Dissertations Glot International, Volume 3, Issue 8, October 1998 11 (6) NON-VERBAL PREDICATION AND a.2 b. HEAD MOVEMENT COP(NP1, NP2) NP (NP) 1 1 In equatives then, it is the abstract predicate COP, not the nominal predicate, that undergoes by Andrew Carnie head movement. The COP morpheme is realized phonologically with the subject agreement fea- tures of the INFL head, in the form of a pronomi- reviewed by Peter Svenonius nal element (é/í/iad). Both nominals appear in argument positions. This is seen in (7): Summary (2) (7) by the author CP CP 1. Introduction C IP One of the goals of the recent Chomskyan C IP Is minimalist movement is the simplification (often INFL COPP on conceptual grounds) of the mechanisms found in syntactic theory. In this thesis, I further one INFL VP such reduction and attempt to justify it with subj COP’ empirical evidence. Primarily using evidence from copular constructions in Modern Irish, I argue for subj COP attribute an underdetermined theory of phrase structure V obj where a p-marker’s behavior in the syntax deter- In (7), the COP predicate bears inflectional fea- mines its X-bar status rather than the X-bar tures which it checks by head moving through the One of the most remarkable features of Modern stipulations driving the p-marker’s behavior. functional heads to the highest position. The Irish is the fact that this predicate-subject order, Since the advent of generative grammar, the arguments move to their case positions, in a an order involving head movement in its deriva- notions of phrase and head have been viewed as manner parallel to normal VSO order. This, then, tion, is also found with non-verbal predicates. primitives by many syntacticians (see for exam- derives the two basic word orders of Irish copular Consider the following copular construction found ple, Chomsky 1957). More recently some authors clauses. A summary of clause types is given in (8). have claimed that they can be derived from other with nominal, individual level predicates (see Doherty 1996 for a discussion of the distribution structural relations (such as terminality (i.e. a (8) head) or being dominated by an element that is of this and other Irish copular constructions): Comp Infl Spec,VP VP,comp not a projection of the head (i.e. a phrase) (see for (3) ()PARTICLE ()PREDICATE ()SUBJECT ()OBJECT/COMP example Speas 1990, Chametzky 1996, Chomsky Is dochtúir (é) Seán 1994, 1995). Under both of these conceptions of C doctor agr John Ní fhaca Seán an dochtúir Verb phrasality, however, the standard assumption is ‘John is a doctor’ NEG saw John the doctor that whether a phrase marker (henceforth p- Ní dochtúir Seán Indef N marker) is a head or a phrase determines its In this construction, which I call the predicative NEG doctor John behavior with respect to the rest of the syntax. By copular construction, the non-verbal predicate contrast, I claim the “phrasality” or “headness” of dochtúir appears between the complementizer is Ní hé Seán an dochtúir Def NP a phrase marker is determined solely by the and the agreement morpheme é. In chapters 4 and NEG COP+ AGR John the doctor function and behavior of that p-marker. “Phrases” 5 of this thesis (and in later work like Carnie and “heads” in this conception are thus simply forthcoming), following a suggestion in Collberg In chapter 7, I consider alternative analyses to artifacts of the behavior of the p-markers in- (1990) and related work on Breton by Hendrick word order alternations in copular constructions, volved. What limits the behavior of p-markers are (1994), I analyze this as the head movement of the including the unified be analysis of Heggie (1988) other properties of the human language computa- non-verbal predicate to the same position as and others, DeGraff’s (1992) theory based on tional system (such as the interface with morphol- verbal predicates in VSO sentences: resumptive pronouns, and Doherty’s (1996) analy- ogy/phonology and the interface with the semantic sis and show that they are inadequate to the task component), instead of a structural definition or (4) CP of dealing with all the facts of the equative/predi- stipulation of the p-markers’ status as a phrase or cative alternation of Irish. head. The head-movement of non-verbal predicates is IP forms the basis for my claim that phrase structure 2. The facts and assumptions underlying is underdetermined with respect to phrasality. the argument INFL SC (= Small Clause) Modern Irish is a VSO language as seen in (1): 3.1. The mysterious phrasal predicates subj NP The analysis sketched above runs into prob- (1) lems when it comes to complex nominal predicates Leanann an t-ainmní an briathar i nGaeilge like that in (9). The whole predicate appears in