1 the Ergative Analysis and the Unaccusative Hypothesis

Notes

1 The Ergative Analysis and the Unaccusative Hypothesis

1. I coin this label deliberately in order to distinguish the approach in question from the Unaccusative Hypothesis (see 1.2 below), which strictly speaking can only be expressed within the framework of Relational Grammar. 2. The term ‘ergative’ in this sense is due to Burzio (1981, 1986), while ‘unaccusative’ fi gures prominently after the publication of Perlmutter 1978, but is apparently due to Geoffrey Pullum (exact source unknown). Burzio’s use of the term ‘ergative’ represents a continuation and extension of the common 1960s and 1970s usage to denote intransitive occurrences of verbs like roll or sink (The boulder rolled down the hill; The ship sank) as opposed to their transitive occurrences (We rolled the boulder down the hill; They sank the ship). For this more specifi c sense, see Lyons (1968). In typological studies, ‘ergative’ denotes the case assigned to transitive subjects in mor- phologically ergative languages. The latter use will not fi gure in this book. 3. Unlike Belletti, Burzio (1986) drew no distinction between indefi nite and defi nite postverbal unaccusative subjects, both of which he assumed to remain in situ. 4. Another means of capturing syntactically the unaccusative–unergative distinction is inspired by a line of research stemming from Larson (1988). Within that approach, it is assumed that VP is subdivided into an inner VP and an outer ‘shell’, denoted by ‘vp’. Unergative subjects are then regarded as originating or (externally) ‘merging’ in spec-vp, while unaccusative subjects are analysed as originating either as the complement of V (as under the original theory) or in spec-VP. For the fi rst of these latter suppositions, see Bennis (2004), and for the second, Radford (1997:399). Compare also the framework devised by Bowers (2001:309), who argues that unergative subjects originate in the specifi er position of a predicate constituent (labelled ‘Pr’), which is superordinate to VP, while unaccusative subjects originate in the specifi er of VP. 5. In fact, as will be pointed out in 3.2.6, the c-command analysis of ne is empirically inadequate. This was noted long ago by Belletti and Rizzi (1981:127). 6. It is commonly supposed, however, that this does not apply when the participle is embedded under a perfect auxiliary. 7. An additional approach, which appears to have been advanced primarily for Germanic languages, involves the stipulation that ‘have’ and ‘be’ select vp complements that respectively have and do not have a thematic argument in their specifi er (see, for example, Radford 1997:399). Given the usual assumption (within the vp shell framework) that unergative subjects, but not unaccusative subjects, are (externally) merged in spec-vp, this stipula-

187 188 Notes

tion guarantees that unergatives will be associated with auxiliary ‘have’ and unaccusatives with auxiliary ‘be’. 8. Within this framework, unaccusative verbs are verbs that ‘determine’ (Perlmutter 1978:162) an initially unaccusative stratum. 9. The 2hood analysis also enables passive subjects and subjects of raising predicates to be brought under the same descriptive generalization as unaccusative subjects. 10. The ‘tail b’ terminology simply indicates that the classifi cation of the nominal applies to its occurrence in clause b. 11. This latter condition is designed to reserve ne-cliticization to postverbal indefi nite subjects, which are analysed by Perlmutter as chomeurs rather than 1s (see example (4) in the text above). 12. ‘Object arc’ is a portmanteau term equivalent to ‘either a 2-arc or a 3-arc’, where 3s are indirect objects. 13. The qualifi cation ‘P-initial’ (suggesting ‘Predicate-initial’) rules out the possibility that the nominal is an initial 2 in relation to a construction involving an auxiliary, as in the ungrammatical example below:

*State cadute le arance dall’albero, nessuno le raccolse. (Loporcaro 2003, p. 223) ‘The oranges having been fallen from the tree, nobody picked them up.’

14. The brother-in-law is the postverbal indefi nite nominal in the ‘impersonal’ construction illustrated by example (4). 15. Spanish pasar is standardly classifi ed as unaccusative (see, for example, Torrego 1989, Garrido 1996). Note in particular that (i) it is routinely cited as the type of verb that has bare subject capability (the main Spanish-internal diagnostic for unaccusativity), (ii) it occurs in participial absolutes (Pasados los botes a la otra ribera . . . ‘With the boats having passed to the other bank . . .’), (iii) it falls within the unaccusative semantic spectrum on Sorace’s cross-linguistic Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy (see Sorace 2000), and (iv) its Italian equivalent is assigned perfect auxiliary ‘be’. 16. Note, though, that in Lasnik’s view (1999:186), accusative objects acquire the necessary ‘height’ to c-command into an adjunct by raising overtly to an object agreement projection for case-checking purposes. However, Lasnik then acknowledges that the failure of a transitive direct object to control into an adjunct (as in my example (12)) is ‘mysterious’ (1999:189). 17. Notice that, unlike accusative direct objects (see note 16), postverbal unaccusative subjects are not widely assumed to have to raise out of their base position for case-checking purposes (not when they are indefi nite, at least). For example, in Belletti’s partitive/inherent case framework, it is assumed that indefi nite postverbal unaccusative subjects have their case licensed in their base position (see Belletti 1999: 34). The same applies if postverbal unaccusative subjects are assumed to have nominative case, because they then naturally fall within the scope of the ‘long-distance agreement’ ana- Notes 189

lytical paradigm associated prototypically with expletive associates in English. Within Chomsky’s probe-goal theory, an expletive associate (hence, by implication, a postverbal unaccusative subject also) is licensed in its base position, through agreement with the abstract T(ense) constituent, which c-commands it (see Chomsky 1998: 123). 18. On the other hand, Chomsky cites the possibility of ne-cliticization from the postverbal subject in this type of sentence as evidence that it occupies complement (direct object) position. 19. Curiously, Perlmutter (1983:150) denies the possibility in Italian of examples such as this one. He basis this generalization on the apparent deviancy of the following example:

(i) Sono rimasti nel paese dei profughi ungheresi senza ottenere permessi di lavoro. ‘Some Hungarian refugees remained in the country without obtaining work permits.’

Presumably the deviancy here results from something speciﬁ c to this particular example, rather than from a general prohibition on the conﬁ guration in question. Possibly the problem stems from the information structure implied by the placement of dei profughi ungheresi after the prepositional complement nel paese. Belletti (1999:37) analyses ‘reordered’ structures of this sort as having a topicalized VP and a focalized subject. Conceivably the relevant adjunct control is degraded under a marked information structure of this kind. 20. Marandin (2001) observes a parallel control disparity, internal to French, between the il construction and certain ‘stylistic’ inversion constructions not involving il:

(i) *Il est entré deux hommes avinés sans frapper/en riant. ‘Two drunk men entered without knocking/while laughing.’ (ii) *Il est entré sans frapper/en riant deux hommes avinés. ‘Two drunk men entered without knocking/while laughing.’ (iii) Alors sont entrés sans frapper/en riant deux hommes avinés. ‘Then two drunk men entered without knocking/while laughing.’

Marandin’s conclusions are rather different from those drawn here. In addition, he assumes (erroneously) that the ‘stylistic’ inversion illustrated by (iii) is limited to unaccusative verbs. (See Legendre and Sorace 2003 for a demonstration of this error.) 21. This example is cited by Martin and Wilmet (1980: 201). 22. Burzio 1986 (152–3) attempted to account for the French–Italian disparity in terms of his binding-related analysis of perfect auxiliary selection (see 1.1 above). He argued that the relevant binding relation was weaker in the case of passives than in that of unaccusatives, because with passives it had to cross a small-clause boundary (assuming a small-clause analysis of passives). Accordingly, some degree of variation might be expected. However, it will be shown in 5.2 that Burzio’s attribution of ‘be’-selection to the existence of a determinate binding relation cannot be accepted, for 190 Notes

important theoretical and empirical reasons. Thus his proposed ex - planation for the French–Italian disparity in this regard ceases to be motivated. 23. In fact, assuming the now widely accepted small clause analysis of ‘be’ (both qua passive auxiliary and qua copula), the structure of (26) is essentially analogous to that of (23). 24. The rationale was that the postverbal subject position (unlike the preverbal position) was properly governed by the verb, thus legitimizing the trace resulting from wh-extraction (assuming traces required proper government). The relevance of the presence versus absence of an intervening overt complementizer is that the presence of such an item was assumed to block proper government of the trace by its antecedent.

2 Expletive Inversion

1. Where exactly depends on the structure envisaged for VP. Typically the VP of earlier accounts is now assumed to have at least two layers of structure, for example, a low VP and higher ‘shell’ VP, designated as ‘vp’. The subject (i.e. of unergatives and transitives) is then assumed to be base-generated or ‘merged’ in spec-vp. 2. Note that the very same linear sequence ‘expletive + unergative verb + argument’ is routinely countenanced under the supposition that postverbal subjects in general (regardless of whether the verb is unergative or unaccusative) co-occur with a null expletive fi lling the preverbal subject position. This assumption was once widespread in Romance linguistics and remains popular (see, for example, Belletti 1999: 11). 3. This example is cited in Legendre and Sorace (2003). 4. I assume the verbs in these examples are unergative because (i) they select perfect auxiliary A (as do their Italian equivalents), (ii) they cannot occur in participial absolute constructions, (iii) they appear within the unergative semantic spectrum on Sorace’s cross-linguistic auxiliary selection hierarchy Sorace (2000). 5. For a similar account, specifi cally in relation to the French il construction, see Arteaga and Herschensohn (2004:9–10). They assume that in the lexical array for the sentence Il arrive des jeunes fi lles ‘There arrive some young girls’ the associate is marked for partitive case and the expletive for nominative case. The case of the associate is licensed directly by the verb while that of the expletive is checked and deleted in spec-TP/IP. Any other combination of cases would cause the derivation to crash. 6. For example, È arrivato Gianni ‘Gianni has arrived’ was assigned the following analysis (p. 17):

NPi [VP [VP é arrivato [NP e]i] [NPi Gianni]].

Notice that the postverbal subject Gianni has moved from its original position as the complement of arrivato, which is now occupied by the empty category e. The empty NP in the preverbal subject position is a null expletive of the kind alluded to in note 2 above. Notes 191

7. Presumably the same applies to passive postverbal subjects, although Belletti (1999) does not appear to make a specifi c ruling on this. 8. This follows from the type of approach embodied in the nuclear stress rule (NSR) line of research, as exemplifi ed by Zubizarreta (1998). 9. This approach has a precedent in McNally (1998), where it is argued that quantifi cational and defi nite restrictions in existential sentences have non- identical causes. 10. This sentence might be rescued by assuming a very emphatic stress on cada alumno. For diagnostic purposes, however, a neutral intonation should be assumed. 11. This presumably results from the fact that prior mention confl icts with the generally presentational nature of overt expletive constructions, which typically requires the description/associate to have an ‘introducing’ function. In the case of the il construction, this confl ict is not insurmountable, given that examples like (40) are fairly routine in French. Presumably the acceptability of (40) results from the fact that while the referent of le séna- teur is part of the ‘given’, the identifi cation of this referent as the winner of the election represents the ‘new’. It must be surmised then that the French il construction is compatible with narrow focus on the associate whereas the there construction is more strictly presentational (calling for wide focus). 12. It is not clear whether this conclusion is applicable when the verb is be. The persuasive discussion in Ward and Birner (1995) would suggest that to a large extent it is. Note also that in Catalan the equivalent of the English there is construction is routinely compatible with defi nite associates:

(i) Hi havia la Joana a la ﬁ esta. (McNally 1998: 367) ‘Joana was at the party.’

French il y a is similar in this respect:

(ii) Il y a Pierre qui est malade. ‘Pierre is ill.’

13. In this particular case, in addition to remedying the defi ciency in the associate I have deleted the word here and inserted the PP at this point. This is for stylistic reasons only. The sequence there arose the long-dreaded storm has a somewhat literary fl avour, which would be at odds with the rather banal locative here. Presumably this additional amendment does not invalidate the basic point, viz. that there arose is not incompatible with defi nite associates. 14. Like the second sentence in (40), this presupposes prior mention of the referent of the associate. Here, though, unlike in (40) the associate is not in (narrow) focus, or at least this is unlikely. More plausibly, the clause-fi nal locative can be expected to be focused or, alternatively, the sentence may receive wide focus. Given this latter possibility, the remark made at the beginning of note 11 above may require some qualifi cation. 15. Pinto’s analysis of (19) parallels the earlier conclusions regarding French/ English (14) to (16). It would also be applicable to a ‘defi niteness effect’ that 192 Notes

is sometimes alleged for the Spanish faltar construction, as in (i) and (ii) below, where (ii) is alleged to be deviant:

(i) Falta un alumno. ‘A student is missing.’ (ii) Falta el alumno. ‘The student is missing.’

To the extent that there is a problem with (ii), it is that, out of context, it is impossible to identify the referent of el alumno. Nevertheless, faltar does not impose any prohibition on deﬁ nite subjects per se, as is shown by the unproblematic examples below:

(iii) Falta Pedro. ‘Pedro is missing.’ (iv) Falta la hermana de Miguel. ‘Miguel’s sister is missing.’

