Antisymmetry, Linearization and Movement Kazuki

REVIEW ARTICLE

ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT

KAZUKI KUWABARA Kanda University of International Studies*

Dynamic Antisymmetry, by Andrea Moro, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000, xi+142pp.

Keywords: antisymmetry, bare small clauses, copular sentences, multiple- spec constructions, split wh-movement

1. Introduction Displacement and phrase structure are specific properties of human languages, both of which have been foci of inquiries in the history of generative grammar. In the current theoretical framework, these two are generally assumed to be independent properties. For example, within the minimalist program, the displacement property of language is related to morphology: movement is regarded as a way to wipe out uninterpretable features of lexical items that do not feed the conceptual-intentional component (Chomsky (1995b)). On the other hand, the notion of phrase structure is assumed to be derived from the principles regulating the operation "Merge" (Chomsky (1995b)) or the mapping between hierachical structure and linear order (Kayne (1994)). This monograph by Andrea Moro is a collection of interesting and ambitious case studies that provides a new perspective on two central aspects of natural language, namely, movement and phrase structure. In particular, Moro explores the hypothesis that movement is triggered

* I am grateful to anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments and sug- gestions on an earlier version of this article, and to Fujie Sakai for her encourage- ment and support. I would also like to thank Bruce Horton for acting as an infor- mant and Kate Allen for stylistic improvements. All remaining errors and inade- quacies are, of course, my own.

English Linguistics 20: 1 (2003) 274-298 -274- (C) 2003 by the English Linguistic Society of Japan ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 275 by the factors associated with the geometry of phrase structure as opposed to those associated with morphology. In the discussion that follows, I will concentrate on four empirical domains to which the theory of dynamic antisymmetry has been applied and discuss some problematic aspects of their analyses. This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, I will present an overview of the theory of dynamic antisymmetry. Section 3 considers the analyses of copular sentences and split wh-movement, and discusses their potential problems. In Section 4, I will examine two instances of a multiple-spec construction. Section 5 will address some general questions that emerge from the theory of dynamic antisymmetry. Section 6 concludes the paper.

2. The Weak Version of LCA and Movement Before proceeding, let us take a brief overview of the central aspects of Kayne's (1994) theory of phrase structure, on which Moro's work is based. It has been generally assumed that linear order and hierachical structure are independent properties. Thus, any given hierarchy can be associated with more than one linear order. However, interlocking these two properties, Kayne proposed a theory of phrase structure which aims at deriving the major properties of X-bar theory from a single axiom called Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA). The basic idea of the LCA is that hierarchy and precedence are not independent, but each can be mapped onto the other. More specifically, the LCA states that given two nonterminals, X and Y, and the terminals they dominate, x and y, if X asymmetrically c-commands Y, x precedes y.1 To illustrate how the theory works, let us concentrate on the specific configuration that is excluded by the LCA. A structure like (1) in which a phrase K exhaustively dominates two nonterminals (M and P) is ruled out.

1In Kayne's theory, the notion of c-command is defined as follows: (i) X c-commands Y iff X and Y are categories and X excludes Y and every category that dominates X dominates Y. (Kayne (1994: 16)) This definition of c-command exclusively referring to categories rather than segments provides us with important consequences that there is no distinction between adjuncts and specifiers, and they can occur only once in each phrase. I will come back to this aspect of the theory in Sections 4.1-2. 276 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003)

(1)

In (1), the nonterminal M asymmetrically c-commands the nonterminal Q, and the nonterminal P also asymmetrically c-commands the nonterminal N. Therefore, the terminals dominated by M and P would not be linearly ordered. Following Moro, I will call this offending structure 'a point of symmetry.' Note here that the LCA, which excludes the structure in (1), has the effect of deriving part of the basic tenet of the X-bar theory that all phrases be headed.2 Kayne assumes that the LCA holds at all levels of representations, according to which a configuration like (1) would never be generated. However, given that the organization of words into linear order is a PF phenomenon, it is possible to regard the LCA as a condition applying at PF. This interpretation of the LCA is also desirable in the light of the minimalist thesis that all conditions must be related to either one of the interface levels (PF and LF). Adopting this weak version of the LCA, Moro, argues for the following conjecture: (2) Movement is driven by the search for antisymmetry.3 According to (2), movement is regarded as a device to nullify the point of symmetry. In other words, whenever a symmetrical structure like (1) is generated, movement intervenes to rescue the structure by turning one of the elements (i.e. either M or P) constituting the point of symmetry into a phonetically empty element (trace), which by definition is not visible in the linear sequence at PF.4 In Chapter 3, Moro identifies three types of configurations given in (3), and considers specific constructions corresponding to them:

2 For the discussion on how the LCA derives other properties of the X-bar theory, see Kayne (1994) and Cinque (1996). 3 The term "dynamic antisymmetry," which is the title of the book under review, comes from the approach that links the antisymmetry hypothesis with the theory of movement. 4 For the non-visibility of traces, see Kayne (1994: 133, n. 3) and Chomsky (1995b: 337). ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 277

(3) a. b. C.

