1 in Defense of Covert A-Movement: Backward Raising and Beyond Maria Polinsky Harvard University Workshop on Diagnostics in Synt

In defense of covert A-movement: 2 True covert A-movement: Backward Raising in Adyghe Backward raising and beyond Adyghe (Circassian): NW Caucasian (Abkhazo-Adyghean) language, spoken in Maria Polinsky the south of Russia and Turkey Harvard University Workshop on Diagnostics in Syntax (1) NW Caucasian (Abkhazo-Adyghean) family Leiden and Utrecht, January 29-31, 2009 Vo Circass- Abkhaz- Ubykh ian Abazin 1 Introduction 1 1

Kabardian Adyghe Abkhaz Abaza

GOAL OF THIS TALK: present and analyze evidence for covert A-movement; head-final, extremely free surface word order, with a difference between root present arguments and diagnostics for distinguishing Agree and covert and embedded clauses (embedded clauses have to be verb-final); pro-drop movement morphological cases (case marking fused with the determiner): ergative (-m), MAIN QUESTIONS: absolutive (-r), generalized oblique; other relations expressed by PPs; no • Should all phenomena where a constituent appears to have been “covertly quirky cases (see Rogava and Keraševa 1966; Smeets 1984) displaced” to a higher position receive a unified analysis? • Specifically, should they all be accounted for without movement, contra rich agreement with the absolutive (ABS) and ergative (ERG) in person and earlier movement-based analyses? number; prefixal agreement: slots for each of these DPs, agreement in number+person; ANSWERS AS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE: suffixal agreemen: agreement with ABS only, only in number

These phenomena should receive a unified analysis 2.1 raising verbs

These phenomena should be accounted for without movement due to the relevant predicates: HWEn ‘become, turn out to’, qEBeB’En ‘happen to’, S’Et ‘be assumption that Agree is sufficient to account for what was earlier likely to’, feZen ‘begin’, wExEn ‘stop, be over’, wEblen ‘start, begin’ associated with covert movement (Chomsky 2000, etc.)

ANSWERS AS PROPOSED HERE: (2) [axe-me pjEsme-r a-txE-new] feZa-R-ex 3PL-ERG letter-ABS 3PL.ERG-write-SUP begin-PAST-PL These phenomena are distinct and should not all receive a unified analysis EMBEDDED AGENT LDA, AS ABS? ‘They began to write a letter.’ Some require a (covert A-)movement analysis, others a non-movement analysis Unusual: the agent of the embedded clause remains downstairs but determines what seems like Long-Distance Agreement in the matrix clause OUTLINE OF THE TALK • What is displaced is moved, or in support of covert A-movement: The verbs are unaccusative: do not assign a thematic role, allow idiom chunks to Backward Raising in Adyghe (section 2) raise, do not form imperatives • When Agree is good enough: Greek (section 3) • Diagnosing covert A-movement across languages (section 4) (3) expl WEC’E{E-new je-WEble-Ø • Conclusions and outstanding questions (section 5) be_cold-INF 3ABS-start-PRES ‘It starts getting cold.’

Summary so far: an embedded argument, regardless of its case, determines Evidence for the biclausal structure: each clause can have independent temporal morphological agreement on the matrix verb as if it were absolutive specification and separate negation; NPI can be licensed in the lower or higher clause; double relativization (see Polinsky and Potsdam 2005) (8) Analytical possibilities: a. Long-distance agreement (4) a. [maSjEne-r depq-Em jeWe-new] TWe HWERe b. Backward Raising (covert A-movement) car-ABS wall-OBL hit-INF twice turned_out ‘The car twice turned out to hit the wall.’ (two separate occasions) LONG-DISTANCE AGREEMENT analysis—matrix clause has no representation of b. [maSjEne-r depq-Em TWe jeWe-new] HWERe the raised subject, agreement is determined by the DP in the embedded clause car-ABS wall-OBL twice hit-INF turned_out (9) ______Agree ______‘The car turned out to hit the wall twice.’ ? ? (two hittings on one occasion) [axe-me pjEsme-r a-txE-new] qEBeB’E-R-ex 3PL-ERG letter-ABS 3PL.ERG-write-SUP happen-PAST-PL (5) a. jELesEm EB’weV [ShwenC’Em-B’e Twe sE-we-new] ‘They happened to write a letter.’ this year gun-INSTR twice 1SG-shoot-SUP HWRe BACKWARD RAISING analysis—matrix clause contains a silent representation of turned out the raised subject, which determines agreement locally ‘This year I turned out to shoot my gun twice (in a row).’ (10) __ Agree __ b. jELesEm EB’weV [ShwenC’Em-B’e sE-we-new ] ? ? this year gun-INSTR 1SG-shoot-SUP [axe-me pjEsme-r a-txE-new] axe-r qEBeB’E-R-ex Twe HWRe 3PL-ERG letter-ABS 3PL.ERG-write-SUP 3PL-ABS happen-PAST-PL twice turned out ‘They happened to write a letter.’ ‘This year there were two times that I turned out to shoot my gun.’