16. The apparent acceptability of sentence (52) may appear to be at odds with Belletti’s claim that the earlier sentence (26), repeated below, is marginally deviant:

(26) ?È entrato Mario dalla ﬁ nestra. ‘Mario came in through the window.’

Notice, however, that sentence (52) has the adverbial all’improvviso in sentence-initial position, and this appears to force a presentational reading. If this is the case, il cane in (52) does not carry narrow focus and might thus not be expected to require clause-fi nal placement. In contrast, sentence (26) does appear to have narrow focus on Mario, and so the normal rule about clause-fi nal placement applies. 17. Note in particular that Belletti’s argument that somehow the semanticism of the ‘uniqueness interpretation’ is compatible with the semantics of par- titivity is entirely impressionistic (see Belletti 1988:15–16). 18. Note also that ne-extraction is possible from a defi nite postverbal subject, as illustrated by the example below (from Burzio 1986: 75):

Ne sono arrivati i dirigenti. ‘Their managers have arrived.’

Under Belletti’s proposal, the structural position of the postverbal subject in the example above would be identical to that of an unergative postverbal subject. Yet Belletti also maintains (1999:37) that unergative postverbal subject position is not a proper position for ne-extraction (when the extraction is from a quantifi ed nominal at least). Thus Belletti’s assumption of a defi niteness effect requires acceptance of a somewhat surprising state of affairs, viz. one in which ne-extraction both is and is not possible from unergative postverbal subject position. 19. In fact, as in Spanish inversion, there is also a third possibility, in which the item in focus is a clause-fi nal locative or time phrase, such as aux Ètats Notes 193

Unis and en 1890 in (41) and (42). These cases are discussed at the end of this section. 20. In fact, this is truer of Italian than French, given that many of the prototypical presentational verbs select perfect auxiliary avoir in French and so are potentially classifi able as unergative: manquer ‘be absent’, exister ‘exist’, disparaître ‘disappear’, surgir ‘emerge’, falloir ‘be lacking’ etc. However, if these French verbs are deemed to be unergative, then the empirical basis for the claim that the il construction exhibits a bias towards unaccusatives becomes severely degraded. 21. Lonzi (1986:106) and others have assumed that the presentational type of information structure corresponds to the type of syntax assigned to unaccusatives under the Ergative Analysis (see 1.1 in this book). However, I can fi nd no theoretical motivation for this assumption. Moreover, as noted below, unergative verbs routinely enter into presentational information structures. These presentational unergatives can only be accommodated within a model that identifi es presentational information structure with ergative/unaccusative syntax under the assumption that they ‘switch’ to the unaccusative class. However, the positing of such taxonomic switches merely to accommodate adverse data is methodologically a somewhat suspect strategy. Normal scientifi c practice calls for a revision of the theory in such cases, rather than a reclassifi cation of thedata. 22. For an interesting study of the relationship between objecthood and presentational information structure in a variety of languages, see Lambrecht (2000).

3 Partitive Cliticization

1. Extraction from a preverbal subject is rare (except in the case of the French en-avant construction). This has been attributed to Fiengo’s (1974, 1977) proper binding requirement on traces. On this point, see Belletti and Rizzi (1981: 120). 2. Note, however, that extraction from a postverbal subject of telefonare appears to be possible when the postverbal subject is not followed by a subcategorized PP. The example below is from Lonzi (1986: 113):

Ti accorgerai che in quest’ufﬁ cio ne telefonano davvero molti, di stranieri. ‘You’ll notice that in this ofﬁ ce really a lot, of foreigners, call.’

3. To be more precise, they assumed (128–9) that ne-extraction was subject to subjacency under a revised defi nition incorporating this ‘argumenthood requirement’. 4. For the original formulation of the Condition on Extraction Domains, see Huang (1982). 5. Roughly speaking, a category is L-marked if and only if it is q-marked by a lexical head. 6. This assumption represents a continuation of the view articulated in Belletti (1988). There she argued that a defi niteness effect was detectable in Italian, indicating that defi nite postverbal subjects of unaccusatives and 194 Notes

passives were in fact in a structurally identical position to postverbal unergative subjects in general. See 2.3 in this book. 7. Perlmutter in fact explicitly makes the fi rst of these points when he insists (1989:107–8) on the non-equivalence of 1s and 2s with GB/Minimalist-style confi gurational defi nitions of subject and direct object. As regards the absence of any surface morphosyntactic property that might provide an objective correlate of 2hood, this is obviously implicit in the Unaccusative Hypothesis itself, which denies the traditional distinction between subject and direct object in terms of surface properties such as case, overt agreement with the verb and linear position. 8. Suggestions of this kind are not new: see also Lonzi (1986) and Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 276–7). 9. However, to judge from her conclusion (p. 116), she appears to assume that unergatives have an ergative/unaccusative-type syntax when ne is extracted from their subject. She links this view with what she takes to be a prohibition against partitive cliticization from an unergative subject occurring in the perfect (that is, when auxiliary avere is present). In fact such a prohibition does not appear to be general, as is illustrated by examples such as Italian (49) below. Given this circumstance, I can see no motivation for assuming that unergatives undergo a switch to the unaccusative class (which is in effect what Lonzi appears to assume). Indeed, from a general methodological viewpoint, the positing of such taxonomic switches merely to accommodate adverse or unexpected data should presumably be avoided if at all possible. In such cases, the preferred scientifi c method involves revising the theoretical model. 10. Some of the examples given below and elsewhere in this chapter involve preverbal locatives. Any suggestion that the presence of such an element indicates that the unergative verb has ‘switched’ to being an unaccusative is unmotivated under current theoretical assumptions – see the discussion of Torrego’s (1989) claim that such an alternation was operative in Spanish (4.2 in this book). Note also the general qualms expressed in note 9 above con- cerning the positing of taxonomic switches to accommodate adverse data. 11. CNR and CNRS are the Italian and French national research councils respectively. 12. This extract is taken from a (publicly available) document produced by the Conferazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro. 13. This extract is taken from a (publicly available) Rome courtroom transcript. 14. I think this example works in isolation. However, in case the context is required, the immediately adjacent sequence is as follows: L’aula gamma ha 24 computer (quanti ne funzioneranno? lo scorso febbraio quando ho fatto soundforge un 30 percento non andava . . .) anche se sul sito indica 50 posti. ‘The Gamma computer room has 24 computers (how many will be working? last February when I used Soundforge, 30 percent were out of action . . .) although on the website it says 50 workstations.’ 15. As in 2.5.2, by ‘passive’ I mean to include both true passives and also refl exive passives. Notes 195

16. I use the term ‘canonical presentational verb’ to refer to verbs/constructions that have a natural presentational capability, viz. presentational verbs in the strict sense (those meaning ‘arrive’, ‘appear’ etc.) and verbs that often are presentational but need not be (for example, verbs meaning ‘die’). The dual nature of verbs in the latter class may not be immediately obvious in languages like English, but it is rendered rather conspicuous in the alternations between preverbal and postverbal subject placement that are charac- teristic of the null subject languages, as is illustrated by the pair of Spanish examples below:

(i) Murió much gente. (Presentational.) ‘Many people died.’ (i.e. ‘There were many deaths.’) (ii) Mucha gente murió. (Non-presentational.) ‘Many people died.’ (i.e. ‘Many individuals suffered death.’)

As noted in 2.5.2, passives can be included among the canonical presenta- tionals, given that they too have natural presentational readings when they occur with postverbal indeﬁ nite subjects. 17. The dissociation between syntax and focus/intonation envisaged here is at variance with the restrictive approach adopted in, for example, Belletti (2004) where it is assumed that intonation should optimally be read off the syntactic conﬁ guration directly. However, the view taken here is that it is unrealistic to expect complete isomorphism between intonation and syntax. 18. The relevant clause is the second conjunct. 19. For example:

(i) Su 1.000 imprese registrate ne falliscono 10. ‘Out of 1000 registered companies 10 fail.’ (ii) Se ne sono schiantati almeno 6 durante esercitazioni. ‘At least 6 have collided during exercises.’ (iii) Ne funzionano pochi. ‘Few work.’ (iv) Ne sono passati molti. ‘Many [years] have passed.’ (v) Ne esistono pochi. ‘There are few in existence.’ (vi) Ne mancavano quattro ‘Four were missing.’

20. Van Valin (1993) and Bentley (2004a) assume a Dowty-style decomposi- tional treatment of aspectual classes as described (brieﬂ y) in 5.5.1 of this book. Within that framework, they argue that there is a direct link between partitive cliticization and aspectual class. In the approach adopted here the principle consideration is information structure, with the aspectual link arising only as a corollary of that. 21. In this respect, one is perhaps tempted to agree with Lambrecht (2000), when he suggests (641) that Italian ne has received an ‘undue’ amount of attention in the Generative literature. 196 Notes

4 Bare Subjects

1. There are other diagnostics such as compatibility with certain participial constructions, but these alone would deﬁ ne a smaller membership. These constructions are discussed in Chapter 7. 2. Bare postverbal subjects also occur preverbally in literary or journalistic styles when conjoined or modiﬁ ed:

(i) Ciudades y pueblos fueron destrozados. ‘Cities and villages were destroyed.’ (ii) Expertos de varios países asistieron al coloquio. ‘Experts from several countries attended the conference.’

3. In some theories, bare arguments in left-peripheral positions are assumed to be immune to this requirement (see, for example, Contreras 1986: 27, 43). Alternatively, as suggested in Lois (1996: 229), such nominals are analysed as being reconstructed in a lexically-governed position. 4. Under the general GB conception, a governs b if and only if (i) a c- commands b and (ii) the path connecting a and b does not cross a maximal projection. Proper government obtains when the governor is a lexical head (for example, a verb or a preposition) or an antecedent. In fact, Minimalism dispenses with the concept of government. Lasnik (1999:27), for example, refers to it as an ‘arbitrary syntactic relation’. However, its effect is achieved by other means. In particular, as regards case-licensing, government has been replaced by agreement conﬁ gurations. 5. Actually, Lois refers to it as an eventive q-role (‘papel temático eventivo’: 232). Moreover, the implication of Lois’s paper appears to be that it is the bare subject or object that is assigned this q-role, through either a spec– head relation or a head–head relation. 6. Compare, for example, Burzio’s (1986:99) remark that ‘the postverbal subject in [Ha telefonato Maria] must be governed like an object’. 7. In fact, strictly speaking it should be ‘∃x∃y(Fx & Fy & x ≠ y & Gax & Gay)’, given the irreducibly plural meaning of unas. However, this complicating factor can be set aside for the sake of simplicity (and I will follow this practice in all subsequent examples, as well). 8. In contrast, the possibility exists in Italian and French of sentences such as the following:

(i) Ogni giorno mangia delle mele. ‘Every day he eats apples’ (ii) Il mange des pommes tous les jours. ‘Every day he eats apples.’

Thus the Italian/French partitive article allows for non-quantiﬁ cational uses (or, alternatively, narrow-scope uses) in contexts in which unos/unas does not. 9. A sentence such as (37), for example, might then be analysed as asserting the timeless existence of certain triples involving an eater (viz. Jorge) an apple and a time. Arguably, such an analysis would simultaneously capture Notes 197

the habitual nature of sentences like (37) and render the bare noun position accessible to quantiﬁ cation. I leave the issue open, however. 10. A partly analogous asymmetry is apparent among complements of ser ‘be’, as is illustrated by (i) and (ii) below:

(i) Son médicos. ‘They are doctors.’ (ii) Son unos médicos. ‘They are some doctors.’

The pragmatics of the above sentences are rather different. Roughly speaking, sentence (i) indicates what the persons implicitly referred to are, while sentence (ii) indicates who they are. Thus son in (i) functions as a genuine copula, simply linking the implied subject to the predicate médicos, which in turn ascribes a property to the subject. In contrast, son in (ii) can plausibly be analysed as denoting the identity relation, with the overall sentence asserting an identity between the subject and certain individuals that are doctors. Accordingly, while (i) can be analysed as a conjunction corresponding to the schema ‘Fa & Fb . . .’, where Fs are doctors and a, b and so forth are the persons implicitly referred to, (ii) is more transparently represented in the manner shown below (assuming that the letters ‘a’, ‘b’ and so on must designate distinct individuals):

(iii) ∃x(Fx & a = x & b = x . . .)

11. An analysis that is in some respects similar to that proposed here for cases such as (47) is put forward by McNally (2004:125–6) in connection with sentences such as (i) below:

(i) Mucha gente que tiene perros los abandona durante las vacaciones. ‘Many people that have dogs abandon them during the holidays.’