According to Moro, (3a) is an instance of small clauses, (3b) multiple- spec constructions, and (3c) clitic complementation. Given the weak version of the LCA, the structures in (3) are tolerated before linearization is required. A question is whether these structures can indeed be generated. The answer to this question has to do with the properties of a syntactic operation, Merge. Merge is a basic syntactic operation that takes two distinct constituents α and β as input and yields a larger constituent K as output. What is the label for K ? According to Chomsky (1995b: 241-249), there are only two op- tions, which can be represented as (4):

(4) ∀ α, β, Merge yields K: a. K={α, {α, β}}

b. K={<α, α>, {α, β}} The elements contained in the braces are the constituents of the phrase, and the rest is the label of the phrase itself. According to (4), the label of the resulting constituent can be either simple as in (4a)

(either α or β, a case of substitution) or complex as in (4b) (the ordered pair of the projecting element <α, α>, a case of adjunction). As it can be seen from the labeling, the essential property of Merge is that the label of the resulting constituent is formed by adding no new information with respect to the features of α and β.5 Let us now consider whether Merge can generate the structures given in (3). Merge can generate (3b) and (3c) without any problems: in both (3b) and

(3c), either α or β is projected. In contrast, (3a) appears to be problematic, since two maximal projections are merged to yield a new maximal projection that is neither YP nor ZP. Specifically, (3a) (in this case, the label XP) does not correspond to any of the choices in (4). However, Moro argues that there is a third option to be added for the

5 Another defining property of Merge is that there are no "mixed" labels com- posed by the hybrid information of the two items merged. 278 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003) label of K, which is given below:6

(4) c. K={<0> {α, β}} (4c) illustrates the case where the newly formed constituent is under- specified with respect to the features of α and β. Notice that this oP- tion does not run against the property of Merge, since neither α nor β projects. Moro argues that the small clauses to be discussed below in- stantiate the third option given in (4c). On intuitive grounds, small clauses form syntactic units (Williams (1975)), but may not have the same distribution of either of their subparts. Thus, small clauses can be regarded as a result of merging α and β when neither of them pro- sects. Moro takes up a variety of constructions corresponding to one of the abstract structures in (3), which are heterogeneous in nature. In this article, I would like to concentrate on the instances of (3a) and (3b) and their analyses, which I think are related to each other and are the central focus of the book. In particular, I will discuss the analyses and problems of English copular sentences, split wh-movement, subject- object asymmetry in root wh-questions with respect to Subject-Aux In- version, and Italian copular sentences.

3. Bare Small Clauses 3.1. Copular Sentences Let us consider a pair of sentences like (5), in which we find two DPs around a copular verb. (5a) and (5b) are called canonical and inverse copular sentences respectively. (5) a. A picture of the wall was the cause of the riot. b. The cause of the riot was a picture of the wall. Assuming that a copular verb takes a bare small clause complement, the sentences in (5) can be derived by raising either the subject DP or the predicative DP out of the small clause, as illustrated in (6), where labeling is simplified.

6 According to Moro (pp. 118-119, n. 9), there is an alternative way to represent (4c), which is given in (i). (i) K={<α, β>, {α, β}} This format also does not conflict with the property of Merge because it has not added any extra information that is different from α and β. ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 279

(6) a. IP canonical b. IP inverse

DPi VP DPi VP

V SC V SC

ti DP DP ti This analysis raises an interesting question as to why either of the DPs can be raised. Moro demonstrates that this fact can only be accounted for by the dynamic antisymmetry approach to movement as opposed to the current theory of movement based on morphology. Let us first consider the problems the copular sentences raise for the theory of movement based on morphology. In the current approach to movement such as Chomsky (1993, 1995b), movement is assumed to be driven by the necessity of deleting uninterpretable features. Let us concentrate on the movement of the subject DP in (5a). The subject DP has a nominative Case feature, which is uninterpretable. Accord- ingly, it must move to Spec-IP where the associated Case feature is checked against 10 and deleted. There is a different way to implement this process. In more recent proposals, instead of Case feature, the EPP-feature is assumed to be a trigger for movement (Chomsky (1998, 1999)). In this analysis, the EPP-feature on I0 forces the subject DP to move and then to delete Case feature. Notice here that whatever the driving force of the movement is, the result turns out to be the same. Uninterpretable Case features must be deleted in the appropri- ate syntactic environment, usually in the spec-head relation. Within the theory of movement based on morphology, we expect that the subject DP of the inverse copular sentence in (5b) should move covertly to delete its associated nominative Case feature. However, contrary to this expectation, as Moro points out, the subject DP of an inverse copular sentence does not move either overtly or covertly. The following examples illustrate this: (7) *Which picturei do you think [[the cause of the riot]j is [SC ti tj]]? (8) a. [IP [Some student's purchase]i is [SC[every book] ti]]. b. [Ip [The cause of the riot]i isn't [SC[many pictures of the wall] ti]]. (Moro (1997b: 55)) (7) shows that the post-copular subject cannot move across the fronted 280 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003) predicate. (8) shows that the post-copular subject does not move even covertly. The subject DPs in (8) cannot have a wide scope. Thus, (8a) cannot be interpreted as 'for every book some student's purchase was that book.' Similarly, the post-copular subject in (8b) cannot take a wide scope over negation, giving rise to the interpretation 'there are many pictures of the wall such that the cause of the riot was not them.' This indicates that the subject of inverse copular sentences never undergoes movement, be it overt or covert. If movement is driven to delete uninterpretable features, we expect both DPs to move in (5), but the facts indicate that only one of the DPs moves.7 Thus, we might suspect that the movement of the DP in copular sentences is motivated by reasons other than morphology. The main properties of copular sentences are summarized in (9): (9) a. The subject DP of an inverse copular sentence does not move either overtly or covertly. b. Either one of the two DPs inside the small clause obligatorily moves out. According to Moro, the properties in (9) should be traced back to the structure of the small clause. In (6), within the small clause, the two DPs c-command each other, constituting a point of symmetry. There- fore, the terminal nodes dominated by these DPs would not be linearized. Here the movement intervenes to break an offending configuration by turning one of the poles of a point of symmetry into an unpronounced category, which is not visible in the linear sequence. Under this approach, the problem associated with the property (9a) does not arise. Once the point of symmetry is removed, there is no need for covert movement. Dynamic antisymmetry also derives the property stated in (9b). For the purposes of the LCA, the movement of either one of the DPs will be sufficient to correct the point of symmetry. Thus, only one of the DPs is forced to move. This analysis makes an interesting prediction about the structures of complement clauses such as those given in (10)-(11), which on the sur- face resemble the structure of the bare small clause. (10) a. The police consider [John the real murderer]. b. I consider [John the best teacher on campus].

