and passive (14) structures:
(13) [[De qué lingüista]i han llegadoj ya [vP tj [muchos libros ti]]]?
Of what linguist have-3PL arrived already many books
‘Which linguist have many books by already arrived?’
(Spanish)
see Chomsky 2005:14 fn. 39). Even so, note that (i), involving a non-psychological transitive
verb, again allows the type of sub-extraction we are interested in:
(i)
¿De qué equipoi dices que han bailado [DP cuatro participantes ti ]?
(Spanish)
Of what team say-2SG that have-3PL danced four participants
‘Which team do you say that four members of have danced?’
20
But see Cardinaletti (2004) for a different view.
21
For different implementations also involving a FocusP, see Irurtzun (2006) and Uriagereka
(2004), which make assumptions different from the ones presupposed here.
22
As Luigi Rizzi observes through personal communication, ‘Criterial Freezing’ must
therefore be weakened so that only a specific portion of the XP is frozen. See Rizzi (2006) for
the details of this ‘Selective-Freezing’ account.
(14) [[De qué escritor]i han [vP sido [PrtP vendidos [varios libros ti]]]? (Spanish)
Of what writer have-3PL been sold
several books
‘Which writer have several books by been sold?’
Consider next sub-extraction from strong (transitive) phase domains. In
principle, we expect the same results, with object positions being transparent to
EPP-Probes –this time, launched from v*.
(15) ¿[CP [De qué lingüista]i vais a leer [v*P [muchos artículos ti]]]?
Of what linguist go-2PL to to-read many papers
‘Which linguist are you going to read many papers by?’
(Spanish)
The only exception concerns direct objects introduced by the dative
preposition a, as in (16). Happily, that (16) blocks sub-extraction is a welcome
situation from Chomsky’s (2005) perspective, if, as argued by Torrego (1998),
a-marked elements move to SPEC-v*, a phase edge.
(16) *¿[CP [De qué estudiante]i has criticado [v*P [a los padres ti]]]?
Of what student have-2SG criticized to the parents
‘Which student have you criticized the parents of?’
(Spanish)
Consider, finally, the case of subjects. As noted above, only post-verbal
ones allow sub-extraction:
(17) De qué conferenciantesi te parece que ...
Of what speakers
CL-to-you seem-3SG that...
(Spanish)
a. ... mez van a impresionarv [v*P [DP las propuestas ti ] tz tv ]?
(Spanish)
CL-to-me go-3SG to to-impress the proposals
(Spanish)
b. ... *[DP las propuestas ti]j mez van a impresionarv [v*P tj tz tv ]?
the proposals CL-to-me go-3SG to to-impress
‘Which speakers does it seem to you that the proposals by will impress me?’
[from Uriagereka 1988]
Descriptively speaking, it is easy to see what goes wrong in (17b): the
subject is in SPEC-T, which blocks sub-extraction by means of any of the
restrictions available to that effect: Chain Uniformity, Multiple Spell-out,
Activity Condition, or Subject Criterion. An alternative route, in principle,
would be to invoke phase edges once again. The issue is how: SPEC-T does
not qualify as a phase edge, at least in Chomsky’s (2000; 2001; 2005) system.
At this point, we want to make a short excursus into the nature of T (or
S/INFL). Ever since early GB times, T has been argued to show special
properties in Romance languages: clitic climbing (and clitic doubling), free
subject inversion, rich agreement, lack of that-trace effects (and generalized
that-deletion), A’ properties of preverbal subjects, etc. These (and more)
intriguing facts suggested that, broadly speaking, T behaved as C. Such was the
gist of Rizzi’s (1982) insight that it is S (not S’) that counts as a bounding node
in Romance. 23 Kayne (1989) made essentially the same point when he argued
for T being able to L-mark VP. Finally, many other scholars (see Barbosa
1995, Masullo 1992, Solà 1992, and Uribe-Etxebarria 1992, among several
others) proposed that SPEC-T is an A’-position in Romance.
That Romance T is indeed special is supported by the following data.
First, consider (18) and (19), where preverbal subjects display typical Aproperties (binding and control, and also agreement 24 ). In this respect,
Romance behaves like English.
(18)
a. Juani se peina a sí mismoi
Juan CL-self comb-3SG to himself
‘Juan combs himself’
b. Juani quiere [ PROi salir con María]
Juan want-3SG to-go-out with María
‘Juan wants to go out with María’
(19)
a. {Han/ha} llegado tu padre y tu hermano.
Have{3PL/3SG} arrived your father and your brother
‘Your father and your brother have arrived’
b. Tu padre y tu hermano {han/*ha} llegado.