McNally observes that while the bare plural perros ‘licenses a subsequent pronoun’, this licensing ‘cannot be direct, as the BP does not denote the antecedent for the pronoun’. She then infers that the antecedent must be determined via ‘accommodation’, which in her view is facilitated by ‘the descriptive content of the BP and the fact that [the containing sentence entails] the existence of an entity that could support the anaphora’ (126). 12. An alternative way of analysing sequences such as wanted to ﬁ nd squirrels is to say that there is a quantiﬁ er but it must have narrow scope (in the sense of Russell 1905). Alternatively, some authors state that bare nouns can only have a ‘weak’ reading, as opposed to the ‘strong’ reading represented here by schemata such as (39). Compare, for example, Laca (1996:254). 13. Garrido (1996) makes effectively the same point when he refutes Masullo’s (1996) claim that Spanish (i) below can have the same meaning as English (ii):

(i) Pedro cazó perdices. ‘Pedro shot partridges.’ (ii) Pedro shot some partridges. 198 Notes

Of the Spanish sentence, Garrido writes: ‘It is not that a group of partridges is represented, rather the property of hunting partridges is applied to a situation, with the result that in the situation there must exist entities consisting in hunted partridges.’ (Garrido 1996: 315; my translation.) 14. It is worth pointing out at this stage that I am extending Quine’s approach into areas on which Quine himself does not appear to have given any clear pronouncement. Quine’s (1960:175) assessment of verb plus bare noun combinations as being ‘relative to canonical notation, just not structure’ is expressed in relation to the dispositional case. I do not claim that he would endorse the generalization of this position that is being proposed here. 15. In Latin, of course, matters were different, given that there bare nouns routinely had quantiﬁ cational meaning. The modern situation results from a gradual diachronic change that has had partially different results in each of the various Romance languages. Modern French, for example, completely disallows bare subjects and objects, while modern Spanish systematically rejects the use of semantically unmotivated determiners. On the other hand, the system embodied in modern Italian is in some respects hybrid, given that it allows bare subjects and objects in the kinds of context in which they are allowed in Spanish, and yet, like French, it also allows semantically unmotivated occurrences of the partitive article, as mentioned in note 8 above. 16. Carlson (1977:422) noted an analogous contrast in cases such as the following:

(ia) Max discovered rabbits in his yard for two hours. (ib) Max discovered a rabbit in his yard for two hours. (iia) Chester killed ﬂ ies repeatedly last night. (iib) Chester killed a ﬂ y repeatedly last night.

The deviancy of the (b) sentences stems from the assignment of wide scope to a rabbit and a fl y, which implies that the same rabbit or fl y was repeatedly discovered/killed. 17. Notice also that the occurrence of unos in (57) has nothing to do with any alleged incompatibility between vivir and bare subjects. Thus unos can be deleted from (57) without damaging grammaticality or acceptability, although the quantifi cational structure changes accordingly:

(i) En esta casa estuvieron viviendo terroristas durante más de un año. ‘In this house terrorists were living for more than a year.’

Sentence (i) makes an analogous assertion to (53) and has an identical quantiﬁ cational structure, that is, the one represented by schema (55), with Fs understood as times within a certain period that exceeds one year and Gs as ordered pairs consisting of a dwelling and a time at which it was occupied by terrorists. Thus (i) involves no implication that any single ter- rorist lived in the house for more than a year. 18. Notice that these and similar cases involve achievement verbs, with a series of events being presented as if it were a single process. This is no coinci- dence, given that the punctual nature of an achievement term lends itself Notes 199

naturally to iterative assertions of this sort (on this point, see Lyons 1977: 712). In practice, then, achievement verbs are likely to have a built-in afﬁ nity for bare subjects. Now this circumstance, given that most of the intransitive achievement verbs are classiﬁ ed as unaccusative in Romance languages (for example, those meaning ‘die’, ‘arrive’, ‘enter’, ‘depart’ and so on), may well contribute to the impression that unaccusatives in general are somehow, in virtue of their unaccusativity, better suited to bare subjects than unergatives are. See also the discussion in the latter part of 4.3.3.5 below. 19. The formulation Viven lobos en aquel bosque would also be possible, but the meaning would be subtly different. With bare lobos as the subject, the structure of the sentence is given by the basic predicational schema ‘Fa’, where a is the forest in question and Fs are places inhabited by wolves. Compare the discussion of the later examples (68) and (69) and also note 21. 20. The assignment here of a single question mark here, rather than a double question mark, is intended to indicate a lower level of deviancy than in the previous examples. Indeed, at the relevant stylistic level, (69) will be wholly acceptable to many speakers. 21. The earlier sentence (65), reproduced below, presumably carries an analogous implicature to (69) and yet is not deviant:

(65) Viven unos lobos en aquel bosque. ‘Some wolves live in that forest.’

The absence of deviancy in (65) appears to result from the fact that no anomaly is created if the speaker is implicated to be referring to certain wolves. For example, the speaker may live in an area where wolves are nearly extinct and might then almost always be thinking of speciﬁ c wolves when he or she uses the phrase unos lobos. 22. Interestingly, the occurrence of English some in the translations of the (b) sentences may also be slightly deviant, but only if it is unstressed (that is, sm, as in Milsark 1974). In the light of the present analysis, this suggests two things. First, that stressed some is often not referential in Donnellan’s sense and, secondly, that Spanish unos/unas equates to English sm rather than to (stressed) some. The latter in fact has a better Spanish equivalent in algunos/algunas. For example, the type of context illustrated by the sentence below calls for algunas rather than unas, and the English translation must then involve some rather than sm:

Algunas madres se preocupan por esas cosas. ‘Some mothers worry about that type of thing.’

23. In light of the present analysis, it is tempting to treat complexes consisting of a verb and a bare subject as expressing ‘simple’ or ‘thetic’ judgments in the Brentano–Marty sense (see Brentano 1973). However, in the recent literature the thetic–categorical distinction has been deﬁ ned more or less exclusively in terms of information structure (see Lambrecht 1987, 1994). 200 Notes

Deﬁ ned in that way, the thetic–categorical distinction cuts across the distinction between complexes with bare subjects and those with determined subjects. For example, both faltan cuadros in (i) below and faltan unos cuadros in (ii) are thetic (in the modern sense at least), but whereas faltan cuadros is a single predicate from the logical point of view, faltan unos cuadros is a quantiﬁ cation (‘There are some pictures that are missing’):

(i) Faltan cuadros en esta casa. ‘This house needs pictures.’ (ii) Faltan unos cuadros. ‘Some of the pictures are missing.’

Note also that while the class of thetic sentences is usually assumed to include the class of presentational sentences, many of the prototypical presentational verbs may in fact be deviant when used with bare subjects (unless there is independently an imperative for the use of the bare noun, as per the principle stated at the beginning of 4.3.3):

(iii) ?Llegaron paquetes esta mañana. ‘Parcels arrived this morning.’ (iv) ?De repente aparecieron lobos. ‘Suddenly wolves appeared.’

Both the type of data illustrated by (i) and (ii) and that illustrated by (iii) and (iv) indicate that verb + bare subject complexes exhibit a property over and above theticity (understood as a type of information structure). Accord- ing to the view adopted here, this additional property consists in the logically unstructured nature of these complexes. 24. The view espoused here should not be confused with the kind of theory put forward by Kratzer (1995), who argues that stage-level predicates systematically have an argument position corresponding to an event or a spatio-temporal location. The independence of the two approaches can be seen by considering a sentence such as (i) below:

(i) Un niño gritó. ‘A boy shouted.’

Here the verb gritó is a stage-level predicate and so, according to Kratzer’s theory, has a place in its argument structure for an eventive or locational argument. On the other hand, in terms of the analysis developed here, the subject and the verb do not form a logically simple unit, given that that the presence of the determiner un forces a division into a predicative element (gritó) and a bound variable which is the argument of that element. According to the view put forward here, then, sentence (i) is a complete predication as it stands and thus does not require the provision of any additional argument. 25. This particular English translation could be understood with intervene as a (dispositional) individual-level predicate and teachers as having universal Notes 201

reference. The corresponding Spanish sentence cannot have this meaning, however. 26. As in (74) and (75), there is no deviancy at all here, given that the argument requirement is satisfi ed deictically. 27. This qualifi cation is necessary because, as observed by Longobardi (2000), modifi ed bare nouns in Romance can be universal (although in fact this represents a rather marked pattern). The following Italian examples (693, 694) illustrate the phenomenon for bare subjects (preverbal and postverbal):

(i) Linguisti capaci di scrivere il MémoireoLSLT diventano subito famosi. ‘Linguists capable of writing the MémoireoLSLT immediately become famous.’ (ii) Diventano subito famosi linguisti capaci di scrivere il MémoireoLSLT. ‘Linguists capable of writing the Mémoire o LSLT immediately become famous.’

Notice, incidentally, that the type of case illustrated by (ii) calls for a dis- continuous intonation, with a rather noticeable separation of the predicate from the subject. 28. In fact, because modiﬁ cation of the bare subject enables the possibility of a universal interpretation (see note 27), gustar can have a bare modiﬁ ed subject:

Ceremonias así de complicadas no me gustan. ‘I don’t like ceremonies that are that convoluted.’

29. In these examples, algunos/algunas is preferred to unos/unas because of the fact that me gustan and son peligrosas are individual-level predicates. Accord- ingly, the English translations have stressed some as opposed to unstressed sm (see also note 22). 30. The defi nite article in this case has its specifi c, context-dependent, interpretation. 31. Given Diesing’s (1992) mapping hypothesis, linking universal arguments with VP-external positions and non-universal arguments with VP-internal positions, it might be suggested that the gustar–apetecer contrast simply shows that gustar is unergative (with a VP-external subject) and apetecer is unaccusative (with a VP-internal subject). However, that cannot be the correct explanation because, as is immediately apparent, universal arguments routinely occur VP-internally as objects (for example, Odio las ostras ‘I hate oysters’). In any case, several studies have indicated that a VP- external versus VP-internal distinction of the sort envisaged by Diesing in fact cuts across the unaccusative–unergative distinction (see Pinto 1997: 203; Longobardi 2000: 692). 32. In fact, this requires qualifi cation, given that in sentences such as the one below, the bare subject can hardly be said to be informationally rich if we assume the same type of extra-linguistic context as for (108b): 202 Notes

Entran espectadores continuamente. ‘Spectators are continually coming in.’

What appears to be the case here is that the adverb continuamente naturally attracts the accent away from the espectadores position, which is thus rendered immune to the informational richness requirement (assuming the latter to be a reﬂ ex of accentuation). The correct generalization for bare subjects, then, is that they must be informationally rich unless another item is present that can absorb the postverbal accent.

5 Perfect Auxiliary Selection

1. The use of E is productive in Italo-Romance at the dialectal/regional level also. Studies such as Loporcaro (2001) Cennamo (2001) Bentley and Eyrthórsson (2001) reveal a considerably more fragmented or ﬂ uid pattern of auxiliary selection at this level, with extraneous factors such as the grammatical feature of person having to be considered. The implication of such wide-ranging variation for the claim that auxiliary selection is a reﬂ ex of syntactic structure is not immediately obvious. On the face of it, the attested ‘fuzzy’ distributional pattern is not suggestive of a ‘hard’ syntactic template. 2. Burzio also assumed this pattern to obtain in cases involving ‘impersonal si’, as in the example below:

ei Sii è parlato di molte cose. ‘One spoke about many things.’

The relevant binding relation arises here (according to Burzio’s analysis) because impersonal si is assumed to be associated with an empty category (shown above as ‘e’) which occupies subject position and which binds si. 3. This pattern also obtains with intransitive reﬂ exives, in which the clitic is analysed as not being associated with a q-role:

(i) Gli operaii si sono ribellati ti. ‘The workers have rebelled.’

(ii) Il furgonei si è capovolto ti. ‘The van overturned.’

4. The trace here occupies direct object position under Burzio’s particular deﬁ nition, viz. ‘an A-position governed by the verb’ (1986:56). 5. Another seminal work is Perlmutter 1989, which contains the following auxiliary selection rule for Italian: ‘If there is a nominal heading both a 1- arc with tail b and an Object arc with tail b, then clause b requires the perfect auxiliary essere. Otherwise it requires avere.’ (Perlmutter 1989: 82) Note, however, that like the other Relational Grammar formulations given as (5) and (7) in 1.2, this rule is essentially a descriptive generalization, because the crucial concepts (1hood [that is, subjecthood] and objecthood) are assumed to be undeﬁ ned primitives. Thus the formulation ‘a nominal Notes 203