7 See Moro (p. 43) for the argument that we cannot consistently appeal to the alternative operation Agree to account for this property. ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 281

(11) I imagined [her a saint]. If the theory of movement based on the antiysmmetry hypothesis is on the right track, it follows that a so-called small clause complement cannot be just a bare small clause structure. It is predicted that the complement clauses in (10)-(11) involve an extra syntactic layer above the bare small clause.8 The support for this analysis of the complement clauses in (10) comes from the following fact about sentence adverbs: (12) a. The police consider John probably the real murderer. b. I consider John hardly the best teacher on campus. Since adverbs like probably and hardly are affiliated to the IP layer, the examples in (12) suggest that what seems to be a bare small clause in (10) in fact involves the same structure as the infinitival complement clauses in (13). (13) a. The police consider [John to be the real murderer]. b. I consider [John to be the best teacher on campus]. A similar analysis can be extended to (11). (11) can be paraphrased as (14), in which the subject and the predicate DPs are separated by the preposition as, which can be regarded as an indication that the subject DP has moved to the position that neutralizes the point of symmetry. (14) I imagined [her as a saint]. There is another class of verbs that take the same type of small clause complement but require as. Verbs like regard fall in this class. (15) I regarded them *(as) clowns. A specific analysis of these small clauses does not concern us here. However, what is important is that there is an indication that what looks like a bare small clause involves an extra functional projection.9 So far, we have seen that the implications for the analyses of small clauses are indeed borne out, thus lending support for the theory of dynamic antisymmetry. Although Moro's analysis of copular sentences provides a natural explanation for their properties stated in (9), it raises new problems. From the perspective of dynamic antisymmetry, once movement has nullified the structure incompatible with the LCA, there should not be

8 Moro (pp. 44-46) argues that the complement clause of believe-type verbs in Italian, which resembles a bare small clause, also involves richer structure. 9 For the analysis of the complement clauses with as, see Aarts (1992). 282 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003) any further movement, from which the property stated in (9a) was made to follow. Assuming that all movements are LCA-driven, we should be able to detect a symmetric structure hidden behind movement. To illustrate the point, let us consider the following examples: (16) a. These pictures seem to be the cause of the riot. b. The cause of the riot seems to be these pictures. (17) a. John seems to be the best candidate. b. The best candidate seems to be John. These examples indicate that either the fronted predicate or the subject DPs can undergo raising. In (16)-(17), the relevant DP moves in two steps, as illustrated in (18). (18) a. [IPDPi seem [ti to be [SCti DP]]]

b. [IP DPi seem [ti to be [SCDP ti]]]

As indicated earlier, the first step of the movement in (18) is motivated by the necessity to meet the antisymmetry requirement. However, it is not easy to give the same characterization to the movement of the second step. It is generally assumed that a raising predicate takes an IP as its complement. The evidence usually adduced for the IP complementation of raising predicates comes from the distribution of NP traces: Like anaphors, NP traces are subject to the Binding Principle A. Thus, an NP trace as well as an anaphor cannot be separated from its antecedent by the CP boundary. (19) *Johni seems that it is believed ti by everyone. (20) a. *Thomasi believes [CPthat himselfi is a good candidate]. b. *Johni arranged [PCfor himselfi to win]. c. *Maryi wanted very much [CPfor herselfi to resign]. However, from the perspective of dynamic antisymmetry, the infinitival complement to a raising predicate should have more structure above IP, which crucially contains a point of symmetry. It might be possible to argue, as Moro in fact does for the structure of finite clauses, that the infinitival clause is actually a bare small clause. Independently of the issues under consideration here, Moro argues that IPs are interpreted as predicative structures along with small clauses. In other words, the subject DP and IP form a small clause, not an asymmetric projection of IP, as usually assumed. ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 283

(21)