Evidence for raising: no imperative formation, no selectional restrictions, 2.2 Arguments against Long-Distance Agreement and for Backward Raising preservation of idiomatic meanings 2.2.1 quirky agreement (6) a. E-pe hWEzE-r qErexE plural suffixal agreement is determined by the absolutive argument; exceptional 3SG.POSS-nose smoke-ABS blows quirky agreement has to be posited for the construction in question where the ‘S/He is furious.’ (lit.: smoke is coming out of his/her nose) agreement can be determined by the ergative DP or absolutive DP: b. [E-pe hWEzE-r qErexjE-new] qEBeB’ER/feZeR 3SG.POSS-nose smoke-ABS blow-SUP happened/began (11) ergative goal ‘S/He happened/began to be furious.’ ______Agree ______

? ? (7) a. gWES’E{e-m gWES’E{e qjELfE [axe-me pEsme-r a-txE-new] qEBeB’E-R-ex word-ERG word.ABS give_birth.PRES 3PL-ERG letter-ABS 3PL.ERG-write-SUP happen-PAST-PL lit.: “Word gives birth to word.” ‘They happened to write a letter.’ ‘There are consequences to what one says.’ b. gWES’E{em gWES’E{e qELf-ew WEble-R word-ERG word.ABS give_birth-INF start-PAST lit. “Word started giving birth to word.” ‘What s.o. said began to have consequences.’

(12) absolutive goal 2.2.3 silent copy of raised subject in matrix clause ______Agree ______? ? Diagnostics: matrix scope of the lower subject; reflexive on the higher verb; [axe-r twe qEKeWEpBe-new ] qEBeB’E-R-ex emphatic depictive (only in some dialects); variable binding 3PL-ABS twice ask-SUP happen-PAST-PL ‘They happened to ask twice.’ scope with respect to matrix negation wide scope of the quantified DP which is downstairs (as apparent from its case), regardless of its linear position 2.2.2 subject in the lower clause (16) zeCeme zakonxe-r a-RecaCer-ep all.ERG laws-ABS 3PL.ERG-obey-NEG Diagnostics: the subject’s case is determined by the lower predicate (ERG if ‘Nobody obeys the law.’ (lit.: All do not obey laws) ALL > NEG transitive, ABS if intransitive); the subject is relativized with wh-agreement ‘Not everybody obeys the law.’ NEG > ALL (cf. O’Herin 2002: Ch. 8) (17) [zeCeme zakonxe-r a-mE-RecaCe-new] HWRe(-x) all.ERG laws-ABS 3.PL.ERG-NEG-obey-SUP turn out.PRES(-PL) case alternations related to the transitivity of embedded verb ‘Everybody turns out not to obey the law.’ ALL > NEG (13) a. [thape-xe-r pEzE-new] Q-xWER-ex %‘Not everybody turns out to obey the law.’ NEG > ALL leaf-PL-ABS fall-SUP 3ABS-began-3PL ‘(The) leaves began to fall.’ scope with respect to the raising verb: the DP in the lower clause can b. [axe-me se saS’e-new] Q-HWERe-x take wide scope over the matrix verb 3PL-ERG 1 SG.ABS lead-SUP 3SG.ABS-began-3PL.ABS (18) a. [aS’-zaqWE Wse-r E-txE-new] wExe-R ‘They began to lead me.’ 3SG.ERG-only poem-ABS 3SG.ERG-write-SUP stop-PAST ‘Only s/he stopped to write a poem.’ wh-agreement under relativization “It’s only her who stopped writing a poem.” ONLY > STOP (14) a. mE VEfE-m jE-maSjEne E-S’eZ’E-R ?? “It stopped being the case that she was the only one to write a poem.” this man-ERG 3SG.POSS-car 3SG.ERG-sell-PAST STOP > ONLY ‘This man sold his car.’ b. [Wse-r E-txE-new] ar-zaqWE wExe-R b. [zjE-maSjEne ec i zEi-S’eZ’E] VEfEi-r poem-ABS 3SG.ERG-write-SUP 3SG.ABS-only stop-PAST WH.POSS-car WH.ERG-sell man-ABS ‘Only s/he stopped to write a poem.’ ‘the man who sold his car’ “It’s only her who stopped writing a poem.” ONLY > STOP (15) a. [mE VEfE-m jE-maSjEne E-S’eZ’E-new] qEBeB’E-R ?? “It stopped being the case that she was the only one to write a poem.” this man-ERG 3SG.POSS-car 3ERG-sell-SUP happen-PAST STOP > ONLY ‘This man happened to sell his car.’