heading both a 1-arc . . . and an Object arc’ is in effect a label for any subject that is also analysed as an object (in some stratum). Accordingly, Perlmut- ter’s rule simply asserts a parallel between passives, unaccusatives, raising verbs and refl exives, given the RG analysis of these constructions as having subjects that are also objects. This analysis may or may not be accepted, but the auxiliary selection rule does nothing more than group the relevant constructions together. 6. In fact, if Belletti’s (1988, 1999) analysis is adopted, this is only true in the case of indefi nite postverbal subjects (see 2.3). 7. Alternatively, under Belletti’s partitive/inherent case hypothesis, (partitive) case is directly licensed on the associate by the verb (see 2.3). 8. For example, in Chomsky (1995b) [Chapter 3], it is recast as the requirement that the strong D feature of the T(ense) position be checked. In languages like English, this requirement is satisfi ed by the occurrence of a (structural) subject in the high preverbal subject position, that is, spec-TP (or spec-IP under older analyses). 9. Somewhat differently, but with the same overall effect, Rizzi (1982) required that binding relations must not involve q-dependency, which ruled out the relation between the preverbal subject position and a postverbal subject, given that he assumed postverbal subjects were q-marked from the subject position. 10. Cocchi in fact refers to this as an object agreement projection (1994:99– 100). The crucial point from the present perspective is that the agreement projection in question (whatever its exact nature may be) is implicated in determining the agreement form of the past participle. 11. The type of account envisaged in note 7 to Chapter 1 (advanced primarily for Germanic languages) is stipulative in a similar way. 12. It is true that the past participle exhibits overt agreement in respect of the subject due ladri, which, according to the agreement-by-movement analysis of past participle agreement discussed in 6.2, implies that movement has taken place. However this simply illustrates a general problem with the agreement-by-movement analysis itself (see 6.3 for further discussion). 13. The equivalent problem is solved in Burzio’s account (1986:58) under the assumption that an empty category in subject position binds the impersonal clitic si, thus creating a subject–clitic binding relation which, for Burzio’s purposes, has the same status as the relation illustrated by the earlier example (1). Centineo (1996:235) takes issue with this solution, observing that the c-command relation is incorrect (the empty category, in effect the trace, c-commands the antecedent rather than vice versa). 14. By the term ‘transitive refl exive’ I mean a refl exive construction in which the verb has a transitive occurrence and the refl exive clitic bears a q-role (other than that assigned to the subject). In contrast, the clitic in an intransitive refl exive construction has no q-role and the verb is not deemed to have a transitive occurrence. In fact, intransitive refl exives are typically regarded as a subtype within the overall unaccusative class. Burzio (1986) divided intransitive refl exives into ‘ergative refl exives’ and ‘inherent re fl exives’, where the former alternate with transitives (for example, rom- persi ‘become broken’ versus rompere ‘break (something)’) but the latter do 204 Notes

not. Most subsequent authors have tacitly adopted this or a similar subdivision. 15. In this respect, Burzio’s approach foreshadows the core–periphery dicho- tomy invoked by Sorace (2000) as part of her Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy. Note, however, that while Sorace’s hierarchy is established on exclusively semantic grounds, Burzio’s core–periphery distinction was determined con- ﬁ gurationally. Thus each of the classes (a) to (c) shown in the text was argued to correspond to a different degree of contiguity to the verb on the part of the element that was claimed to be bound by the subject (see 5.2). In class (a), representing the closest degree of contiguity, the clitic actually formed a morphological unit with the verb, while in (c), representing the remotest case, the bound trace was separated from the verb by a clause boundary. 16. In fact, even in Italian some transitive/intransitive pairs exhibit A selection for both members of the pair. One such case, cited by Burzio (1986:177), involves girare ‘rotate’:

(i) Il mulo ha girato la macina. ‘The mule has turned the millstone’ (ii) La macina ha girato. ‘The millstone has turned.’

17. Interestingly, Belletti (2001) has proposed what amounts to subsuming transitive refl exives within class (b), that is, to treating transitive refl exives as in effect intransitive refl exives. Given that overt past participle agreement in Italian is always obligatory in transitive refl exive constructions but not always in non-refl exive transitive constructions that involve a direct object clitic (see chapter 6, note 5, of this book), she has suggested that refl exive clitics are generated outside the VP projection (perhaps as ‘agreement’ markers within the clause functional structure) and that what deter- mines the agreement form of the participle is not the clitic but the subject. In that analysis, the preverbal subject of a transitive refl exive construction would be analysed as having raised from direct object position. Thus the earlier example (1), reproduced below, would receive the type of analysis schematized in (i):

(1) La tigrei sii è leccata. ‘The tiger licked itself.’

(i) La tigrei si è leccata ti. ‘The tiger licked itself.’

18. In fact, despite assigning ‘*’ to this sentence, Reinhart and Siloni note that at least some speakers ﬁ nd it acceptable. As was implied by the discussion in Chapter 3, the view adopted in this book is that the partitive cliticization diagnostic detects pragmatic failures rather than outright grammaticality failures, and so a degree of variation in speaker judgments is only to be expected. 19. For this type of diagnostic, see note 4 in Chapter 7 of this book. 20. This can be seen by considering the aspectual classes of the verbs in Table 5.2. Notes 205

21. The term ‘degree achievement’ (Dowty 1979) is sometimes used in connection with some of the verbs in this category. 22. In fact it also diagnoses stativity, but that possibility can presumably be ruled out given the dynamic nature of the processes described. 23. Compatibility with a time-span phrase introduced by a word meaning ‘in’ is a standard diagnostic for accomplishment status. Compare, for example, Smith wrote a book in two months (accomplishment) as opposed to Smith was writing a book for two months (activity). 24. This point is discussed in Rosen (1984). 25. In various places (for example, Centineo 1996, Rohlfs 1949) it is asserted that verbs like suonare and nevicare select only A when used as activity terms. However, scrutiny of authentic contemporary sources reveals E assignment to be possible in this use too. 26. For example, compare (44) to the sentence below:

La campana ha suonato per un’ora. ‘The bell rang for an hour.’

27. More specifi cally, this is their generalization for European French. For Canadian French they acknowledge a degree of lexical conditioning. 28. In fact this phraseology is slightly problematic (in my view), given that properties presumably must be extra-linguistic objects and so, strictly speaking, cannot enter into linguistic relations such as modifi cation. I leave this detail aside, however. 29. In a theory such as Belletti’s (1988/1999), a defi nite subject such as la barca would receive the same analysis as a postverbal unergative subject, that is, it would presumably not be an ‘internal’ argument in Chierchia’s sense. 30. This leaves the case of impersonal si, which Chierchia also claims falls within the scope of this theory (47–50). For simplicity, I leave this issue out of the present discussion. 31. Presumably, something similar could be said about r, for example, that it substitutes a copy of the object for the subject. 32. In essence, the domain of a function is the set of items that can serve as the input to the function (i.e. the set of possible arguments for which the function will return a value). 33. See Perlmutter (1989) and Centineo (1996) for reviews of other earlier, now largely discredited accounts. 34. In fact, given that the syntactic analysis of auxiliary selection does not appear to follow from any general theoretical principle (see 5.2 and 5.3 above), the attribution of E selection to a determinate but non-verifi able syntax is to all intents devoid of explanatory power. 35. The corollary of this process in the passive voice was the well-known rein- terpretation of the tense value of the auxiliary, with for example factus est giving way to factus fuit as the locus of the meaning ‘was done/has been done’. 36. Even in the later Middle Ages, the synthetic perfect/preterite was still the principle vehicle for the majority of the functions that in the modern languages are associated with the perfect: 206 Notes

(i) Yo, de que fu rrey, non ﬁ z mas de dos cortes. (C 3129) ‘Since I became king I have convened only two sessions of the Cortes.’ (ii) Io vidi già cavalier muover campo. (I XXII, 1) ‘I have before now seen horsemen moving camp.’ (iii) Lessiez ester et me dites se vos menjastes hui. (Q 106, 28) ‘Rest and tell me if you have eaten today.’

37. This would apply also to E + past participle qua ‘perfect’ passive – see note 56 below. 38. Presumably, this is an instance of Comrie’s ‘experiential perfect’ (see beginning of 5.6). 39. Here I take for granted the traditional assumption that true perfect au xiliaries have a quasi-morphological function. On this point, see Bentley and Eythórsson (2003) section 5.2. 40. Thus the quasi-equivalence between the periphrastic constructions shown in (91) to (93) and the corresponding synthetic preterite forms (se fue, naquimes, cadde) is analogous to that which exists between, for example, modern Spanish estuvo cerrado ‘was closed’ (that is, ‘became closed’) and the corresponding ‘action’ passive fue cerrado ‘was closed’. This near equivalence can be accounted for in terms of one construction indicating the inception of a state (estuvo cerrado) and the other the occurrence of an event that initiates the same state (fue cerrado). 41. ‘The pronoun is not omitted but has not yet been introduced.’ 42. In fact, assuming that the Latin past participle originated as an adjective, the Classical Latin situation probably represents the outcome of a process of syntactic reanalysis also. Such cyclical developments are not uncommon historically. 43. This follows because unergatives are assumed to assign subject q-role to their subject. If the past participle morphology blocks the externalization of subject q-role, an unergative past participle will fail to assign any q-role either to a matrix subject in a predicative construction (for example, *The customer was complained) or to the modiﬁ ed noun in an attributive construction (for example, *a coughed patient). 44. In addition to the two examples in the text, consider also the example with convenuti in note 53 below. In the latter case, the participle presumably comes from the ‘agree’ sense of convenire, to which perfect auxiliary A is normally assigned (by hypothesis, this assignment indicates an unergative occurrence). 45. Monter ‘go up’ and descendre ‘go down’ are notable exceptions. 46. As noted in many places, an analogous alternation persists in modern Italian:

(i) Luisa ha corso nel parco per un’ora. (Centineo 1996: 251) ‘Luisa ran in the park for an hour.’ (ii) Luisa è corsa a casa in un’ora. (Centineo 1996: 251) ‘Lucy ran home in an hour.’

47. The exact status of the implication in question depends on the particular analysis of the perfect. If the perfect of result and the experiential perfect Notes 207

are assigned the status of different meanings, then the implication has a semantic status. On the other hand, if the usages in question do not involve different meanings, the implication presumably is a pragmatic implicature. 48. Note also that the achievement potential of mancare is rendered rather explicit when the verb is used as a euphemism for morire:

Il 16 agosto X è mancato, a 89 anni. ‘On the 16th August, X died, aged 89.’

49. In fact, given the discussion in 5.6.1, many apparent instances of the perfect of result in the Middle Ages might in reality be instances of a copula–adjective construction. The ‘resultant state’ meaning is the same under both analyses, however. 50. In fact, in early modern Italian, there are fairly frequent attestations with auxiliary avere of at least some of the verbs in question, but never when the perfect is a perfect of result. 51. Possibly bisognare ‘be necessary’ could be assimilated to the general model discussed in this section, given the achievement sense illustrated by the (somewhat archaic) examples below:

(i) Quando bisognò, venne in aiuto coi paladini. (O 31, 59) ‘When the need arose, he came to help with the paladins.’ (ii) Ma quando bisognò, l’ebbe in oblio. (O 43, 70) ‘When the need arose he forgot.’

In these examples, the sequence quando bisognò appears to refer to the inception of a state that could be described using bisognare in its stative sense. 52. Remés is the past participle of Old French remanoir, a cognate of Italian rimanere. 53. The common use of A with the ‘agree’ meaning (example (119)) may result from the uneven tendency for correlations to emerge between the perfect auxiliaries and speciﬁ c senses of given verbs, with A often being associated (not particularly systematically) with meanings that involve greater delib- eration and control. Given that the past participle convenuto retains its adjectival capability even in the ‘agree’ sense, as illustrated in the example below, there is no a priori reason to expect the latter sense to be incompatible with E assignment:

Sono convenuti sulla necessità di utilizzare truppe antisommossa. ‘They are agreed on the need to use riot police.’

54. Translation: ‘verbs expressing an action in which the subject did not par- ticipate but which the subject simply underwent, and whose agent remained completely indeterminate’. 55. Alternatively, it might be classiﬁ ed as an instance of the ‘middle voice’. 56. Notice that this circumstance implies that E + past participle was three-way ambiguous, as between a strictly intransitive meaning, a reﬂ exive intransitive meaning, and a passive meaning. 208 Notes

6 Past Participle Agreement

1. On this point, see Loporcaro (1998) and Bentley and Eyrthórsson 2003 (section 6). 2. I continue using ‘E and ‘A’ to designate ‘be’ and ‘have’ verbs respectively, as in Chapter 5. 3. In Italian this is obligatory only with third person clitics. Italian also exhibits agreement when the clitic is partitive ne:

Ne ho viste/*visto molte. ‘I have seen many of them.’

4. Agreement is also possible (though dispreferred) when the clitic is partitive en:

Ja n’havia feta una. ‘I had already made one.’

5. An alternative taxonomy, proposed by Belletti (2001, section 5), involves assimilating the transitive refl exive examples (7) and (8) to the ‘unaccusative’ paradigm of (3) to (6), with the subject and not the clitic raising from object position. This separation of the transitive refl exive structure from the (non-refl exive) object clitic structure (examples (9) and (10)) would be motivated by the obligatory nature of the agreement with fi rst and second person clitics in the former case and its optionality in the latter:

(i) Ci siamo guardati/*guardato allo specchio. ‘We looked at ourselves in the mirror.’ (ii) Vi ha visti/o.’ ‘He has seen you (pl.).’

6. Burzio was assuming a ‘base-generated’ account of cliticization, according to which the clitic is base-generated in its clitic position but is coindexed with an empty category in the position in which the q-role borne by the clitic is assigned (for example, direct object position for a direct object clitic). The net effect in terms of the present discussion is analogous to that which follows from the movement-based analysis of clitics assumed in the preceding paragraph in the text (and also in the analysis of Belletti 2001, discussed below). 7. For simplicity I limit my remarks to indefi nite postverbal subjects, given that in some theories at least, indefi nite and defi nite postverbal subjects of E- selecting verbs/constructions receive divergent analyses. 8. Typically the subject is preverbal in French. Thus examples such as this one (from Marandin 2001) are stylistically marked. Notice, in connection with the argument that follows in the text, that the agreement exhibited by the participle is not retained in this inverted construction if avoir is the auxiliary: Notes 209

Parfois a résonné/*résonnée une voix qui paraissait la sienne. ‘Sometimes a voice that seemed to be hers has resonated.’