Your father and your brother have{3PL/3SG} arrived
‘Your father and your brother have arrived’
(Spanish)
(Spanish)
(Spanish)
(Spanish)
On the other hand, DPs in SPEC-T also behave as A’-moved
constituents, showing interpretive effects that fall under what Chomsky (2004)
calls edge-semantics. 25
(20)
a. María canta.
María sing-3SG
‘María sings’ (=María is a singer)
b. Mira: canta María, como cada vez que está contenta!
Look: sing-3SG María, as every time that be-3SG happy
‘Look: María is singing, as she always does when she is happy’
23
(Spanish)
(Spanish)
For a minimalist reformulation of TP/S as a bounding node due to early Spell-out, see
Uriagereka (1999b).
24
The agreement datum is a classical observation, first noted by Bello (1847). See Camacho
(2003) for much updated discussion.
25
Gallego (2004/2006b) claims that subject movement as in (19b) is similar to Object Shift in
Chomsky’s (2001) analysis, in that the operation invokes interpretations arising at phase edges.
The important aspect of (20) is that when the subject DP María is in SPEC-T, an interpretive
effect arises: a categorical reading (see Raposo & Uriagereka 2002).
More A’-properties of Spanish preverbal subjects are pointed out by
Uribe-Etxebarria (1992), who notes that, contrary to post-verbal subjects, preverbal ones cannot undergo LF-raising, thus blocking pair-list answers to
questions such as (22A):
(21)
A: A quiénz dices [CP que [TP amabai [v*P cada senador ti tz]]?
(Spanish)
To who say-2SG that
loved-3SG each senator
‘Who do you say that each senator loved?’
3B: Cada senador amaba a María.
(Spanish)
Each senator loved-3SG to María
‘Each senator loved María’
3B’: El senador Smith amaba a María, el senador Brown a Inés, etc. (Spanish)
The senator Smith loved-3SG to María, the senator Brown to Inés
‘Senator Smith loved María, senator Brown did Inés, etc.’
[from Uribe-Etxebarria 1992]
(22)
A: ¿A quiénz dices [CP que [TP cada senadori amabaj [v*P ti tj tz ]]?
(Spanish)
To who say-2SG that each senator loved-3SG
‘Who do you say that each senator loved?’
3B: Cada senador amaba a María.
(Spanish)
Each senator loved-3SG to María
‘Each senator loved María’
2B’: El senador Smith amaba a María, el senador Brown a Inés, etc. (Spanish)
The senator Smith loved-3SG to María, the senator Brown to Inés
‘Senator Smith loved María, senator Brown did Inés, etc.’
[from Uribe-Etxebarria 1992]
A translation of all that pioneering work into the current system
amounts to saying that TP behaves as a phase in Spanish. 26 Although such an
approach is consistent with the facts, it raises the odd possibility of phases (or,
alternatively, barriers) being parametrizable, which departs from an optimal
scenario. Ideally, phases should be just v*P and CP, cross-linguistically.
In this paper we want to argue for an alternative analysis that
overcomes the conceptual problem just raised, while still accounting for the
phase effects on T. In particular, we follow Gallego’s (2006a) suggestion that
phase effects on T, although pervasive and robust, are derivative, a side effect
of v*-to-T movement. The specific process responsible for such an upwards
‘percolation’ of phase properties will be called Phase Sliding.
26
For a proposal precisely in these terms, see Gallego (2004/2006b).
(23)
Phase Sliding
TP
v*/TP
3
ri
T
v*P
⇒
3
Subj
3
v*’
3
VP
3
tj
v*P
Subj
v*’
3
v*-Vj
vi*/T
Obj
ti
VP
3
tj
Obj
Complement Domain
Edge Domain
**CAREFUL WITH GRAPHS**
The process depicted in (23), and its consequences, are virtually
equivalent to Chomsky’s (1986) idea that V-to-INFL movement frees VP from
barrierhood (the matter also relates to an analysis in Chomsky 1993 whereby
head movement was used as a domain-extension device).
A problem that immediately arises in the context of the present
discussion is related to the status of head movement, which was cornered to the
PHON component by Chosmky (2001): 27 if Phase Sliding is parasitic on v*-toT movement, head movement must have bona fide syntactic effects. This said,
notice that one of the problems of head movement (i.e., its violation of the
Extension Condition) is avoided in (20), assuming that v* directly targets T,
forming a hybrid label, v*/T, from where all operations are triggered.