b. [[zjE-maSjEne ec i zE-S’eZ’E-new] Q-qEBeB’E] cEfE-r WH.POSS-car WH.ERG-sell-SUP WH.ABS-happen man-ABS reflexivization ‘the man that happened to sell his car’ matrix verb can show reflexive marking (only for feZen ‘begin’, wExEn ‘stop, c. ?[[jE-maSjEne E-S’eZ’E-new] Q-qEBeB’E] cEfE-r be over’, weblen ‘start, begin’) 3SG.POSS-car 3SG.ERG-sell-SUP WH.ABS-happen man-ABS ‘the man that happened to sell his car’ (19) axe-r [pEsme-r a-txE-new] zE-feZa-R-ex 3PL-ABS letter-ABS 3PL.ERG-write-SUP REFL-begin-PAST-PL

‘They began to write a letter for themselves.’ b. [axe-me pjEsme-r a-txE-new] zE-feZa-R-ex 3PL-ERG letter-ABS 3PL.ERG-write-SUP REFL-begin-PAST-PL ‘They began to write a letter for themselves.’

licensing of matrix quantifier (24) axe-r [axe-me pjEsme-r a-txE-new] qEBeB’E-R-ex (20)a. [aS’ jeZ’E-m Wse-r E-txE-new] qEBeB’E-R 3PL-ABS 3PL-ERG letter-ABS 3PL.ERG-write-SUP happen-PAST-PL 3SG.ERG by_self-ERG poem-ABS 3SG.ERG-write-SUP happen-PAST ‘They happened to write a letter.’ ‘S/he happened to write a poem by him/herself.’ (quantifier associated with the overt ergative DP in the embedded Theoretically, the variation between Forward and Backward Raising is clause) permitted by principles of chain reduction (Nunes 2004) b. [Wse-r E-txE-new] a-r jeZ’E-r qEBeB’E-R (25) a. pronounce only one copy (stipulation) poem-ABS 3SG.ERG-write-SUP 3SG-ABS by_self-ABS happen-PAST b. pronounce the copy that has minimum unchecked features ‘S/he happened to write a poem by him/herself.’ (floating quantifier in the absolutive associated with overt matrix copy) (26) Adyghe: Neither copy has unchecked features, so both options are c. %[aS’ Wse-r E-txE-new] jeZ’E-r qEBeB’E-R possible 3SG.ERG poem-ABS 3SG.ERG-write-SUP by_self-ABS happen-PAST ‘S/he happened to write a poem by him/herself.’ (floating quantifier in the absolutive case associated with the silent Outstanding question: multiple case checking (but see Bejar and Massam 1999, matrix copy) Bobaljik and Branigan 2006, Potsdam 2006, and references therein)

variable binding (21) [mE {Wef-Er zepsteWei-me a-I’e-new] The choice of copy for deletion is determined outside syntax (cf. Boškovic this work-ABS all-ERG 3PL.ERG-know-SUP 2002, Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2005; cf. Potsdam 2007 for a similar jai-sebij-xe-m paje qEBeB’E-R(-ex) alternation in Malagasy Object Control) 3PL.POSS-child-PL-OBL for happen-PAST(-PL) ‘All happened to know how to do this work, to the benefit of their If not syntax, what determines the pronunciation of a particular copy? children.’ Information structure? preferences based on proximity to the licensing verb (the verb whose ¾ the Long-Distance agreement analysis is untenable proximity matters is underlined; the relevant DP is in boldface)