9. Such agreement appears to be possible, however, in non-standard varieties of Italian (compare Centineo 1996: 235; Belletti 2001: section 3.3). This non-standard pattern could perhaps represent a continuation of the initial Romance pattern of A-type agreement discussed in 6.4. 10. It is to this circumstance that she attributes the impossibility of VSO word order in Italian, given that the object would have to cross over the postverbal subject, thereby violating Relativized Minimality. 11. An additional problem with the uniﬁ ed accounts discussed in the text consists in the fact that they cannot account for the complete absence of participle agreement in the perfect in languages like Spanish. For example, given the assumption that such agreement is triggered by object movement, there would be no reason not to expect participle agreement in cases of object cliticization. Belletti (2001) suggests that the relevant participle agreement projection is missing altogether in Spanish. However, Spanish passive constructions exhibit past participle agreement (see examples (13) and (19)), which presumably motivates the positing of an agreement projection in that type of case. Therefore the absence of such a projection in the perfect must in effect be stipulated. 12. See the discussion in 5.6.5. 13. I leave open whether this is generated as the object or the subject of the past participle. Logically, both possibilities must exist. (Compare the assumption in Cinque 1990 that some adjectives generate their argument in object position and others in subject position, a duality that clearly does not interfere with the agreement form of the adjective.) I also assume that the participle morphology does not systematically block the licensing of subject q-role, for the reasons given in 7.2.1 and 5.6.2. 14. This view might seem to be challenged by the modern dissociation of participle agreement and E selection in the Italian impersonal si construction, in cases when the participle is from a verb that does not itself select perfect auxiliary E, as illustrated by the contrast below:

(i) Si è arrivati. (Compare: Gianni è/*ha arrivato) ‘One has arrived.’ (ii) Si è parlato/*parlati. (Compare: Gianni ha/*è parlato) ‘One has spoken.’

However, the non-agreement in the type of case illustrated by (ii) is historically motivated under the present analysis, given that it could never have been the case that essere was a copula in this construction (that is, in the case in which the participle is from an A-selecting verb). This use of essere results from the historical levelling of auxiliary selection, in favour of E, in all reﬂ exive and related constructions. As regards (i), this simply represents a continuation of the general case illustrated by (25), but with impersonal subject si as opposed to a personal subject. 15 To the effective dissemination of this rule can be attributed the divergence between Italian and French as regards indirect object reﬂ exive clitics. 210 Notes

7 Participial Absolutes

1. Typically this will produce a control-type of structure, with an item outside the participial clause controlling into that clause. 2 Here the participial clause una vegada jugat presumably could be classiﬁ ed as involving an instance of ‘arbitrary’ PRO, analogously to the participial clause in the following example from Belletti (1992:43):

Finito un lavoro, è piacevole prendersi una vacanza. ‘Having ﬁ nished a task it is nice to take a holiday.’

3. This obviously requires an additional stipulation excluding the case when the past participle occurs with a perfect auxiliary. Burzio (1986:152) pro- vides such a stipulation. 4. A position that is in effect analogous is adopted by Levin and Rappaport (1986:654) in respect of adjectival past participles. They contend that the past participle morphology blocks the externalization of the subject q-role, with the result that an unergative participle will fail to assign a q-role to either the matrix subject in a predicative construction (for example, *The customer seemed shouted) or to the modiﬁ ed noun in an attributive construction (for example, *a cried child). 5. The active analysis of this type of clause is motivated primarily by the overt accusative case that is observable under cliticization, as in (11) above. Alter- natively, the verb might be regarded as passive, as claimed by Egerland (1996:229–63). A passive analysis would be more attractive for languages like Spanish, Portuguese, French and so on, where there is no accusative clitic data corresponding to Italian (11). 6. So in fact was the passive type of case (Salutata da tutti, Maria lasciò la sala ‘Having been greeted by everybody, Maria left the room), although this possibility is not relevant to present concerns. 7. Actually, this assumption would not be applicable generally, given example (18) below, as well as Spanish (22) and (23), all of which instantiate pre- cisely this pattern. Note also the agreement exhibited in the earlier second- ary predicate type of construction (examples (12) and (13)) and also the agreement in the PRO type of construction with verbs like vivere ‘live’:

(i) Vissuta in povertà, Maria morì il 2 febbraio 2002. (Loporcaro 2003: 219) ‘Having lived in poverty, Maria died on 2 February 2002.’

Loporcaro (apparently following Dini 1994) classiﬁ es vivere as unaccusative, although in fact avere appears to be the commoner perfect auxiliary with this verb – compare religious/biblical examples such (ii) and (iii) below:

(ii) Il Salvatore ha vissuto in povertà. ‘The Saviour lived in poverty.’ (iii) un prete che ha vissuto in povertà ed è morto povero ‘a priest who lived in poverty and died poor’ Notes 211

Plausibly, vivere could well be classiﬁ ed as unergative, as in fact are most of its cognates in other Romance languages. 8. Here Burzio is assuming the classic ‘case transmission’ theory, whereby a null expletive in the high preverbal subject position (spec-IP/TP) is respon- sible for case licensing on a postverbal subject (see 5.2). 9. For the Italian verbs, I assume selection of perfect auxiliary avere to indicate unergative status:

(i) Il re ha abdicato. ‘The king has abdicated.’ (ii) L’erba ha attecchito. ‘The grass has taken root.’ (iii) Il latte ha bollito. ‘The milk has boiled.’ (iv) Il lago ha tracimato. ‘The lake has overﬂ owed.’

As far as the Spanish examples are concerned, I classify the relevant verbs as unergative on the grounds that (i) their Italian and French equivalents are assigned avere/avoir and (ii) they fall within the unergative semantic spectrum on Sorace’s (2000) auxiliary selection hierarchy. Given the unreli- ability of the bare subject diagnostic discussed in Chapter 4, there is in fact no principled Spanish-internal basis for classifying verbs as unaccusative or unergative. 10. In addition to the examples in the text, it is also worth noting cases such as the following:

Terminato il ministro di parlare, si udì un tuono e il tomporale fu tremendo. ‘The minister having ﬁ nished speaking, a clap of thunder was heard and the storm was terrible. In this use, terminare is either unergative or transitive (depending on how di parlare is analysed), but in any case is not unaccusative. 11. This classiﬁ cation seems reasonable in view of the facts that (i) its equivalents in Italian and French select perfect auxiliary avere/avoir) and (ii) it falls into the unergative semantic spectrum on Sorace’s Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy. References

Alexiadou, Artemis, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. ‘Parametrizing Agr: word Order, V-movement and EPP-checking’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 491–539. Aranovich, Raúl. 2003. ‘The semantics of auxiliary selection in Old Spanish’ Studies in Language 27:1, 1–37. Arese, Felice (ed.) 1955. Ernesto Monaci: Crestomanzia italiana dei primi secoli. Roma–Napoli: Dante Alighieri. Arteaga, Deborah and Herschensohn, Julia. 2004. ‘Case, agreement, and expletives: a parametric difference in Old French and Modern French’ in J. Auger, Julie, J. Clancy Clements and B. Vance (eds) Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics, 1–15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Baltin, Mark. 2001. ‘A-Movements’ in M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds) The Hand- book of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 226–54. Oxford: Blackwell. Batlle, M. 2002. L’expressió dels temps compostos en la veu mitjana i la passiva pro- nominal. El procés de substitució de l’auxiliar ‘ésser’ per ‘haver’. Institut d’Estudis Catalans/Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat: Barcelona. Belletti, Adriana. 2004. ‘Aspects of the low IP area’ in L. Rizzi (ed.) The Structure of CP and IP, 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —— 2001. (Past) participle agreement. MS. University of Siena. —— 1999. ‘ “Inversion” as focalization and related questions’ Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 9 – 45. —— 1992. ‘Agreement and case in past participle clauses in Italian’ in T. Stowell and E. Wehrli (eds) Syntax and the Lexicon. Syntax and Semantics 26, 21–44. San Diego: Academic Press. —— 19 9 0. Generalized Verb Movement. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. —— 1988. ‘The case of unaccusatives’ Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1–34. Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi. 1996. ‘Su alcuni casi di accordo del participio passato in francese e in italiano’ in P. Benincà, G. Cinque. T. De Mauro and N. Vincent (eds) Italiano e dialetti nel tempo. Saggi di grammatica per Giulio Lepschy, 7–22. Roma: Bulzoni. —— 1981. ‘The syntax of ne: some theoretical implications’ The Linguistic Review 2, 101–37. Bennis, Hans. 2004. ‘Unergative adjectives and psych verbs’ in A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou and M. Everaert (eds) The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax–Lexicon Interface, 84–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bentley, Delia. 2004a. ‘Ne-cliticisation and split intransitivity’ Journal of Linguistics 40, 219–62. —— 2004b. ‘Deﬁ niteness effects: evidence from Sardinian’ Transactions of the Philological Society 101, 1–45. Bentley, Delia and Eyrthórsson, Thorallur. 2003. ‘Auxiliary selection and the semantics of unaccusatives’ Lingua 114, 447–71.

212 References 213

—— 2001. ‘Alternation according to person in Italo-Romance’ in L. Brinton (ed.) Historical Linguistics 1999: selected papers from the 14th international conference on historical linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999, 63–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Benveniste, Emile. 1960. ‘Etre et avoir dans leurs fonctions linguistiques’ Bulletin de la société linguistique de Paris 55, 113–34. Benzing, Joseph. 1931. ‘Zur Geschichte von ser als Hilfszweitwort bei den intransitiven Verben im Spanischen’ Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 51, 385–460. Bernstein, Judy, B. 2001. ‘The DP hypothesis: identifying clausal properties in the nominal domain’ in M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds) The Handbook of Con- temporary Syntactic Theory, 536–61. Oxford: Blackwell. Bini, Telesforo (ed.) 1851. Bianco da Siena: Laudi spirituali. Lucca: Giusti. Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The Semantics of Syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bowers, John. 2001. ‘Predication’ in M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds) The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 299–333. Oxford: Blackwell. Brambilla Ageno, Franca. 1964. Il verbo nell’italiano antico. Milano–Napoli: Ricciardi. Brault, Gerard J. 1978. The Song of Roland: an analytical edition. University Park: Pennsylvania Stare University Press. Brentano, Franz. 1973. Psychology from an Empirical Point of View. Translated by Antos C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell and Linda L. McAlister from Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt (1874, 1924). Sections V–IX. Broekhuis, H. and Van Dijk, K. 1995. ‘The syntactic function of the auxiliaries of time’ in M. den Dikken and K. Hengeveld (eds) Linguistics in The Netherlands 1995, 37–48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. —— 1981. ‘Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries’. Ph.D. dissertation. Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA. Cacho Blecua, Juan Manuel and Lacarra, María Jesús (eds) 1984. Calila e Dimna. Madrid: Clásicos Castalia. Calabrese, Andrea. 1991. ‘Some remarks on focus and logical structures in Italian’ Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 91–127. Cappelli, Antonio (ed.) 1986. Il libro dei sette savi di Roma. Bologna: Gaetano Romagnoli. Cardinaletti, Anna. 2001. ‘A second thought on emarginazione: destressing vs “right dislocation” ’ in G. Cinque and G. P. Salvi (eds) Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 117–35. Amsterdam: North Holland. Cardinaletti, Anna and Giusti, Giuliana. 1992. ‘Partitive ne and the QP- hypothesis. A case study’ in E. Fava (ed.) Proceedings of the XVII Meeting of Generative Grammar, 121–41. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. Carlson, Greg N. 1977. ‘A uniﬁ ed analysis of the English bare plural’ Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 413–56. Carnap, Rudolf. 1947. Meaning and Necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Casadio, Claudia. 1992. ‘Ne-cliticization and partitive interpretation’ in Fava, Elisabetta (ed.) Proceedings of the XVII Meeting of Generative Grammar, 143–58. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. 214 References

Cennamo, Michela. 2001. ‘L’inaccusatività in alcune varietà campane’ in F. Albano Leoni, R. Sornicola, E. Stenta Krosbakken, and C. Stromboli (eds) Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche, Atti del XXXIII Congresso della Società di Linguistica Italiana, Napoli, 28–30 ottobre 1999, 427–53. Roma: Bulzoni. Centineo, Giulia. 1996. ‘A lexical theory of auxiliary selection in Italian’ Probus 8:3, 223–71. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. ‘A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences’ in A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou and M. Everaert (eds) The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, 22–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. ‘Derivation by phase’ in M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: a life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. —— 2000. ‘Minimalist inquiries: the framework’ in R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds) Step by Step, 89–156. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. —— 1995a. ‘Bare phrase structure’ in G. Webelhuth (ed.) Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, 383–439. Oxford: Blackwell. —— 1995b. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. —— 1986a. Knowledge of Language: its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger. —— 1986b. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. —— 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1991. ‘Lo statuto categoriale del ne partitivo.’ in G. Borghello, M. Cortelazzo and G. Padoan (eds) Saggi di Linguistica e di letteratura in Memoria di Paolo Zolli, 117–26. Padova: Antenore. —— 1990a. ‘Ergative adjectives and the lexicalist hypothesis’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 1–40. —— 1990b. Types of A¯-Dependencies. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 17. Cam- bridge MA.: MIT Press. —— 1990c. ‘Two classes of intransitive adjectives in Italian’ in G. Grewendorf and W. Sternefeld (eds) Scrambling and Barriers, 261–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. —— 1982. ‘Constructions with left peripheral phrases, “connectedness”, move a and the ECP’ MS. Università di Venezia. Cocchi, Giulia. 1994. ‘An explanation of the split in the choice of perfect auxiliaries’ Probus 6, 87–102. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: an introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Contini, Gianfranco (ed.) 1960. Poeti del Duecento. Milano–Napoli: Ricciardi. Contreras, Heles. 1986. ‘Spanish bare NPs and the ECP’ in I. Bordelois, H. Contreras and K. Zagona (eds) Generative studies in Spanish syntax, 25–49. Dordrecht: Foris. Corominas, Joan. 1980–91. Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico (con la colaboración de José Pascual). Madrid: Gredos. Cummins, Sarah. 1996. ‘Meaning and mapping’. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto. Davidson, Donald. 1967. ‘The logical form of action sentences’ in N. Rescher (ed.) The Logic of Decision and Action, 81–95. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indeﬁ nites. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. References 215

