Repair<strong>in</strong>g F<strong>in</strong>al-Over-F<strong>in</strong>al Constra<strong>in</strong>t Violations: Evidence from Basque Verb ClustersRicardo Etxepare and Bill HaddicanThis paper discusses some implications of Basque for recent approaches to F<strong>in</strong>al-Over-F<strong>in</strong>al Constra<strong>in</strong>t (FOFC) effects (Biberauer et al., to appear, henceforth “BHR”). We presentevidence suggest<strong>in</strong>g that FOFC violations are reparable by copy deletion, and that FOFCviolat<strong>in</strong>gstructures are <strong>the</strong>refore derivable <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> narrow syntax, contra BHR.BHR state FOFC as <strong>in</strong> (1), summariz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir generalization that a phrase αP, orderedhead-complement, cannot appear to <strong>the</strong> left of its select<strong>in</strong>g head (unless αP is A-bar moved).In approaches assum<strong>in</strong>g a head-directonality parameter, this means that a left-headed phrasecannot be <strong>the</strong> complement of a right-headed phrase. On LCA-based approaches, this willmean that an XP cannot raise to a non-A-bar position, unless its complement has raised to itsspec. Assum<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> LCA, BHR propose that FOFC reflects constra<strong>in</strong>ts on <strong>the</strong> spread<strong>in</strong>g of afeature, “^” which drives roll-up movement. BHR assume that ^ can spread up a sp<strong>in</strong>e, butnever skip a head. The assumption of such monotonic spread<strong>in</strong>g thus excludes unattestedstart-stop-start roll-up patterns that will produce FOFC violations as <strong>in</strong> (2). Importantly, onBHR’s approach, FOFC effects are a narrow syntactic phenomenon, a suprpris<strong>in</strong>g result from<strong>the</strong> perspective of work that takes l<strong>in</strong>earization to be <strong>in</strong>terface driven (Nunes 2004).(1) *[βP [αP α γP ] β ] (2) *[X^ [ Y [Z^ ]]]Below, we present evidence from Basque verb clusters suggest<strong>in</strong>g that FOFC-violat<strong>in</strong>gstructures are reparable by copy deletion, and hence derivable by merge, contra BHR. Wefocus on <strong>the</strong> word order variation <strong>in</strong> (3), where a non-f<strong>in</strong>ite complement of a modal canappear ei<strong>the</strong>r to <strong>the</strong> left of <strong>the</strong> modal-auxiliary sequence as <strong>in</strong> (3a) or to <strong>the</strong> right as <strong>in</strong> (3b).(3) a.Horrelakoak maiz-ago ikusi nahi nituzke b.Nahi nuke horrelakoak maiz-ago ikusilike.that.PL often-more see want AUX.3PL want AUX.3S like.that.PL often-more see‘I’d like to see th<strong>in</strong>gs like that more often.’(Etxepare and Uribe-Etxebarria 2009)Etxepare and Uribe-Etxebarria (2009, henceforth “EU”) argue that this word ordervariation is sensitive to <strong>the</strong> size of <strong>the</strong> non-f<strong>in</strong>ite constituent: when <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itive appears to<strong>the</strong> left of <strong>the</strong> modal, as <strong>in</strong> (3a) it can be no bigger than vP; when it appears to <strong>the</strong> right as <strong>in</strong>(3b), however, it can be a TP or bigger. One k<strong>in</strong>d of evidence to this effect comes fromtemporal modification. In (4a), <strong>the</strong> non-f<strong>in</strong>ite constituent conta<strong>in</strong>s gaur ‘today’ whosetemporal value differs from that of <strong>the</strong> modal, and <strong>the</strong> result is poor. This temporal differenceis f<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> (4b) word order. EU <strong>in</strong>fer that <strong>the</strong> temporal <strong>in</strong>dependence of (4b) but not (4a) isattributable to <strong>the</strong> presence of a null tense head <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> former but not <strong>the</strong> latter.(4) a. *Jonek [(gaur) atzo egon] behar zuen (gaur) etxe-a-nJon-ERG today yesterday be need AUX today house-DEF-<strong>in</strong>b. Jon-ek atzo behar zuen [gaur etxe-a-n egon.]Jon-ERG yesterday need AUX today house-DEF-<strong>in</strong> be‘Yesterday Jon needed to be home today.’ (EU)Rightward <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itivals also block auxiliary agreement with <strong>the</strong> object (3b), obligatory <strong>in</strong> (3a).We propose that <strong>the</strong> structure-sensitivity of this word order variation is a FOFC effectfollow<strong>in</strong>g BHR. Basque is a “mixed-head” language: heads <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> clausal sp<strong>in</strong>e below Tappear to <strong>the</strong> right of <strong>the</strong>ir complements, while heads above T, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Focus, and Neg/appear to <strong>the</strong> left of <strong>the</strong>ir complements (de Rijk 1969, Ortiz de Urb<strong>in</strong>a 1989, Laka 1990,Elordieta 2001). Authors assum<strong>in</strong>g a head directionality parameter have traditionally taken Tto be right-headed <strong>in</strong> Basque given that, <strong>in</strong> affirmative sentences, <strong>the</strong> complement verbal shellappears to <strong>the</strong> left of <strong>the</strong> auxiliary as <strong>in</strong> (5). In negative sentences, <strong>the</strong> negative morpheme ezappears left-adjacent to <strong>the</strong> auxiliary, and <strong>the</strong> VP appears to <strong>the</strong> right of <strong>the</strong> auxiliary as <strong>in</strong>(6). Laka (1990) and Elordieta (2001) propose that <strong>in</strong> negative sentences like (6), <strong>the</strong>auxiliary head raises and right-adjo<strong>in</strong>s to Neg, which takes TP as a sister to its right, as <strong>in</strong> (7).(5) Miren-ek Jon ikusi du. (6) Miren-ek ez du Jon ikusi.