2.3 analysis (27) a. axe-r qEBeB’ERex [axe-me pjEsme-r a-txE-new] FORWARD 3PL-ABS happened 3PL-ERG letter-ABS 3PL.ERG-write-SUP Raising of the embedded subject to matrix clause subject position b. [axe-me pjEsme-r a-txE-new] axe-r qEBeB’ERex FORWARD (22) axe-r [axe-me pjEsme-r a-txE-new] qEBeB’E-R-ex b´. [pjEsme-r axe-me a-txE-new] axe-r qEBeB’ERex FORWARD 3PL-ABS 3PL-ERG letter-ABS 3PL.ERG-write-SUP happen-PAST-PL c. [pjEsme-r axe-me a-txE-new] axe-r qEBeB’ERex BACKWARD ‘They happened to write a letter.’ d. qEBeB’ERex axe-r [axe-me pjEsme-r a-txE-new] FORWARD e. axe-r [axe-me pjEsme-r a-txE-new] qEBeB’ERex BACKWARD Backward Raising involves pronouncing the lower copy of movement chain ‘They happened to write a letter.’ Agree takes place locally between the higher copy and the raising verb Additional processing factor: dispreference for center embedding (cf. Uehara (23) ______Agree ______2003 on the extra processing costs of center embedding in Japanese, ? ? Polinsky & Kwon in prep. on the processing cost of center embedding in axe-r [axe-me piEsme-r a-txE-new] qEBeB’E-R-ex Korean) 3PL-ABS 3PL-ERG letter-ABS 3PL.ERG-write-SUP happen-PAST-PL ‘They happened to write a letter.’

Since both copies are case-marked, the higher copy can also be pronounced

INTERIM CONCLUSIONS: Adyghe Forward/Backward Raising alternation instantiates the opposition between overt and covert A-movement 3 When Agree is good enough: Long-Distance Agreement in Greek

The relevant diagnostics identifying covert A-movement: scopal (29) Basic ingredients of Agree interactions in the matrix clause, licensing of matrix clause elements Agree occurs between two syntactic objects, a probe and a goal (depictives, binding), scrambling (language-specific, not reliable in a. Probe c-commands goal Adyghe) b. Probe has an uninterpretable inflectional feature c. Goal has an interpretable matching feature Both Forward and Backward Raising are theoretically possible under e. Probe and Goal become valued for the matched features the decompositional approach to movement and can be accounted for (Chomsky 2001; Bhatt 2005; Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2005) under principles of chain reduction (Nunes 2004) 3.1 Greek raising verbs Both options are available to a learner and are made visible by case marking and agreement; in addition, Circassian also has the alternation fenete ‘seem’ (Anagnostopoulou 2003) between Forward and Backward Subject Control, cf. in Kabardian: aspectual verbs arxizo ‘start’ and stamatao ‘stop’ (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1999) (30) a. %ta pedhia fenonde na agapun tin Maria (28) a. pśaś-m [pśaś-r q’až-m k’-n] jrkaq’m girl-ERG girl-ABS village-OBL go-INF dared.NEG the children seem.3PL SBJV love.3PL the Maria ‘The girl did not dare to go to the village.’ ‘The children seem to love Maria.’ (see Anagnostopoulou 2003) b. [pśaś-r q’až-m k’-n] pśaś-m jrkaq’m b. ta pedhia arxisan na trehoun girl-ABS village-OBL go-INF girl-ERG dared.NEG the children start.3PL SBJV run.3PL ‘The girl did not dare go to the village.’ (Kumaxov and Vamling ‘The children started to run.’ 1998: 239) c. i dhaskali stamatisan na malonun tus mathites the teacher.PL stop.3PL SBJV scold.3PL the students ¾ Agree alone is not sufficient to replace covert movement ‘The teachers stopped scolding the students.’ General difficulties in establishing covert A-movement: structural evidence is difficult to find—but see the diagnostics proposed evidence for raising syntax and lack of an external argument: nominative here anaphors, weak crossover and clitic doubling, idioms (Alexiadou and interpretive evidence is weak or unavailable due to lack of thematic role Anagnostopoulou 1999, Anagnostopoulou 2003) on the raising verb; maybe information-structural evidence? (31) a. mu bikan psili st’aftia 1SG.GEN enter.3PL fleas.NOM in.the.ears lit. “Fleas entered my ears” ‘I became suspicious.’ Is there still need for (long-distance) Agree? b. ?psili arxisan [na mu benun st’aftia fleas started.3PL SBJV 1SG.GEN enter.3PL in.the.ears problematic because of bare plural subject ‘I started becoming suspicious.’ (lit.: “Fleas started to enter my ears.”) (32) a. arxizun na mu anavun ta labakia start.3PL SBJV 1SG.DAT light up.3PL DET lamps b. ta labakia arxizun [na mu anavun] DET lamps start.3PL SBJV 1SG.DAT light up.3PL ‘I am beginning to get pissed off.’ (lit.: ‘My lamps start lighting up.’)