follow.PRES the subject the verb in Irish attribute ‘The subject follows the verb in Irish’ the position associated with the head-moved element. Since head-movement is, by definition, Following McCloskey (1983) among many others, This construction can be contrasted with the one I the movement of heads, not of phrasal categories, I assume that this order is derived from an under- call an equative copular construction seen in (5): it seems unusual to claim such movement is lying SVO order. In chapters 2 and 3 of this the- possible for what appear to be phrases. sis, I argue for a particular analysis of VSO order (5) involving the raising of the verb to the highest Is é Seán an dochtúir (9) inflectional head around the subject, following C agr John the doctor a. Is [dochtúir capall] é ‘John is the doctor’ COMP [doctor horses.GEN him Sproat (1985) among others. This analysis in- ‘He is a doctor of horses’ volves a split VP, a flipped TP/AgrS structure and In the equative construction, where two definite b. Is [amhrán aL bhuailfidh an píobaire] “Yellow COMP [song COMP play.FUT the bagpiper a VP-embedded AgrO/Asp functional structure. It or referring NPs are equated, neither NP appears accounts for a wide variety of facts about infini- Submarine” in the privileged head-moved position between the ‘‘Yellow Submarine’ is a song which the bagpiper is going tives, aspectual clauses and EPP effects, and is complementizer and the agreement morpheme. to play’ outlined more thoroughly in Carnie and Harley Instead, both NPs appear to the right of the (1997) and in forthcoming work by Carnie and agreement morpheme. I claim that the difference At first glance these sentences would appear to Harley. What is important to the argument here, between the equative and predicative construc- argue against a head movement approach to non- however, is simply that the verb moves to a posi- tions reduces to the controversial difference in verbal predicates in Irish. Under standard as- tion lower than the highest complementizer argument structure. Equative constructions sumptions, the phrasal predicate must, if it is in a particle and higher than agreement morphology involve an abstract equative predicate (COP) derived position, appear in a specifier (see Doher- and the subject, and for the purposes of this brief which takes two arguments (6a). Predicative ty 1997 for one such analysis). There is evidence, summary I abbreviate this derivation as in (2). constructions by contrast involve a single argu- however, that these elements are not in specifiers, ment, with the other non-verbal predicate func- nor are they in actuality XPs. Instead I claim that tioning predicatively (6b). these are p-markers whose phrasality is underde- Dissertations Glot International, Volume 3, Issue 8, October 1998 12 termined, behaving outwardly phrasal with (13) pose that the ability to bear tense and agreement respect to the morphology, but X°-like with re- C + Infl Spec,VP Comp, VP R-adj features is a property only associated with ele- spect to several syntactic tests. ments that undergo head to head-movement (this Ní fhaca Seán an teangeolaí inné notion will be articulated more precisely below), NEG 3.2. Evidence from wh-extraction saw John the doctor today whereas the ability to bear case features is a One piece of evidence in favor of the X°-like property associated with element that undergo XP status of complex indefinite nominal predicates Given that I have claimed predicates in copular movement (A or A-bar). Notice that the relevant comes from wh-extraction. The argument is as clauses are in Infl, then when elision occurs, then criterion for what is an XP and what is an X° here follows. If predicates have undergone head move- the predicate should remain. At least for the is how they behave, both with respect to bearing ment like X°s, then subcomponents of these adjectival and prepositional predicates which features and with respect to movement. predicates should not be able to extract via wh- appear in this construction, this is true (see I suggest, partially following Chomsky, that movement. Before proceeding to the actual test, it (14), (15)). the following are some possible criteria for the is worth noting that an account of such violations XP-ness or X°-ness of a p-marker. Recall that a in terms of island effects and subjacency is unten- (14) p-marker can be both an XP and an X° at the able in Irish, however, as Irish does consistently Q: An le Seán an Subaru? A: Is leis ‘Yes’ same time, so it is not the case that any one of the Q with John the Subaru COMP INFL allow subjacency/ECP type violations (McCloskey ‘Does John own the Subaru?’ COMP with.him following properties are necessarily the definition 1979).