Dini, Luca. 1994. ‘Aspectual constraints on Italian absolute phrases’ Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 8, 52–87. Donnellan, Keith. 1966. ‘Reference and deﬁ nite descriptions’ Philosophical Review 75, 281–304. Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Egerland, Verner. 1996. The Syntax of Past Participles. A generative study of nonﬁ - nite constructions in ancient and modern Italian. Lund: Lund University Press. Fiengo, R. 1977. ‘On trace theory’ Linguistic Inquiry 8, 35–61. —— 1974. ‘Semantic conditions on surface structure’. Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Garrido, Joaquín. 1996. ‘Sintagmas nominales escuetos’ in I. Bosque (ed.) El sustantivo sin determinación. La ausencia de determinante en la lengua española, 269–338. Madrid: Visor. Gayangos, Pascual de (ed.) 1951. La gran conquista de ultramar. Biblioteca de Autores Españoles. Madrid: Atlas. Green, John. 1976. ‘How free is word order in Spanish’ in M. B. Harris (ed.) Romance Syntax:synchronic and diachronic perspectives, 7–32. Salford: University of Salford Press. Grice, H. Paul. 1975. ‘Logic and conversation’ in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics: volume 3, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Gruber, Jeffrey. 1976. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. North Holland: Amsterdam. Hale, Ken and Keyser, Jay. 1993. ‘On argument structure and the lexical expres- sion of syntactic relations’ in K. Hale and J. Keyser (eds) The View from Building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Herweg, Michael. 1991. ‘A critical examination of two classical approaches to aspect’ Journal of Semantics 8:4, 363–402. Huang, J. 1982. ‘Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar’. Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Kayne, Richard. 1993. ‘Towards a modular theory of auxiliary selection’ Studia Linguistica 47, 3–31. —— 1989. ‘Facets of Romance past participle agreement’ in P. Benincà (ed.) Dialect Variation on the Theory of Grammar, 85–104. Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, Richard and Jean Yves Pollock. 2001. ‘New thoughts on stylistic inversion’ in A. Hulk and J. Y. Pollock (eds) Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, 107–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koopman, Hilda, and D. Sportiche, Dominique, 1988. ‘Subjects’. MS. UCLA: Los Angeles. Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. ‘Stage-level and individual-level predicates’ in G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds) The Generic Gook, 125–75. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Kripke, Saul. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. —— 1979. ‘A puzzle about belief’ in A. Margalit (ed.) Meaning and Use: papers presented at the Second Jerusalem Philosophical Encounter April 1976, 239–83. Dordrecht: Reidel. 216 References

—— 1977. ‘Speaker’s reference and semantic reference’ in P. A. French, T. E. Uehling and H. K. Wettstein (eds) Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, 6–27. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1972. ‘The categorical and the thetic judgment’ Foundations of Language 9, 153–85. Labelle, Marie. 1992. ‘Change of state and valency’ Journal of Linguistics 28, 375–414. Laca, Brenda. 1996. ‘Acerca de la semántica de los “plurales escuetos” del Español’ in I. Bosque (ed.) El sustantivo sin determinación. La ausencia de determinante en la lengua española, 241–68. Madrid: Visor. La Fauci, Nunzio. 1992. ‘Capitoli di morfosintassi siciliana antica. Tassonomia dei costrutti medi e ausiliari perfettivi’ Studi linguistici e ﬁ lologici offerti a Girolamo Caracausi, Supplemento al Bollettino del Centro di Studi Filologici e Lin- guistici Siciliani, 185–220. Palermo: Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani. Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. ‘When subjects behave like objects: an analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages’ Studies in Language 24, 611–82. —— 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— 1987. ‘Sentence-focus, information structure, and the thetic–categorical distinction.’ Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 366–82. Lapesa, Rafael. 2000. Estudios de morfosintaxis histórica del español. Madrid: Gredos. Larson, Richard. 1988. ‘On the double object construction’ Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–91. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Legendre, Géraldine and Sorace, Antonella. 2003. ‘Auxiliaires et intransitivité en français et dans les langues romanes’ in D. Godard (ed.) Les langues romanes: problèmes de la phrase simple, 185–233. Paris: CNRS éditions. Levin, Beth and Rappaport, Malka. 1989. ‘An approach to unaccusative mismatches’ Proceedings of NELS 19, 314–28. GLSA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. —— 1986. ‘The formation of adjectival passives’ Linguistic Inquiry 17: 623–61. Levin, Beth and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax- Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge: MIT Press. Lois, Ximena. 1996. ‘Los grupos nominales sin determinante y el paralelismo entre la oración y la frase nominal’ in I. Bosque (ed.) El sustantivo sin deter- minación. La ausencia de determinante en la lengua española, 201–38. Madrid: Visor. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2000. ‘ ‘‘Postverbal’’ subjects and the mapping hypothesis’ Linguistic Inquiry 31, 691–702. —— 1994 ‘Reference and proper names: a theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form’ Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609–65. —— 1991. ‘Extraction from NP and the proper notion of head government’ in The Syntax of Noun Phrases, by A. Giorgi and G. Longobardi, 57–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lonzi, Lidia. 1986. ‘Pertinenza della struttura tema-rema per l’analisi sintattica’ in H. Stammerjohann (ed.) Theme-Rheme in Italian, 99–120. Tübingen: Narr. References 217

López Díaz, Enrique. 1996. ‘Aspectos de los SSNN desnudos en español’ Cuad- ernos de lingüística 3, 119–35. Loporcaro, Michele. 2003. ‘The Unaccusative Hypothesis and participial absolutes in Italian: Perlmutter’s generalization revised’ Rivista di Linguistica 15/2, 199–263. —— 2001. ‘La selezione dell’ausiliare nei dialetti italiani: dati e teorie’ in F. Albano Leoni, R. Sornicola, E. Stenta Krosbakken, and C. Stromboli (eds) Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche, Atti del XXXIII Congresso della Società di Linguistica Italiana, Napoli, 28–30 ottobre 1999, 455–76. Roma: Bulzoni. —— 1998. Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier. Luca, Giuseppe. De (ed.) 1954. Prosatori minori del Trecento. Milano–Napoli: Ricciardi. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Marandin, Jean-Marie. 2001. ‘Unaccusative inversion in French’ in Y. d’Hulst, J. Rooryck and J. Schroten (eds) Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 1999: selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 1999, Leiden, 9–11 December 1999, 195– 222, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martin, R. and Wilmet, M. 1980. Syntaxe du moyen français. Bordeaux: SOBODI. Masullo, Pascual. 1996. ‘Los sintagmas nominales sin determinante: una pro- puesta incorporacionista’ in I. Bosque (ed.) El sustantivo sin determinación. La ausencia de determinante en la lengua española, 169–200. Madrid: Visor. —— 1992. ‘Incorporation and case theory in Spanish: a crosslinguistic perspective’. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle. McNally, Louise. 2004. ‘Bare plurals in Spanish are interpreted as properties’ Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3, 115–33. —— 1998. ‘Existential sentences without existential quantiﬁ cation’ Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 353–92. Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 1999. ‘Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas’ in I. Bosque and V. Demonte (eds) Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 1574–629 (vol 2). Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Menéndez Pidal, Ramón. 1926. Orígenes del español, estado lingüístico de la Penín- sula ibérica hasta el siglo XI. Madrid: Hernando. Milanesi, Gaetano (ed.) 1864. Dell’arte del vetro per musaico. Tre trattatelli dei secoli XIV e XV. Bologna: Romagnoli. Milsark, Gary. 1974. ‘Existential sentences in English’. Ph.D. dissertation. Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Perlmutter, David M. 1989. ‘Multiattachment and the unaccusative hypothesis: the Perfect Auxiliary in Italian.’ Probus 1/1: 63–119. —— 1983. ‘Personal vs. impersonal constructions’ Natural Language and Linguis- tic Theory 1, 141–200. —— 1978. ‘Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis’ Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–89. Berkeley, California. 218 References

Picallo, M. Carme. 1984. ‘The Infl node and the null subject parameter’ Linguis- tic Inquiry 15, 75–102. Pinto, Manuela. 1997. ‘Licensing and interpretation of inverted subjects in Italian’. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrechts Instituut voor Linguistiek, Universiteit Utrecht. (Page references are to the on-line version at http://www.library. uu.nl/digiarchief/dip/diss/01751455/inhoud.htm) Pirson, Jules. 1906. ‘Mulomedicna Chironis. La syntaxe du verbe’ Festschrift zum 12. Neuphilologentag, 390–431. Posner, Rebecca. 1996. The Romance Languages Cambridge: Cambridge University. Pountain, Christopher. 1985. ‘Copulas, verbs of possession and auxiliaries in Old Spanish: the evidence for structurally interdependent changes’ Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 62, 337–55. Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: a minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan. Reinhart, Tanya and Siloni, Tal. 2004. ‘Against the unaccusative analysis of refl exives’ in A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou and M. Everaert (eds) The Unaccusativity Puzzle: explorations of the syntax–lexicon interface, 159–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, Norvin. 1998 ‘The principle of minimal compliance’ Linguistic Inquiry 29:4, 599–629. Richards, Marc and Biberauer, Theresa. 2005. ‘Explaining Expl’ in M. den Dikken and C. Tortora (eds) The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1949. Historische grammatik der italienschen Sprache und ihrer Mundarten. Bern: A Francke. Rosen, Carol. 1984. ‘The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations’ in D. Perlmutter and C. Rosen (eds) Studies in Relational Grammar 2, 38–77. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Russell, Bertrand. 1905. ‘On denoting’ Mind 14, 479–93. Russinovich Solé, Yolanda. 1990. ‘Valores aspectuales en el español’ Hispanic Linguistics 4:1, 57–86. Saccon, Graziella. 1992. ‘VP-internal arguments and locative subjects’ in Pro- ceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistics Society, 383–97. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Schiaffi ni, A. (ed.) 1926. Testi fi orentini del Dugento e dei primi secoli del Trecento. Firenze: Sansoni. Schroten, Jan. 2002. ‘Sobre la ausencia de determinante y su interpretación’ in R. Bok-Bennema (ed.) La oración y sus constituyentes: Estudios de sintaxis genera- tiva Foro Hispánico 21, 71–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Sorace, Antonella. 2000. ‘Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs’ Language 76: 859–90. Stowell, Timothy. 1978. ‘What was there before there was There’ in D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen and K. W. Todrys (eds) Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting References 219

of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 458–471. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Suñer, Margarita. 1982. Syntax and Semantics of Spanish Presentational Sentence- Types. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Togeby, Knud. 1974. Précis historique de grammaire française. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Torrego, Esther. 1989. ‘Unergative–unaccusative alternations in Spanish’ in I. Laka and A. Mahajan (eds) Functional Heads and Clause Structure: MIT working papers in linguistics volume 10, 253–72. Cambridge, MA. Tortora, Cristina. 1997. ‘The syntax and semantics of the weak locative’. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Delaware. Van Valin, Robert Jr. 1993. ‘A synopsis of role and reference grammar’ in R. Van Valin (ed.) Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. —— 1990. ‘Semantic parameters of split intransitivity’ Language 66:2, 221–60. Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Vincent, Nigel. 1982. ‘The development of the auxiliaries HABERE and ESSE in Romance’ in N. Vincent and M. Harris (eds) Studies in the Romance Verb, 71–96. London: Croom Helm. Ward, Gregory, and Birner, Betty. 1995. ‘Deﬁ niteness and the English existential’ Language 71, 722–42. Zagona, Karen. 2002. The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Index