Let us now go back to the Subject Condition. Given (23), phase
domains are removed: the complement domain is v*P (not VP) and the edge
domain is v*/T, plus all its SPECs. Especially important is the fact that SPECv*, where –we assume– post-verbal subjects stand in Spanish, is no longer a
phase edge, it simply is a SPEC within the complement domain. Sub-extraction
should then be possible, and it is, as we saw before. Things would proceed as
indicated in (24), where v*, once amalgamated with T, targets SPEC-v* and
sub-extracts the wh-phrase de qué conferenciantes (Eng. of what speakers):
(24) [v*/TP v*/T [v*P [DP las propuestas [de qué conf. ]] [VP me impresionan]]
27
The debate is far from settle; see Boeckx & Stepanovic (2001), Matushansky (2006), and
references therein.
Technically speaking, (23) provides an account of why Romance
languages such as Spanish can circumvent the Probe-proof status of subjects:
as phase domains are redefined due to v*-to-T movement, locality conditions
run the same fate.
5.
Final remarks
In this paper we have investigated one of Huang’s (1982) CED phenomena,
focusing on Chomsky’s (2005) recent analysis, which points that it is SPEC-v*,
and not SPEC-T, the critical position rendering subjects opaque. The crucial
aspect for Chomsky (2005), therefore, lies in the fact that subjects occupy the
edge of the v*P phase, a position that imposes locality restrictions.
We have noted that Romance languages pose a potential difficulty to
Chomsky’s (2005) analysis, given that post-verbal subjects (which we take to
occupy, precisely, SPEC-v*) 28 do allow sub-extraction. In order to overcome
this apparent counterexample, we have related this fact to a large series of
properties that point to T as being different in (some) Romance languages.
With Gallego (2006a) we have related the special status of T to phase theory,
arguing that T may inherit phasehood by v*-to-T movement, a process dubbed
Phase Sliding: literally, verb movement pied-pipes all its properties up to the
TP level. This allows us to account for the facts in a way that is compatible
with Chomsky’s (2005) phase account.
That said, we must also point out (and eventually address) the flaws our
proposal presents. First of all, it is not clear to us how, precisely, this species of
v*P extension we have argued for takes place, in the first place: if T is not
present in the derivational workspace of v*P, how can v* amalgamate with it?
This is particularly intricate if Numerations are assumed; intuitively, it is as if
T were able to ‘sideward move’ to v*P’s workspace. 29 Also problematic is the
idea that both T and v* belong to the same phase domain, for it predicts that
Romance languages present a case imbalance: both nominative and accusative
are assigned within v*/TP. Ordóñez’s (1998) analysis of VOS structures, which
involve object scrambling (and not, say, a v*P remnant movement), suggests
that the idea is actually on track. Finally, note that the entire proposal crucially
depends on the existence of full-fledged syntactic head movement: that is what
slides the v*P phase. This nicely fits with the properties of most Romance
languages we are familiar with; except, of course, French: if this language does
have v*-to-T movement (as widely assumed in the literature), it remains to be
understood why such an operation fails to trigger the effects it does in Null
Subject Romance languages.
It is worth remaking, also, that the analysis just sketched, though
proposed merely in order to address a particular locality phenomenon (Huang’s
28
The same problem is at stake if one endorses Belletti’s (2004) analysis of post-verbal
subjects, because of ‘Criterial Freezing’. See fn. 19.
29
Things become more complex if not only T but also C must be active, because of φ-feature
inheritance, as in Chomsky (2005).
1982 Subject Condition), is promising in its unifying nature: it allows us to put
together a list of apparently unrelated properties of languages within the
Romance family, reconciling current minimalist theorizing with traditional GB
intuitions about parameters.
References
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive Cyclicity, Anti-Locality, and Adposition
Stranding. Ph.D. Dissertation, U.Conn.
Barbosa, Pilar. 1995. Null Subjects, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Bello, Andrés. 1847. Gramática de la lengua castellana, destinada al uso de
los americanos, edición con notas de Rufino José Cuervo, 2 vols.,
Ramón Trujillo (ed.), Madrid: Arco/Libros.
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. “Aspects of the Low IP Area”. The Structure of CP
and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (vol. 2), L. Rizzi ed.,
Oxford (New York), Oxford University Press, 16-51.
Boeckx, Cedric. 1999. “Conflicting C-command Requirements”. Studia
Linguistica 53: 227-250.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2001. Scope Reconstruction and A-Movement. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 19, pp. 503-548.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and Chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2004. “Long distance agreement in Hindi: some theoretical
implications”, Studia Linguistica, 58, 1-14.
Boeckx, Cedric & Sandra Stjepanović (2001): “Head-ing toward PF”,
Linguistic Inquiry, 32: 345-355.