Assuming that this is the structure of the infinitival complement clause of raising predicates, the movement in the second step in (18) can be accounted for in the same way as the movement in the first step. In (21), the subject DP and its predicate IP are in a mutual c-command relation, thus in violation of the LCA. Accordingly, movement intervenes to restore the offending structure that would otherwise fail to be linearized at PF. Here a question arises as to how raising predicates can select a complement clause that has no label. Recall from the discussion in Section 2 that a bare small clause is the result of merging α and β when neither of them projects. Thus, the bare small clause is a constituent without a label. However, the problem does not arise, if we assume with Collins (1999) that the concept of label is not needed for selection.10,11 To illustrate the point, let us consider the following examples: (22) a. John asked what time it was. b. John asked the time. In (22), the verb ask selects for a "question," and it can be realized either as a CP or a DP. These examples demonstrate, according to Collins, that the s-selection cannot be described in terms of the property of the label of the complement. For example, the label of the complement clause in (22a) is a Q complementizer. There is no Q complementizer in (22b) but the complement, whose label is a definite determiner, is still a question. Therefore, labels are not required for s- selection. If this is the case, the problem having to do with the bare small clause simply does not arise. In other words, all we need to say is that rasing predicates select for a proposition. Furthermore, it should be noted here that Moro's analysis of the bare small clause as an unlabeled constituent provides support for Collins's proposal for

10 I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this line of argumenta- tion to me. 11 More precisely, Collins argues for the label free theory. For example, he demonstrates that syntactic operations such as Merge, Agree or Move need not refer to labels. 284 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003) eliminating labels. Before we leave this section, let us consider another problem, which has to do with the structure of the complement clauses of believe-type verbs. If the movement of the infinitival subject is to be made to follow from the symmetric nature of the structure (21), we should expect that the infinitival complement of believe-type verbs should have a different structure. In other words, we are led to assume that infinitival complements like (23) contain an extra syntactic layer above the small clause, which crucially does not create a point of symmetry. (23) a. I consider [a picture of a politician to be the cause of the riot]. b. I consider [him to be a complete idiot]. However, the following examples show that the infinitival complement of believe-type verbs has the same structure as that of raising predicates. (24) a. A picture of a politician is considered [t to be the cause of the riot]. b. He is considered [t to be a complete idiot]. We recognize a puzzle here. From the perspective of dynamic antisymmetry, the infinitival complement clause in (23) does not contain a point of symmetry, but at the same time the examples in (24) point to the opposite conclusion. The problem with (24) is part of a larger problem of how to derive passive. 12 Within the theory of movement based on dynamic antisymmetry, the subject DP in passive will not be derived unless it is possible to assume that the subject DP in a passive sentence and its corresponding object DP in an active sentence are merged in different syntactic positions.13 However, such an assumption would lead us to postulate different underlying structures for every pair of sentences like an active-passive pair, which have different PFs. This is clearly an undesirable result. Thus, at this point, we still need to posit an EPP-feature that triggers A-movement in passive.

3.2. Split Wh-Movement As another case of the bare small clause, Moro takes up one type of

12 Moro (p. 126, n. 53) acknowledges that other types of A-movement such as the subject movement out of VP and the movement in unaccusatives are also problematic. 13 On this point, see also Pereltsvaig (2001). ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 285 wh-movement constructions found in languages like Dutch and Ger- man. In these languages the wh-element and its associated noun phrase can be split, as illustrated in the following example from Dutch. (25) Wat heeft Jan voor boeken gelezen? what has John for books read What books has John read?' ' (Bennis (1995: 32)) Examples like (25) are usually analyzed as having the following structure, where the wh-element is extracted from the complex specifier of the NP leaving the rest in-situ. (26) Wat heeft Jan [NP[t voor] [N' boeken]] gelezen? Putting details of the analysis aside, it may be asked why only the wh- element moves out in this construction. In other words, what triggers this type of wh-movement? Moro argues that the splitting phenomenon can be accounted for in the same manner as copular sentences discussed in the previous section. In particular, he proposes that wh-elements such as what and which are to be analyzed as predicates. On this account, the wh-element and its associated NP form a small clause structure as in (27). (27)

The intuition underlying this analysis is that wh-phrases like what and which are associated with the phrase this type in (29). Assuming that this semantic relation is directly reflected in syntax, (27) would be a possible structure for the wh-element with NPs. 14 (28) What books/Which books did John read? (29) John read books of this type. Given that wh-elements with NPs involve a bare small clause, we have an explanation for the splitting phenomenon. Moro suggests that examples like (25) contain the following structure, in which voor takes a

14 If the wh-phrases with an NP are to be associated with their non-wh counterparts, the relevant NP in (29) should also be analyzed as involving a small clause structure. Moro (pp. 52-53) suggests an analysis like (i), in which the preposition of takes a small clause. (i) John read [... of [sc books this type]]. This analysis might explain why either of the DPs can be raised to the position immediately preceding the preposition, which parallels copular sentences we saw in Section 3.1. See also Kayne (1994) and Den Dikken (1998). 286 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003) small clause. (30)

In (30), the small clause constitutes a point of symmetry, which pushes up the wh-element to the specifier of voor. However, this is not the end of the derivation. The wh-element further moves up to the Spec- CP position. From the perspective of dynamic antisymmetry, there should be another offending structure. According to Moro, the V0 and the wh-element are the sources of symmetry, which trigger the second movement (31)