Accent perfect auxiliary E and, 140–3, bare subjects and, 101 145, 161, 179 direct objects and, 65 presentational uses of, 66–7 partitive cliticization and, see also State terms 62 Activity terms prevented from falling on verb, agentive, 57, 59, 66–9, 93 32, 37–8, 62 diagnostics for, 119 see also Focus identifi cational information Accomplishment terms structure and, 59 diagnostics for, 205 n. 23 Latin deponents and, 134 frequently classifi ed as non-agentive, 57, 60, 66–7, 69 unaccusatives, 53, 179, 181, participial absolutes and, 186 179–80 participial absolutes and, 179 partitive cliticization and, 57– partitive cliticization and, 195 60, 195 n. 19 n. 19 perfect auxiliary A and, 67, 69, perfect auxiliary A and, 118 120–2 perfect auxiliary alternations perfect auxiliary alternations and, 141–2 and, 141–2 perfect auxiliary E and, 119–21 perfect auxiliary E and, 140–3, presentational uses of, 59, 66– 161, 179 7, 69 presentational uses of, 66–7 unergativity and, 57, 60, 93 resultant states and, 140–1, see also Contextualization 181, 184 Adjectival past participles semantic decomposition of, refl exive verbs and, 115–16 118–19 restricted to unaccusative verbs, Achievement terms 139, 206 n. 43, 210 n. 4 as denoting the inception of a unergative, 139–40, 207 n. 53 state, 118, 140 –1, 149, 181, see also E-verbs: as copulas 184 Adjunct bare subjects and, 102, 185–6, condition, 42 198–9 n. 18 extraction, 50–1 frequently classifi ed as Agentivity unaccusatives, 53, 102, 179, diagnostics for, 9 181, 185, 186, 199 n. 18 perfect auxiliary selection and, participial absolutes and, 179 121, 144, 207 n. 53 partitive cliticization and, 195 Agreement n. 19 long-distance, 108, 110, 165–6, perfect auxiliary A and, 188 n. 17 120–2 projections, 5, 19–20, 109–10, perfect auxiliary alternations 164–5, 167, 175–6, 188 n. 16, and, 141–2 203 n. 10, 209 n. 11

220 Index 221

see also Past participle past participle agreement with, agreement 163–5, 168–70, 185, 208 n. Alexiadou, Artemis, 108 8, 209 n. 9 Algunos versus unos, 199 n. 22, small clauses and, 131–2, 168, 201 n. 29 185 Anagnostopoulou, Elena, 108 Avere, see A-verbs Aranovich, Raúl, 70 Avoir, see A-verbs A(rgument)-positions, 3, 41, 54, 67, 202 n. 4 Baltin, Mark, 3, 53, 68 Aristotle, 86, 91 Bare subjects Arteaga, Deborah, 190 n. 5 as unaccusative diagnostic in Aspectual class Spanish, 70, 92–5, 101–2, participial absolutes and, 179 185–6, 198–9, 211 n. 9 partitive cliticization and, 67 conjoined, 99–101, 196 n. 2 perfect auxiliary selection and, contrasted with overtly 118–24 quantifi ed subjects, 79–80, see also Accomplishment terms; 88, 90 Achievement terms, etc. default existential Associates interpretation of, 71, 74, case and, 4, 20, 108 96–7 compared with transitive direct empty determiners/quantifi ers objects, 65 and, 12, 71, 73 defi ned, 17 event arguments and, 71, 74 defi nite, 24–6, 31, 191 n. 12 informational richness extraction from, 45, 57, 60–2, requirement on, 100–2 69 locative subjects and, 73, form informational unit with 76–7 verb, 36–7 modifi ed, 99–101, 196 n. 2, introduced by universal 201 n. 27, n. 28 distributives, 22–4 of unergative verbs, 75–7 narrowly focused, 32, 35–6 presentational verbs and, 200 need not be deep objects, 65 n. 23 passive, 30 preverbal, 100–1 pragmatically indeterminate, semantico-pragmatic 38 constraints on the presented, 32–5 distribution of, 78–95, 101, see also Agreement: long- 185 distance; Binding; syntactic distribution of, Unaccusative; Unergative 70–1 Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy universal, 75, 96–7, 102 (ASH), 75, 122, 188 n. 15, see also Accent; Achievement 190 n. 4, 204 n. 15, 211 n. 9 terms; Contextualization; A-verbs Empty Category Principle; as perfect auxiliaries, 12, 109– Ergative Analysis; 14, 119–24, 142–4, 160–1, Government; Individual- 169, 171, 185, 193 n. 20 (see level predicates; Partitive also Accomplishment terms; case; Quantifi cation; Stage- Achievement terms; Activity level predicates; State terms) terms 222 Index

Belletti, Adriana Brentano, Franz, 91, 199 n. 23 on bare nouns, 72, 74 Brother-in-law, 188 n. 14 on defi niteness effects, 20–2, Burzio, Luigi 193–4 n. 6 and the term ‘ergative’, 187 on inversion, 22, 41, 43 n. 2 on participial absolutes, on accusative case, 177 175–6 on impersonal si, 158, 202 n. 2 on partitive cliticization, 40–3, on participial small clauses, 54, 67, 193 n. 1 174 on partitive (inherent) case, 13, on partitive cliticization, 51–2 20–2, 72, 74, 165, 188 n. 17, on past participle agreement, 192 n. 18, 203 n. 7 164, 165 on past participle agreement, on perfect auxiliary selection, 5, 164–5, 167 104, 107, 111–13, 159 on perfect auxiliary selection, 109 Cardinaletti, Anna, 44 on refl exives, 204 n. 17 Carlson, Greg N, 63, 71, 75, 82, on relation between syntax 198 n. 16 and intonation, 195 n. 17 Case Bennis, Hans, 166, 187 n. 4 accusative, 2, 4, 22, 166–7, 174, Bentley, Delia 176–7, 180, 183, 188 n. 16– on defi niteness effects in 17, 210 n. 5 Sardinian, 31 failures of, 175–8 on perfect auxiliary selection, nominative, 4, 20–2, 108, 110, 122–4, 202 n. 1, 206 n. 39 165, 176, 183, 188 n. 17 on ne-cliticization, 56–7, 195 n. transmission, 108, 211 n. 8 20 see also Partitive (inherent) Benveniste, Emile, 4, 109 case Benzing, Joseph, 12 Catalan, see Participial absolutes; Bernstein, Judy, 73 Partitive cliticization; Past ‘Be’-verbs, see E-verbs participle agreement Biberauer, Theresa, 19 C-command, 3, 9, 53–4, 110, Binding 166, 188–9 n. 16, n. 17, 196 of associate/postverbal subject, n. 4, 203 n. 13 by expletive, 107–9, 165 Cennamo, Michela, 202 of clitic, by subject, 104, 203 n. 1 n. 13 Centineo, Giulia, 203 n. 13, 205 of object position, by clitic, n. 25, n. 33, 206 n. 46 164 Chierchia, Gennaro, see of trace, by subject, 4, 104, 107, Subject-affectedness 164 Chomeur, 6 theory, 108 Chomsky, Noam see also Past participle on chains, 176 agreement on control into adjuncts, 10 Birner, Betty, 191 n. 12 on ne-extraction, 189 n. 18 Bouchard, Denis, 19 on raised features, 11 Bowers, John, 187 n. 4 on relation between expletives Brambilla Ageno, Franca, 137, and associates, 108–9 157 on L-marking, 42 Index 223

see also Agreement: long- Defi niteness effects distance; Subject q-role: focus and, 22, 27 assignment of in English, 20, 25 Cinque, Guglielmo in French, 20, 25 on ne-extraction, 3, 13, 44 in Italian, 21–2, 27 on participial absolutes, 4 in Spanish, 22–3 on unaccusative adjectives, 64, partitive case and, 20–2, 27–8, 209 n. 13 182 on wh-extraction, 44 pragmatic rather than Cocchi, Giulia, 4, 109–10, 117, syntactic, 38, 182 159 Degree achievements, 205 n. 21 Combien extraction, 45 Deponent, 132–4, 139 Comrie, Bernard, 131 Diesing, Molly, see Mapping COMP-trace effect, see Null- Hypothesis subject languages; Dini, Luca, 172 Government Direct objects Condition on Extraction and control into adjuncts, 9–10 Domains (CED), 42, as defi ned by Burzio, 202 n. 4 44–5, 47–9, 51, 182, 193 expletive, 177 n. 4 in Relational Grammar, 7, 52–3 Contextualization unaccusative subjects as, 2–4, activity terms and, 59–60, 93, 9, 15, 21 102 see also Partitive cliticization bare subjects and, 77, 90–5, Dispositional combinations, 80–1 102, 185 Donnellan, Keith, 89–90 partitive cliticization and, 57, Dowty, David, 118, 195 n. 20, 59–60 205 n. 21 presentational information DP (determiner phrase) structure and, 59 hypothesis, 71, 73 Contreras, Heles, 3, 12, 71, 73, 96, 196 n. 3 Egerland, Verner, 210 n. 5 Control, see PRO Emission verbs, 123 Conventionalization, see Perfect Emphatic stress, 101, 191 n. 10 auxiliary selection Empty Category Principle (ECP) Corominas, Joan, 151 bare subjects and, 12–13, 71 Cummins, Sarah, 19 defi ned, 71 partitive cliticization and, 13 Deep object analysis, 2–3, 6, 8, see also Postverbal subjects 15, 37, 40, 64–5, 101, 159, En-avant, 193 n. 1 167, 170, 173, 182–3 EPP (Extended Projection Defi nite descriptions Principle), 108 attributive–referential Ergative Analysis distinction and, 89 bare subjects and, 3–4 pragmatic constraint on, 24–6, contrasted with Unaccusative 38 Hypothesis, 5–8, 15, 187 uniqueness of reference and, n. 1 27–8 explained, 1–5 see also Associates; Postverbal past participle agreement and, subjects 165, 167–8 224 Index

Ergative Analysis cont. Focus perfect auxiliary selection and, accentuation and, 32, 37–8, 103, 107, 109, 160 201–2 n. 32 Essere, see E-verbs clause-fi nal placement and, 22, Être, see E-verbs 26, 36–7, 101, 192 n. 16 Event arguments, 71, 74, 200 n. 24 narrow, 32–3, 35–7, 56–9 E-verbs partitive cliticization and, as copulas, 132, 134–42, 157, 56–60 160, 168, 184–5, 207 n. 49 phrase, 3, 22, 29, 41–3, 54, as passive auxiliaries, 109–14, 67 117, 119–24, 160 –1, 163, 166, postverbal subjects and, 22, 29, 169 43, 45, 68 as perfect auxiliaries, 107, 109– wide (sentence), 29, 32, 43, 11, 138, 142, 169, 171, 185 withheld from verb, 31–2, 37, (see also Accomplishment 60, 62, 65 terms; Achievement terms; see also Defi niteness effects Activity terms) French, see Expletives; Partitive past participle agreement with, cliticization; Past participle 162–3, 165–7, 168–9, 185 agreement; Perfect auxiliary Experiencer–stimulus verbs, 95– selection 6, 102, 148 Experiential perfect, 146, 149 Galician, 103 Expletives Garrido, Joaquín, 75, 77, 98, 188 EPP and, 17–18, 108 n. 15, 197 n. 13 in English, 17, 20, 24–5, 30 Government in French, 17, 19–20, 23–6, bare subjects and, 12, 71, 73–4, 30–8, 190 n. 5 101 nominative case and, 20 COMP-trace effect and, 73–4, null, 107–8, 190 n. 2, 6, 211 190 n. 14 n. 8 into specifi er, 46–51, 68 passives and, 13, 20, 31, 34–6, standard GB conception of, 38 196 n. 4 se-moyen and, 31, 34–5 Grice, H. Paul, 89–90 spec-IP (spec-TP) and, 18–19 Gruber, Jeffrey, 9 spec-vp and, 19 unaccusatives and, 31, 33, 38 Haber, see A-verbs unergatives and, 33, 38 ‘Have’-verbs, see A-verbs see also Associates; Herschensohn, Julia, 190 n. 5 Piedmontese; Sardinian; Hidden arguments, see Event Topic–comment division arguments Extensional contexts, 97 Huang, James, 193 n. 4 Extraction, see ne-extraction; wh- Hyperonym, 96–7 extraction, etc. Eyrthórsson, Thorallur, 122–4, Identifi cational, 43, 59 202 n. 1, 206 n. 39 Impersonal si bound from subject position, Factivity, 49–50 202 n. 2 Features, see Movement compared with Latin passive, Fiengo, Robert, 3, 5, 68, 193 n. 1 159 Index 225

past participle agreement and, Larson, Richard, 187 n. 4 209 n. 14 Lasnik, Howard perfect auxiliary selection and, on control into adjuncts, 188 110, 158–9, 161, 202 n. 2, n. 16 209 n. 14 on EPP, 18 Inde, 39, 60 on government, 196 n. 4 Individual-level predicates on partitive (inherent) case, 4, bare subjects and, 71, 74, 97, 13, 20, 72 102 Latin, 39, 131–4, 138–9, 143, 153, deﬁ ned, 96 156, 159, 168–9, 198 n. 15 partitive cliticization and, Legendre, Géraldine, 19, 122, 189 63–4 n. 20 In situ, 2, 11, 126, 165–6, 183, Levin, Beth, 4, 11, 114, 139, 177, 187 n. 3 194 n. 8, 210 n. 4 Internal arguments, 48–9, 50–1, L-marking, 42, 44, 67, 193 n. 5 126, 202 n. 31 Locative subjects, 73 Intransitive passive, 138, 156–7 Lois, Ximena, 71, 74, 99, 196 n. 4 Inversion Longobardi, Giuseppe expletive, 13, 17–38, 60–2, 68 on bare arguments, 71, 99, 201 narrow focus and, 32, 35–7 n. 27 presentational, 33, 68 on extraction, 3, 40, 44, 46–9, stylistic, 45 68 unergative, 19 on Diesing’s Mapping see also Null-subject languages Hypothesis, 201 n. 31 Italian Lonzi, Lidia, 56, 64, 66, 193 bare subjects and, 198 n. 15 n. 21, 194 n. 8 see also Deﬁ niteness effects; López Díaz, Enrique, 75 Participial absolutes; Partitive Loporcaro, Michele, 7, 172–3, cliticization; Past participle 208 n. 1 agreement; Perfect auxiliary Lyons, John, 187 n. 2, 199 n. 18 selection Italo–Romance dialects: perfect Mapping Hypothesis, 201 n. 31 auxiliary selection in, 202 Marandin, Jean-Marie, 189 n. 20, n. 1 208 n. 8 Masullo, Pascual, 71, 197 n. 13 Kayne, Richard, 5, 45, 109–10, Maximal projection, 54, 196 n. 4 117, 164 McNally, Louise, 191 n. 9, n. 12, Koopman, Hilda, 44 197 n. 11 Kratzer, Angelika, see Event Mendikoetxea, Amaya, 70 arguments Menéndez Pidal, Ramón, 169 Kripke, Saul, 89–90 Middle voice, 138, 156 Kuroda, Shige-Yuki, 63 Milsark, Gary, 63, 199 n. 22 Movement Labelle, Marie, 18 of expletives, 19 Laca, Brenda, 197 n. 12 of features, 11 La Fauci, Nunzio, 138 of subject, 2, 67, 164–5, 176, Lambrecht, Knud, 64, 193 n. 22, 183 195 n. 21, 199 n. 23 of verb, 19, 41, 108, 175–6, 178 Lapesa, Rafael, 137 out of small clauses, 168, 185 226 Index