Miren-ERG Jon.ABS see AUX Miren-ERG not AUX Jon.ABS see‘Miren has seen Jon.’‘Miren hasn’t seen Jon.’(7) [ XP Mirenek [ NegP ez-du [ TP [ AspP Jon ikusi] ]]]An antisymmetric approach requires a different approach to <strong>the</strong> polarity-sensitive wordorder variation <strong>in</strong> (5) and (6). In particular, follow<strong>in</strong>g Haddican (2001, 2004, 2005, 2008) wepropose that <strong>the</strong> relative order of <strong>the</strong> verb, verbal dependents and modals is derived via rollup.We fur<strong>the</strong>r assume a F<strong>in</strong>P projection, with an EPP feature which attracts <strong>the</strong> negativemorpheme ez <strong>in</strong> negative sentences. In neutral affirmatives, <strong>the</strong> complement of <strong>the</strong> auxiliaryraises to this position, yield<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> VP-Aux word order. From this perspective, TP is a lef<strong>the</strong>adedprojection that does not participate <strong>in</strong> roll-up movement; that is, <strong>the</strong> complement of Tdoes not move to its spec:(8) a. Affirmative orders b. Negative orders[ F<strong>in</strong>P [ XP Complement of T] F<strong>in</strong> [EPP] [ TP T ]] [ F<strong>in</strong>P ez F<strong>in</strong> [EPP] [ TP T [ vP …]]]Assum<strong>in</strong>g that non-f<strong>in</strong>ite T is like f<strong>in</strong>ite T <strong>in</strong> not participat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> roll-up movement, <strong>the</strong>structure sensitivity of <strong>the</strong> word order variation <strong>in</strong> (3) is expla<strong>in</strong>ed as a vanilla FOFC effect:what rules out a non-f<strong>in</strong>ite TP-layer <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> (3a) order (<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itive - modal) is <strong>the</strong> presence of ahead-complement structure <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> spec of <strong>the</strong> modal head, <strong>in</strong> violation of (1). Specifically,<strong>the</strong> complement of <strong>the</strong> non-f<strong>in</strong>ite T head is not <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> spec of <strong>the</strong> non-f<strong>in</strong>ite T, but ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>sister of T. The <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itival T itself <strong>the</strong>n moves to <strong>the</strong> spec of <strong>the</strong> modal projection <strong>in</strong> violationof (1), as illustrated <strong>in</strong> (9a). In contrast, vP-sized <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itives will not run afoul of (1), s<strong>in</strong>ce v’scomplement raises to its spec, as <strong>in</strong> (9b). The structure-sensitivity of <strong>the</strong> alternation <strong>in</strong> (3) is<strong>the</strong>refore straightforwardly predicted as a FOFC-effect on LCA approaches to Basque.