In (31) the head V0 c-commands wat and wat c-commands V0 because only one of the segments of PP dominates wat.15 Thus, wat is forced to move out again to restore the offending structure. Given that (31) is the source of symmetry that triggers the movement, it follows that the splitting should not be the only option. Specifically, we expect that the option of pied-piping the entire PP would be also available. The following example shows that this prediction is borne out:

15 More precisely, for two nonterminals to constitute a point of symmetry, it must be that either they both immediately dominate a terminal node or they both dominate a nonterminal node. Since V0 dominates a terminal node, for the structure in (31) to constitute a point of symmetry wat has to be a head. Moro (pp. 56-59) argues that like clitic pronouns, wat is ambiguous between a head and a phrase. ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 287

(32) [Wat voor boeken] heeft Jan gelezen? what for books has John read ' What books has he read?' (Bennis (1995: 32)) Exactly the same paradigm can be reproduced for German, thus pro- viding support for Moro's analysis sketched above. (33) a. Was hat Luise fur Bucher gekauft? wat has Luise for books bought What books has Luise bought?'' b. Was fur Bucher hat Luise gekauft? what for books has Luise bought What books has Luise bought?'' (Beck (1996: 72-74)) So far we have seen that the wh-movement with noun phrases can be analyzed in the same way as inverse copular sentences in that the predicate is pushed out of the small clause. Comparing the analysis of the split wh-movement with that of copular sentences, there is one important difference. According to dynamic antisymmetry, movement is a blind operation that applies to the output of Merge, breaking one of the poles constituting a point of symmetry. This is exactly the situation we saw with copular sentences. However, this is not what hap- pens in the split wh-movement in Dutch and German. Recall that the problem with the structure (31) was V0 and the wh-element. If it is the LCA that pushes out the wh-element, the wh-element should never occur in-situ. However, as indicated by the following example from German, the wh-element together with its associated NP does show up in multiple questions. (34) Warum hat Karl der Maria [was fur Bucher] gegeben? why has Karl Maria what for books given Why has Karl given Mary what books?' ' (Muller (1998: 319)) Multiple wh-questions like (34) appear to be a problem for the account of split wh-movement discussed above. Below I will speculate on a possible solution to the problem and the related issue. In languages like Dutch and German, the verb obligatorily undergoes V-movement. As a result, the wh-phrase in-situ may not constitute a point of symmetry with the verb.16 Thus, the availability of a wh-phrase in-situ in-

16 This solution cannot be extended to English multiple wh-questions, because the lexical verb does not undergo V-movement in English. 288 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003) dicates that it is V-movement rather than wh-movement that serves to restore a point of symmetry in the structure (31). However, this line of solution raises a new question about the status of wh-movement that applies to the structure (31). For the purposes of dynamic antisymmetry, once V-movement applies, wh-movement would be superfluous. Therefore, to obtain a single wh-question, we still need to posit a movement operation that is triggered by factors other than the geometry of phrase structure. The most likely factor here would be an uninterpretable feature associated with C that requires a wh-phrase in its Spec, as assumed in Chomsky (1998).

4. Multiple-Spec Constructions Let us now consider another source of symmetry, which involves adjunction to a maximal projection, as illustrated in (3b). Within the LCA framework, adjuncts are identified as specifiers, and specifiers can c-command out of the maximal projection that contains them.17 Given these premises, if a (n) adjunct/specifier is added to a structure with a (n) adjunct/specifier, the resulting structure is not compatible with LCA. Thus, under Kayne's system (where the LCA is assumed to be a pervasive condition), there can be at most one adjunct/specifier per head. 18 Under the dynamic antisymmetry approach, multiple-spec constructions can be generated, provided that the relevant point of symmetry is neutralized by movement. Moro takes up two empirical cases of a multiple-spec construction, root wh-movement and inverse copular sentences in Italian, to which I will turn below.

4.1. Root Wh-Question Moro explores a possible account that dynamic antisymmetry can provide for the well-known subject-object asymmetry in matrix wh- questions with respect to Subject-Aux Inversion (SAI). (35) a. *Which boy did [t read this book]? b. Which boy [t read this book]?

17 If we replace the second mention of category with segment in the definition of c-command given in footnote 1, this property will not be derived. 18 But see Chomsky (1995b) for the proposal that allows multiple-spec constructions. ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 289

c. Which book did [this boy read t]? d. *Which book [this boy read t]? Moro exploits the idea that when the object is mapped into a specifier- like position as in (35d), it can potentially be a point of symmetry. This is the result of the subject being already in the specifier position. To illustrate the problem more clearly, let us first concentrate on the putative structure of (35d). The wh-phrase takes its scope over IP, and this can be represented by the following structure, where which book is adjoined to IP. Then, the question is why adjunction to IP does not suffice. (36)