Ne-cliticization, see Ne-extraction licensing of, 13, 20, 72 Ne-extraction position, 22, 26, 165 adnominal pattern of, 39–40, see also Defi niteness effects 42, 46–7, 192 n. 18 Partitive cliticization as successive cyclic, 47, 68 diagnoses presentational c-command and, 3, 53–4 capability, 60–7, 184 compared with wh-extraction, from direct objects, 52–3, 65– 44–7 6, 68 from argument positions, 41 from passive subjects/ from L-marked positions, 42, associates, 13, 57, 60–62, 65, 44, 67 184 preverbal subjects and, 193 n. from unaccusative subjects/ 1 associates, 56–7 see also Partitive cliticization from unergative subjects/ Nuclear stress rule, 191 n. 8 associates, 55–7, 183 Null-subject languages in Catalan, 39, 55, 58, 61–3, 68 immunity of, to COMP-trace in French, 57, 61–2, 68 effect, 14–16, 74 in Italian, 55–8, 61–4, 66–7 inversion in, 19, 32–4, 61, 65, in Relational Grammar, 7, 195 n. 16 52–3 perfect auxiliary selection and, Object q-role 66–7, 69, 111, 115–18 and presented discourse syntactic theories of, 40–54 function, 34, 65, 68 see also Accomplishment terms, and unaccusative subjects, 4, Achievement terms, etc.; 15, 18, 174 Aspectual class; Empty Category Principle; Ergative Palmer, Frank R., 130 Analysis; Focus; Individual- Participial absolutes level predicates; Ne- agreement in, 176 extraction; Refl exives; Stage- as unaccusative diagnostic, level predicates 172–3 Passives in Catalan, 173 bare subjects and, 12–13 in Italian, 172–6, 178–180 compared with unaccusatives, in Spanish, 172–3, 178–9 11–14, 65, 68, 184 perfect auxiliary selection and, past participle agreement and, 52–3, 179 163, 166, 209 n. 11 unergative subjects in, perfect auxiliary selection and, 178–80 11–12, 112–14, 117, 153, 157– see also Accomplishment terms; 8, 168, 184 Achievement terms; presentational capability of, Aspectual class; Case: 36, 38, 68, 184, 195 n. 16 failures of; PRO; Relational refl exive, 34–5, 38, 62, 194 Grammar; Subject q-role n. 15 Partitive (inherent) case see also Associates; Expletives; bare subjects and, 13, 71–2, Partitive cliticization; 74 –5 Postverbal subjects; ECM constructions and, 72, Refl exives; Subject- 75 affectedness Index 227

Past participle agreement see also Agentivity; Ergative in Catalan, 170 Analysis; Impersonal si; in French, 170 Passives; Raising verbs; in Italian, 170 Refl exives; State terms; in Latin, 168–9 Subject-affectedness in Spanish, 162–3, 169–70, 209 Perfect of recent past, 149 n. 11 Perfect of result movement-based theories of, accomplishments/achievements 164–7, 183 and, 146–9, 155 non-standard, 209 n. 9 defi ned, 131 postverbal subjects and, 165–7 in the Middle Ages, 135, 149, single rule of, in early 155, 161 Romance, 168–9 Perlmutter, David M. standardization and, 170 and the Unaccusative two systems of, in modern Hypothesis, 5–6 Romance, 167 on control into adjuncts, 189 see also A-verbs; E-verbs; n. 19 Impersonal si; Participial on grammatical relations, 194 absolutes; Passives; n. 7 Refl exives on partitive ne, 7, 52–3, 68 Perfect auxiliary selection on perfect auxiliary selection conventionalization of, 131, in Italian, 7, 202–3 n. 5 141–3, 145, 149, 151, 155–6, Phenomena verbs, 121–3 161, 185 Picallo, M. Carme, 40 disambiguating function of, Piedmontese, 31 144, 207 n. 53 Pinto, Manuela, 27, 29, 43, 59, Franco–Italian mismatches in 191 n. 15, 201 n. 31 respect of, 111–7 Pollock, Jean Yves, 45 historical perspective on, Portuguese, 70, 103, 134, 185, 129–59 210 n. 5 in modern French, 12, 103–4, Postverbal subjects 111–17, 123–4, 131, 141–5, Condition on Extraction 149, 160 Domains and, 42, 44, 182 in modern Italian, 103–6, 111– defi nite, 2, 21–2, 27–9, 42, 193 17, 119–23, 127–9, 141–5, n. 6 147–8, 150–1, 154–5 government and, 73–4, 190 in Old French, 12, 134–8, 142, n. 14 149, 150, 153 Empty Category Principle and, in Old Italian, 134–7, 149, 74, 182 150–2, introduced by universal in Old Spanish, 136–7, 141, distributives, 21, 22–4 143, 150 object-like behaviour of, 14–16, no complete synchronic 34, 65, 196 n. 6, 203 n. 14 generalization for, 130, 160– passive, 21, 23, 36, 166, 191 n. 1, 184 7, 195 n. 16 semantic theories of, 118–29, presented, 32–4 160, 205 n. 33 see also Binding; Focus; Past syntactic theories of, 104–11, participle agreement; 116–17, 130 Unaccusative; Unergative 228 Index

Pountain, Christopher, 158 intransitive, 111, 114–16, 131, Presentational 152–3, 156–9, 162, 202 n. 3 capability, 33, 36, 38, 61–3, 69, ‘omission’ of pronoun with, 184, 195 n. 16 137–8 information structure, 33–5, partitive cliticization and, 115 59, 64, 66, 200 n. 23 past participle agreement and, unaccusatives, 33, 38, 61, 63, 162–4, 204 n. 17 68, 184, 200 n. 23 perfect auxiliary selection and, unergatives, 33, 38, 61, 66, 68 103–4, 111, 114–17, 131, versus ‘logically unstructured’, 156–9 200 n. 23 transitive, 111, 115–16, 131, see also Accomplishment terms, 157–8 Achievement terms, etc.; Bare see also Adjectival past subjects; Inversion; Object q- participles role; Partitive cliticization; Reinhart, Tanya, 115, 118 Passives Relational Grammar Prior mention, 25, 191 n. 11 ‘arc’ phraseology in, 5, 202–3 Pro, see Expletives: null n. 5 PRO contrasted to GB/Minimalism, in adjunct clauses, 9–11 5–8 in participial clauses, 174–6, overview of, 5–6 180, 183, 210 n. 1, n. 2, n. 7 participial absolutes and, 7, 173 Probe–goal theory, see partitive cliticization and, 7, Agreement: long-distance 52–3 Projection Principle, 51 perfect auxiliary selection and, 7, 202–3 n. 5 Quantiﬁ cation ‘tail’ phraseology in, 188 n. 10 bare subjects and, 84–90 ‘Remain’ verbs default existential, 71 aspectual ambiguity of, 146–7, existential, 78–81, 83, 85, 87– 155 8, 125 ‘cease’ meaning of, 150 redundant, 88–90 Resultant-state constraint, 53, universal, 82, 84–7 140, 179, 181, 186 Quine, Willard Van Orman, 80, Richards, Marc, 19 82–4, 88 Richards, Norvin, 167 Rizzi, Luigi Radford, Andrew, 187 n. 4, n. 7 on binding relations, 203 n. 9 Raising, see Movement on COMP-trace effect, 74 Raising verbs (predicates), 103, on ne-extraction, 54, 193 n. 1 107, 111–13, 116, 127, 188 Rohlfs, Gerhard, 205 n. 25 n. 9 Rosen, Carol, 130, 205 n. 24 Rappaport Hovav, Malka, 4, 11, Russell, Bertrand, 28–9, 89 114, 139, 177, 194 n. 8, 210 n. 4 Sardinian, 31 Referentially opaque contexts, 83 Se-moyen, see Expletives Reﬂ exives Sentence-radicals, 83 ergative, 115, 203 n. 14 Siloni, Tal, 115, 118 inherent, 115, 157, 180, 203 Sm versus some, 199 n. 22, 201 n. 14 n. 29 Index 229

Sorace, Antonella, 19, 189 n. 20 Subject q-role see also Auxiliary Selection assignment of, 8–9, 15, 175, 177 Hierarchy (ASH) blocking of, 139, 174–5, 180, Spanish 183–4, 209 n. 13, 210 n. 4 diffi culty of classifying verbs Suñer, Margarita, 64 as unaccusative in, 211 n. 9 see also Bare subjects; T(ense), 54, 166, 203 n. 8 Defi niteness effects; Past That-trace effect, see COMP-trace participle agreement; Perfect effect auxiliary selection; Theme q-role, 156 Refl exives: intransitive Thetic judgments, 63–4, 199–200 Spec, see Specifi er n. 23 Specifi er Togeby, Knud, 174 –head relation, 164–5, 196 Topic–comment division n. 5 defi nite subjects and, 35 of agreement projection, 175 individual-level predicates and, of focus phrase, 42–3, 67 63 of IP/TP, 2, 17, 19, 73, 190 n. 5, passives and, 34–5 203 n. 8, 211 n. 8 prevented by expletives, 37 of vp, 19, 166, 187 n. 4, 190 universal distributives and, 24, n. 1 35 of VP, 41, 187 n. 4 Torrego, Esther, 72–3, 76–7, 92, see also Government 194 n. 10 Sportiche, Dominique, 44 Stage-level predicates Unaccusative bare subjects and, 71, 97–8, adjectives, 64, 209 n. 13 102 associates, 4, 30, 45 defi ned, 96 defi ned, 2 partitive cliticization and, diagnostics, 15, 18, 69–70, 107, 64, 173, 180, 183–4 thetic judgments and, 63 Hypothesis, 5–6, 11, 15, see also Event arguments 103 State terms postverbal subjects, 2, 10, 15, achievement senses of, 145–53, 21–2, 40, 45–8, 101, 165 155–6, 179 syntax, 31, 33, 60, 101, 107, bare subjects and, 95–9 193 n. 21 diagnostics for, 146, 148, 154 Unergative partitive cliticization and, 67 associates, 18–20, 30, 38, 45 perfect auxiliary selection and, defi ned, 2 141, 145–56, 161 postverbal subjects, 2, 15, 22, presentational uses of, 66–7 26, 40–7, 51–2, 54, 67, 73–4, pseudo-, 153–5 101, 167, 194 n. 6 Subjacency, 193 n. 3 syntax, 18, 30 Subject-affectedness –unaccusative alternations, 65, expletivization and, 125–7 72–3, 76–7, 193 n. 21, 194 n. passives and, 124–5 9, n. 10 perfect auxiliary selection and, see also Direct objects: 124, 127–9 expletive; Inversion refl exivization and, 125–8 Unfocusable verbs, 32, 38 230 Index

Uniqueness interpretation, see Vincent, Nigel, 158, 168 Defi nite descriptions VP-internal subject hypothesis, Universal 18, 67 bare subjects, see Bare subjects vp shells, 19, 167, 187 n. 4, 190 distributives, see Associates; n. 1 Postverbal subjects; Topic– comment division Ward, Gregory, 191 n. 12 quantifi er, see Quantifi cation Weak existential interpretation, 59 Van Valin, Robert Jr, 179, 195 n. Wh-extraction, 44–50, 73–4, 20 164 Vendler, Zeno, 145 Verb raising, see Movement: of Zubizarreta, María Luisa, 191 verbs n. 8