Bošković, Željko. 2005. “On the Operator Freezing Effect”. Ms., U.Conn.
Camacho, José. 2003. The Structure of Coordination: Conjunction and
Agreement Phenomena in Spanish and Other Languages, Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. “Towards a cartography of subject positions”. The
structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (vol.
2), L. Rizzi ed., 115-165. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. “Conditions on Transformations”, in S. Anderson & P.
Kiparsky (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle, New York, Holt,
Renehart and Winston, 232-286.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht
(Holland): Foris Publications.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory,” in K.
Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.) The View from Building 20: Essays in
Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Cambridge (Mass.): The
MIT Press, 1-52.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT
Press.
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.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase”, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken
Hale: A Life in Language, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1-52.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy”, in A. Belletti (ed.),
Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (vol.
3), Oxford (New York): Oxford University Press, 104-131.
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. “On Phases”, Ms., MIT.
Chomsky, Noam. 2006. “Approaching UG from below”, Ms., MIT.
Gallego, Ángel J. 2006a. “Phase Sliding”, Ms., UAB/UMD.
Gallego, Ángel J. 2004/2006b. “Phase Effects in Iberian Romance”, IUOG
Working Papers in Linguistics, XIII, 59-68.
Gallego, Ángel J. & Juan Uriagereka. 2006. “Sub-extraction from phase
edges”, paper presented at Edges in Syntax, Cyprus College, Nicosia
(Cyprus).
Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument
Structure, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Huang, James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar,
Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Irurtzun, Aritz. In progress. The Grammar of Focus at the Interfaces. Ph.D.
Dissertation, EHU-UPV.
Kayne, Richard. 1984 Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. Constraints on Internal Clauses and Sentential Subjects.
Linguistic Inquiry 4:363-386.
Lasnik, Howard & Myung-Kwan Park. 2003. “The EPP and the subject
condition under sluicing”, Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 649-660.
Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α: conditions on its
applications and outputs, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Legate, Julie. 2003. “Some Interface Properties of the phase”, Linguistic
Inquiry, 34, 506-516.
Leonetti, Manuel. 2004. “Specificity and Differential Object Marking in
Spanish”, Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75-114.
Masullo, Pascual J. 1992. “Quirky Datives in Spanish and the Non-Nominative
Subject Parameter”, in A. Kathol & J. Beckman (eds.), MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics, 16: 89-103.
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. “Head Movement in Linguistic Theory”, Linguistic
Inquiry, 37: 69-109
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory
of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ordóñez, Francisco. 1998. “Post-verbal asymmetries in Spanish”, Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 313-346.
Ordóñez, Francisco. 2005. “Two Specs for postverbal subjects: Evidence from
Spanish and Catalan”, Ms. SUNY Stony Brook.
Ormazábal, Javier, Juan Uriagereka & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 1994. “Word
order and wh-movement: towards a parametric account”, Ms.,
U.Conn./UPV-EHU/UMD/MIT.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax. Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge
(Mass.): MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2001. “T-to-C Movement: Causes and
Consequences”, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language,
Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press, 355-426.
Rackowski, Andrea & Norvin Richards. 2005. “Phase edge and extraction: a
Tagalog Case Study”, Ms., MIT.
Richards, Norvin. 1997. What Moves Where When in Which Language?, Ph.D.
Dissertation, MIT
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Drodrecht: Foris.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. “On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP
Effects”, Ms., U. Siena.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. “Criterial Freezing, EPP and Asymmetries”, paper
presented at Edges in Syntax, Cyprus College, Nicosia (Cyprus).
Sabel, Joachim. 2002. A Minimalist Analysis of Syntactic Islands. The
Linguistic Review 19: 271-315.
Solà, Jaume. 1992. Agreement and Subjects, Ph.D. Dissertation, UAB.
Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. Cyclic Domains in Syntactic Theory, Ph.D.
Dissertation, U.Conn.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Minimality of Movement, Ph.D. Dissertation, U.Conn.
Torrego, Esther. 1998. The Dependencies of Objects, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT
Press.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. On Government, Ph.D. Dissertation, U.Conn.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999a. “Multiple Spell-out”, in N. Hornstein & S. Epstein
(eds.), Working Minimalism, Cambdridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 251-282.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999b. “Minimal Restrictions on Basque Movements”,
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17: 403-444.
Uriagereka, Juan. 2004. “Spell-out Consequences”, Ms., UMD.
Uriagereka, Juan & Eduardo Raposo. 2002. “Two Types of Small Clauses”, in
J. Uriagereka, Derivations. Exploring the Dynamics of Syntax,
London/New York: Routledge, 212-234.