Dynamic antisymmetry offers an explanation for why (36) is not a possible structure. Although the adjunction to IP might give the wh- phrase its proper scope, the result of the operation is in violation of the LCA. In (36) the fronted wh-phrase and the subject NP are in a mutual c-command relation, constituting a point of symmetry. Ac- cordingly, the non-subject wh-phrase must move to a higher position, where the moved non-subject wh-phrase and the subject NP would not constitute a potential point of symmetry. Under this approach, SAI can be regarded as a way to ensure that the fronted non-subject wh-phrase is not in the position to create a point of symmetry with the subject NP.19 The fact that the grammar does not allow the option in (36) was previously stipulated as a requirement on wh-phrases and [+whJC0.20

19 However, this does not explain why a [+wh] C0 must be overtly realized by SAT. See Moro (pp. 67-68) for the argument that the overt realization of C0 should not be accounted for by a theory of movement. 20 For example, this requirement was formulated as Wh-Criterion in Rizzi (1996), which is given below: (i) a. A WH-operator must be in a Spec-head configuration with an X0 with the feature [WH]. b. An X0 with the feature [WH] must be in a Spec-head configuration with a WH-operator. 290 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003)

The dynamic antisymmetry approach to movement offers a natural explanation as to why the operation in (36) is not possible. Moro considers various consequences of this analysis. Here I will discuss two of them, which I think are of theoretical importance. The first conse- quence has to do with the immobility of the subject wh-phrase. The dynamic antisymmetry approach would predict that the subject wh- phrase does not move to Spec-CP. The subject, which is in Spec-IP position, and I0 do not c-command each other, and the relevant structure is compatible with LCA. Therefore, the movement of a subject wh-phrase is unnecessary. If this is correct, we have an immediate explanation for the absence of SAI in (35a). Moro further corroborates the conclusion by demonstrating that dynamic antisymmetry can predict the following complex array of data about wh-island effects. (37) a. ?Which book do you wonder [CP t [C] [IP which boy read t]]? b. *Which boy do you wonder [CP which book [C][t read t]]? (38) *How do you wonder [which boy read this book t]? (p. 64) If the subject remains in Spec-IP, the Spec-CP will be available for other wh-phrases to move in. This option is unavailable for (37b). Thus, the contrast in (37) favors the vacuous movement hypothesis. However, the extraction of an adjunct wh-phrase results in the same grammatical status as the object extraction, which seems to be a puzzle. Moro argues that the dynamic antisymmetry approach to movement opens up a way to solve this puzzle. This in part has to do with the definition of c-command adopted for the LCA. The definition of c- command adopted here allows a specifier to c-command out of its phrase. Kayne (1994: 24) shows with examples like (39) that the specifier of a DP can c-command out of the DP. (39) a. [Nobody's [articles]] ever get published fast enough. b. *[Articles by nobody] ever get published fast enough. Negative polarity items like ever must be c-commanded by negation. If the specifier of DP can c-command out of its phrase, the licensing condition on ever is met in (39a) but not in (39b). According to Moro, the paradoxical situation we saw with (37) and (38) can be accounted for if this property of specifier is combined with the aspects of the Relativized Minimality approach to locality. Rizzi (1990) proposed that adjuncts, unlike arguments, must fulfill the antecedent gov- ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 291 ernment requirement because they are non-referential. Since the wh- phrase in the Spec of DP in the subject position can c-command out of the DP, it can potentially block the antecedent government of the adjunct. Although Moro does not consider this, the account described above makes a further prediction. In particular, it is expected that the adjunct wh-phrase can be extracted over the subject wh-phrase, if the lat- ter is not in the Spec of DP. However, this prediction is not borne out. (40) a. *How do you wonder a book by whom was published? b. *How carefully do you ask articles on what should be read? However, the ungrammaticality of (40) does not falsify the analysis sketched above because the possibility of pied-piping in wh-movement is severely restricted, as noted by Lasnik and Saito (1992: 169): (41) a. *[On which table] did you put the book? b. *[After buying what] did John leave? c. *[The man that bought what] did John see? Summarizing the discussion so far, dynamic antisymmetry offers a natural explanation for the paradigm given in (35).21 Before we leave this section, let us consider a potential problem that might arise from the analysis in question. The problem has to do with the configuration given in (36). The relevant structure might be sufficient to represent an operator-variable relation, but it is not sufficient for other reasons: it is not compatible with the LCA. Then, we expect that if the operator in the A'-position is phonetically null, the structure corresponding to (36) should be tolerated because a null operator need not be linearized. For example, it might be possible to analyze a relative clause that involves a null operator as having a structure parallel to (36), as in (42). (42) the book [IP Opi [IPJohn wrote ti]]. However, C0 can be overtly realized in relative clauses, which indicates that the operator has moved to the position above C.