(9) a. FOFC-violat<strong>in</strong>g TP-rais<strong>in</strong>g b. FOFC-compliant vP-rais<strong>in</strong>g*[ ModalP [ TP T XP] Modal ] [ ModalP [ vP XP [ v’ v ]] Modal ]Unaddressed so far is why TP-sized modal complements are licit when <strong>the</strong>y appear to <strong>the</strong>right of <strong>the</strong> modal as <strong>in</strong> (3b). The approach <strong>in</strong> (8) leads us to expect movement of <strong>the</strong> Modalphrase to its usual land<strong>in</strong>g site <strong>in</strong> affirmative sentences, spec, F<strong>in</strong>P. In <strong>the</strong> (3b) order, <strong>the</strong>FOFC-offend<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itival TP <strong>the</strong>n subextracts to a Focus phrase, followed by remnanttopicalization. This yields an order <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> modal+Aux precedes <strong>the</strong> non-f<strong>in</strong>itecomplement as <strong>in</strong> (10). Crucially, because <strong>the</strong> TP <strong>in</strong> (10) targets an A-bar position, thismovement step is FOFC-exempt. (See BHR for discussion.)(10) [[ F<strong>in</strong>P nahi nuke] Top [ FocP [ TP horrelakoak maizago ikusi] Foc …]Independent evidence that <strong>the</strong> modal <strong>in</strong> (3b) sits <strong>in</strong> a derived position comes fromcomplex functional sequences preced<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> non-f<strong>in</strong>ite constituent that cannot be generated<strong>in</strong>-situ: (11) Nahi izan du beranduago etorri.Want PERF AUX later come‘She/he has wanted to come earlier.’In (11), <strong>the</strong> perfect head follows <strong>the</strong> modal, which it selects, and precedes <strong>the</strong> auxiliary,which <strong>in</strong> turn precedes <strong>the</strong> non-f<strong>in</strong>ite verb. The hierarchical relations among <strong>the</strong> differentcomponents of <strong>the</strong> sequence can be represented <strong>in</strong> terms of ei<strong>the</strong>r a head f<strong>in</strong>al structure orroll-up movement, but <strong>the</strong> relative order<strong>in</strong>g of that sequence and <strong>the</strong> non-f<strong>in</strong>ite verb cannot:<strong>the</strong> modal verb selects <strong>the</strong> non-f<strong>in</strong>ite TP, but <strong>the</strong> two elements appear on opposite sides of <strong>the</strong>sequence, and separated by o<strong>the</strong>r clausal heads. Remnant movement provides a simplerationale for this order<strong>in</strong>g, and is well attested <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r Basque focal constructions (EU).To summarize, <strong>the</strong> analysis entails: (i) that FOFC-violat<strong>in</strong>g structures are <strong>in</strong>deedgenerable by <strong>the</strong> narrow syntax contra BHR; and (ii) that FOFC violations are reparable bysubsequent movement. PF deletion of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>termediate copy of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itival TP <strong>in</strong> its FOFCviolat<strong>in</strong>gposition <strong>in</strong> spec, ModalP rescues <strong>the</strong> derivation. This suggests that FOFC effects are
- Page 1 and 2:
GLOW Newsletter #70, Spring 2013Edi
- Page 3 and 4:
INTRODUCTIONWelcome to the 70 th GL
- Page 5:
Welcome to GLOW 36, Lund!The 36th G
- Page 8 and 9:
REIMBURSEMENT AND WAIVERSThe regist
- Page 10 and 11:
STATISTICS BY COUNTRYCountry Author
- Page 12 and 13:
15:45-16:00 Coffee break16:00-17:00
- Page 14 and 15:
14:00-15:00 Adam Albright (MIT) and
- Page 16 and 17:
17:00-17:30 Anna Maria Di Sciullo (
- Page 18 and 19:
16.10-16.50 Peter Svenonius (Univer
- Page 20 and 21:
GLOW 36 WORKSHOP PROGRAM IV:Acquisi
- Page 22 and 23:
The impossible chaos: When the mind
- Page 24 and 25:
17. Friederici, A. D., Trends Cogn.
- Page 26 and 27: Second, tests replicated from Bruen
- Page 28 and 29: clusters is reported to be preferre
- Page 30 and 31: occur (cf. figure 1). Similar perfo
- Page 32 and 33: argument that raises to pre-verbal
- Page 34 and 35: Timothy Bazalgette University of
- Page 36 and 37: . I hurt not this knee now (Emma 2;
- Page 38 and 39: Rajesh Bhatt & Stefan Keine(Univers
- Page 40 and 41: SIZE MATTERS: ON DIACHRONIC STABILI
- Page 42 and 43: ON THE ‘MAFIOSO EFFECT’ IN GRAM
- Page 44 and 45: The absence of coreferential subjec
- Page 46 and 47: PROSPECTS FOR A COMPARATIVE BIOLING
- Page 48 and 49: A multi-step algorithm for serial o
- Page 50 and 51: Velar/coronal asymmetry in phonemic
- Page 52 and 53: On the bilingual acquisition of Ita
- Page 54 and 55: Hierarchy and Recursion in the Brai
- Page 56 and 57: Colorful spleeny ideas speak furiou
- Page 58 and 59: A neoparametric approach to variati
- Page 60 and 61: Lexical items merged in functional
- Page 62 and 63: Setting the elements of syntactic v
- Page 64 and 65: Language Faculty, Complexity Reduct
- Page 66 and 67: Don’t scope your universal quanti
- Page 68 and 69: Restricting language change through
- Page 70 and 71: 4. Conclusion This micro-comparativ
- Page 72 and 73: 2. Central Algonquian feature hiera
- Page 74 and 75: availability of the SR reading in (
- Page 78 and 79: a PF interface phenomenon as propos
- Page 80 and 81: (b) Once the learner has determined
- Page 82 and 83: cognitive recursion (including Merg
- Page 84 and 85: can be null, or lexically realized,
- Page 86 and 87: feature on C and applies after Agre
- Page 88 and 89: Nobu Goto (Mie University)Deletion
- Page 90 and 91: Structural Asymmetries - The View f
- Page 92 and 93: FROM INFANT POINTING TO THE PHASE:
- Page 94 and 95: Some Maladaptive Traits of Natural
- Page 96 and 97: Constraints on Concept FormationDan
- Page 98 and 99: More on strategies of relativizatio
- Page 100 and 101: ReferencesBayer, J. 1984. COMP in B
- Page 102 and 103: Improper movement and improper agre
- Page 104 and 105: Importantly, while there are plausi
- Page 106 and 107: This hypothesis makes two predictio
- Page 108 and 109: (3) a. Það finnst alltaf þremur
- Page 110 and 111: (2) Watashi-wa hudan hougaku -wa /*
- Page 112 and 113: However when the VP (or IP) is elid
- Page 114 and 115: More specifically, this work reflec
- Page 116 and 117: modality, or ii) see phonology as m
- Page 118 and 119: (I) FWHA The wh-word shenme ‘what
- Page 120 and 121: 1The historical reality of biolingu
- Page 122 and 123: Rita Manzini, FirenzeVariation and
- Page 124 and 125: Non-counterfactual past subjunctive
- Page 126 and 127:
THE GRAMMAR OF THE ESSENTIAL INDEXI
- Page 128 and 129:
Motivating head movement: The case
- Page 130 and 131:
Limits on Noun-suppletionBeata Mosk
- Page 132 and 133:
Unbounded Successive-Cyclic Rightwa
- Page 134 and 135:
Same, different, other, and the his
- Page 136 and 137:
Selectivity in L3 transfer: effects
- Page 138 and 139:
Anaphoric dependencies in real time
- Page 140 and 141:
Constraining Local Dislocation dial
- Page 142 and 143:
A Dual-Source Analysis of GappingDa
- Page 144 and 145:
[9] S. Repp. ¬ (A& B). Gapping, ne
- Page 146 and 147:
of Paths into P path and P place is
- Page 148 and 149:
Deriving the Functional HierarchyGi
- Page 150 and 151:
Reflexivity without reflexivesEric
- Page 152 and 153:
Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of b
- Page 154 and 155:
on v, one associated with uϕ and t
- Page 156 and 157:
Merge when applied to the SM interf
- Page 158 and 159:
1 SachsThe Semantics of Hindi Multi
- Page 160 and 161:
Covert without overt: QR for moveme
- Page 162 and 163:
Morpho-syntactic transfer in L3 acq
- Page 164 and 165:
one where goals receive a theta-rel
- Page 166 and 167:
51525354555657585960616263646566676
- Page 168 and 169:
follow Harris in assuming a ranked
- Page 170 and 171:
changing instances of nodes 7 and 8
- Page 172 and 173:
Sam Steddy, steddy@mit.eduMore irre
- Page 174 and 175:
Fleshing out this model further, I
- Page 176 and 177:
(5) Raman i [ CP taan {i,∗j}Raman
- Page 178 and 179:
properties with Appl (introduces an
- Page 180 and 181:
econstruct to position A then we ca
- Page 182 and 183:
(5) Kutik=i ez guret-a.dog=OBL.M 1S
- Page 184 and 185:
sults summarized in (2) suggest tha
- Page 186 and 187:
Building on Bhatt’s (2005) analys
- Page 188 and 189:
Underlying (derived from ON) /pp, t
- Page 190 and 191:
out, as shown in (3) (that the DP i
- Page 192 and 193:
Word order and definiteness in the
- Page 194 and 195:
Visser’s Generalization and the c
- Page 196 and 197:
the key factors. The combination of
- Page 198 and 199:
Parasitic Gaps Licensed by Elided S
- Page 200 and 201:
Stages of grammaticalization of the