21 The analysis of wh-movement discussed in this section requires radical rethink ing of the analysis of the structures of embedded clauses in order to allow wh-movement out of embedded clauses. For the discussion on this point, see Moro (pp. 69-78). 292 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003)

(43) the book that John wrote. Since there is no source of symmetry involved in (42), the movement of a null operator to Spec-CP cannot be related to the LCA. This situation seems to weaken Moro's argument that the reason for the movement of a non-subject wh-phrase to Spec-CP is to avoid the structure (36).22

4.2. Inverse Copular Constructions in Italian The empirical cases we have considered so far consisted of movement of some kinds, whose trigger has been related to the role of traces; namely, traces do not interfere with linearization. Given that dynamic antisymmetry is sensitive to empty categories, movement need not be a sole option to restore the structures incompatible with the LCA. In other words, we should expect that a pronominal empty category could serve the same function as non-pronominal empty categories found in movement constructions. Moro argues that Italian (inverse) copular sentences such as those in (44) are best analyzed as a multiple-spec construction, which is tolerated by virtue of pro. (44) a. [Queste foto del muro] sono [la causa della these pictures of-the wall are the cause of-the rivolta]. riot 'These pictures of the wall are the cause of the riot.' b. [La causa della rivolta] sono [queste foto del the cause of-the riot are these pictures of-the muro]. wall 'The cause of the riot is these pictures of the wall.' (p. 80) These Italian couplar sentences and their English translations look

22 The problem may not arise if one abandons the null-operator movement analysis of relative clauses. Although Moro does not discuss the issue, if the hypothesis in (2) were to be pushed to the limit, the movement of any type of empty category would be a problem. Given the premises that empty categories are exempt from the LCA, and movement is defined as a symmetry-breaking device, it would be sur- prising to find null-operator movement constructions. Whether the grammar should allow null-operator movement is an empirical question, which I will not in- vestigate in this article. ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 293 almost identical. However, there is one property peculiar to Italian copular sentences that is not shared by the English counterparts. In (44), unlike their English analogues, the copulative verb in Italian al- ways agrees with the subject of predication. Assuming that verb agreement with the subject is established in a spec-head relation, the Italian inverse copular sentence cannot be analyzed as (45) along the same line as English copular constructions discussed in Section 3.1, because la causa is singular. (45)

To account for this fact, Moro argues that the underlying structure of (44b), for example, is the one given in (46), where pro occurs in the Spec of IP. (46) [IPpro sono [SC[DP queste foto de muro] [DP la causa della rivolta]]] Given (46), Moro further suggests that the pro and the subject DP inside the small clause agree, in a way similar to the agreement of the overt pronoun in copular sentences like (47).23 (47) Gianni e Maria sono lo. Gianni and Maria are them Gianni and Marie are them.'' (p. 81) The small clause in (46) contains a point of symmetry, which must be neutralized. Therefore, one of the DPs must undergo movement. Let us concentrate on the derivation of the inverse copular sentence (44b). Moro argues that the predicate DP has landed the position adjoined to IP, as in (48). (48) [IP [DP 1a causa della rivolta] [IPpro sono [SC [DP queste foto del muro] t]]] Now the structure created by the movement of the predicate DP is

23 Moro assumes that since the predicate DP is non-referential, there is no possibility of the pro to agree with it. 294 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003)

identical with the structure associated with a multiple-spec construction. Consider the following fragment of the structure: (49)

In (49), the fronted predicate DP and pro are in a mutual c-command relation. However, unlike the structure (36) discussed in the previous section, (49) can be tolerated at PF, provided that unpronounced categories are exempt from the LCA. Thus, the fronted predicate DP need not move to a higher position that might be available at the left- edge of the clause (Rizzi (1997)). This analysis makes a prediction that the pro can never be replaced with an overt pronoun because that structure would patently violate the LCA.24 Moro shows that the feminine plural pronoun esse in place of the pro in (48) renders the sentence unacceptable: (50) *La causa della rivolta esse sono queste foto del the cause of-the riot they are the pictures of-the muro. wall Moro's analysis discussed in this section, I believe, illustrates a very interesting case where a pronominal empty category is shown to serve the same function as traces left by wh-movement, which reinforces the central thesis of dynamic antisymmetry.

5. The Role of Uninterpretable Features in Syntax As it has already become evident, the theory of dynamic antisymmetry has departed from the standard minimalist theory of movement in that movement is assumed to be triggered by the factors associated with phrase structure geometry. Thus, under this theory, morphological factors do not play any role in movement. In this section, I would like

24 More precisely, the prediction should be that the overt pronoun in place of the pro would render the sentence ungrammatical unless the offending structure is re- stored by movement. Unfortunately, I have no data at hand to confirm the prediction. ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 295

to consider the issues concerning the role of uninterpretable features, which are give below.25 (51) a. How are uninterpretable features deleted? b. Are all the properties of movement explained by dynamic antisymmetry? The first question arises from the very nature of the dynamic antisymmetry hypothesis. Dynamic antisymmetry is an attempt to dissociate uninterpretable features from movement. This dissociation, however, does not entail that there are no uninterpretable features at all. Thus, we are left with uninterpretable features, which must be deleted for LF convergence. Then, it is quite natural to ask how uninterpretable features, for example, Case features, are deleted. One possibility, which seems to be consistent with dynamic antisymmetry, would be to assume with Chomsky (1998) that uninterpretable features are deleted by Agree, where the Case features are viewed as a reflex of an uninter-

pretable φ-set on I0.26 Therefore, it seems that dynamic antisymmetry fares better with Chomsky's (1998) framework, where Case-checking requirements do not motivate movement, than his earlier ones. Let us next turn to (51b), which has already been raised in the discussion on the movement of an ECM subject and split wh-movement. In Section 3.1, we saw that an ECM construction is a potential problem for dynamic antisymmetry. In particular, we have seen that the movement of the ECM subject in passive will not be allowed unless it is possible to assume that the derived subject in (24) and its corresponding infinitival subject in (23) are merged in different structures. With- out any compelling evidence for this assumption, we still need to posit an uninterpretable feature such as an EPP-feature on I0 that triggers A- movement of the ECM subject. In Section 3.2, we also noted a similar problem with respect to wh- movement. Although the wh-movement out of the bare small clause is motivated by the LCA, it cannot be a driving force of the wh-movement that applies to the structure (31), given that the same wh-phrase can remain in-situ in multiple wh-questions. Dynamic antisymmetry,

25 In Chapter 4, Moro speculates on a question similar to (51b): Are all movements explained by dynamic antisymmetry? He considers the implications of dynamic antisymmetry for covert movement. 26 On this point, see also Hoge (2001). 296 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003) as it stands, does not say anything about what position a wh-phrase must move to. Therefore, an uninterpretable feature of C, which requires a wh-phrase, is still needed to fully derive the split wh-movement constructions. The discussion so far suggests that at this point, we need at least two distinct types of movement operations, the one driven by the LCA, and the other driven by uninterpretable features like an EPP, as assumed in Chomsky (1998).

6. Conclusion The main goal of the book under review is to propose a theory of movement in which movement and the geometry of phrase structure are interlocked in a non-trivial way. In this review article, I have fo- cused on four case studies to which the theory of dynamic antisymmetry has been applied, and discussed potential problems with Moro's analyses. As I mentioned at the outset, this monograph contains interesting and ambitious case studies in that it attempts to uncover the otherwise hidden symmetry-breaking nature of different types of movement operations. Although I have raised questions and made some critical comments on the analyses, I hasten to add that these questions arise because of the innovative proposal Moro makes and his explicit analyses of the phenomena. Thus, Moro's Dynamic Antisymmetry is of great value to anyone who is working on topics related to movement and phrase structure.

REFERENCES

Aarts, Bas (1992) Small Clauses in English: The Nonverbal Types, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Beck, Sigrid (1996) Wh-Constructions and Transparent Logical Form, Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Tubingen, Tubingen. Bennis, Hans (1995)“The Meaning of Structure: The Wat Voor Construction

Revisited,”Linguistics in the Netherlands 12, ed. by Marvel den Dikken and Kees Hengeveld, 25-36, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dor- drecht. Chomsky, Noam (1986a) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Chomsky, Noam (1986b) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger, New York. ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 297

Chomsky, Noam (1993)“A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory,”The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromber- ger, ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1-52, MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA. [Reprinted in The Minimalist Program, by Noam Chomsky, 1995, 167-217, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.] Chomsky, Noam (1995a) “Bare Phrase Structure,”Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, ed. by Gert Webelhuth, 383-439, Blackwell, Oxford. Chomsky, Noam (1995b)“Categories and Transformations,”The Minimalist Program, by Noam Chomsky, 219-394, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Chomsky, Noam (1998) Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15. [Reprinted in Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 2000, 89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.] Chomsky, Noam (1999) Derivation by Phase, MIT Occasional Papers in Lin- guistics 18. [Reprinted in Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 2001, 1-52, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.] Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik (1993)“The Theory of Principles and Pa-

rameters,”Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. by Joachim Jacobs, Armin von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld and Theo Vennemann, 506-569, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. [Reprinted in The Minimalist Program, by Noam Chomsky, 1995, 1-127, MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA.] Cinque, Guglielmo (1996)“The‘Antisymmetric’Programme: Theoretical and

Typological Implications,”Journal of Linguistics 32, 447-464.

Collins, Chris (1999)“Eliminating Labels,”ms., Cornell University.

Dikken, Marcel den (1998)“Predicate Inversion in DP,”Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder, 177-214, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. George, Leland Maurice (1980) Analogical Generalization in Natural Language Syntax, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Hoge, Kerstin (2001)“Review: Moro, Dynamic Antisymmetry,”rns., Universi- ty of Oxford. Kayne, Richard S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kayne, Richard S. (1998)“Overt vs. Covert Movement,”Syntax 12, 128-191. Koopman, Hilda (1983)“ECP Effects in Main Clauses,”Linguistic InquiYy 14, 346-350. Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1992) Move α: Conditions on Its Applica- tion and Output, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Moro, Andrea (1997a) The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Moro, Andrea (1997b)“Dynamic Antisymmetry: Movement as a Symmetry-

Breaking Phenomenon,”Studia Linguistica 51, 50-76. 298 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003)

Muller, Gereon (1998) Incomplete Category Fronting: A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German, Kluwer, Dordrecht. Pereltsvaig, Asya (2001)“Review: Moro, Dynamic Anitysmmetry,”ms., McGill University. Rizzi, Luigi (1990) Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Rizzi, Luigi (1996)“Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion,”Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax, ed. by Adriana Bel- letti and Luigi Rizzi, 63-90, Oxford University Press, New York.

Rizzi, Luigi (1997)“The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery,”Elements of Grammar, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281-337, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Williams, Edwin (1975)“Small Clauses in English,”Syntax and Semantics 4, ed. by John Kimball, 249-273. Academic Press, New York.

Department of English Kanda University of International Studies 1-4-1 Wakaba, Mihama-ku, Chiba-shi Chiba 261-0014 e-mail: [email protected]