different from copy raising (cf. Joseph 1976, Perlmutter and Soames 1979 for BACKWARD RAISING analysis copy raising in Greek) (36) i dhaskali stamatisan [na malonun i dhaskali tus mathites] stop SBJV scold the teachers the students subject DP alternates between matrix and embedded clauses ‘The teachers stopped scolding the students.’ (33) a. i dhaskali stamatisan [na malonun tus mathites] the teacher.PL stop.3PL SBJV scold.3PL the students SCRAMBLING analysis ‘The teachers stopped scolding the students.’ (37) a------> b. stamatisan [na malonun i dhaskali tus mathites] # a -> stop.3PL SBJV scold.3PL the teacher.PL the students dhaskali stamatisan [na malonun matithes] (dhaskali) (mathites) ‘The teachers stopped scolding the students.’ stop SBJV scold students teachers students c. arxisan [na mu benun psili st’aftia] ‘The teachers stopped scolding the students.’ start.3PL SBJV 1SG.GEN enter.3PL flea.PL in.the.ears ‘I started becoming suspicious.’ (lit.: “Fleas started to enter my ears.”) ¾ Only in the LONG DISTANCE AGREEMENT analysis is the subject exclusively in the embedded clause obligatory agreement on raising verb regardless of the subject’s position (34) a. i dhaskali stamatisan/*stamatise 3.3 arguments for “low” subject the teacher.PL stop.3PL/*3SG

[na malonun tus mathites] DP shows uniformly “low” behavior, no evidence that it is ever in the higher SBJV scold.3PL the students clause ‘The teachers stopped scolding the students.’

b. stamatisan/*stamatise • case stop.3PL/*3SG subject shows case appropriate for the lower domain [na malonun i dhaskali tus mathites] (38) a. idha ton dhaskalo /*o dhaskalos SUBJ scold.3PL the teacher.PL the students saw.1SG the teacher.ACC/the teacher.NOM ‘The teachers stopped scolding the students.’ na arxizi na maloni ta pedhia c. arxisan/*arxise [na mu benun psili st’aftia] SBJV start.3SG SBJV scold.3SG the children start.3PL/*3SG SBJV 1SG.GEN enter.3PL flea.PL in.the.ears ‘I saw the teacher begin to scold the children.’ ‘I became suspicious.’ (lit.: “Fleas started to enter my ears.”) b. idha [na arxizi 3.2 analytical possibilities saw.1SG SBJV start.3SG na maloni o dhaskalos/*ton dhaskalo ta pedhia] Three options: LDA, Backward Raising, “pure” Agree SBJV scold.3SG the teacher.NOM/the teacher.ACC the children ‘I saw the teacher begin to scold the children.’ LONG-DISTANCE AGREEMENT analysis (35) ______Agree ______• coordination ? ? complement clauses can be coordinated, trapping the un-raised subject stamatisan [na malonun i dhaskali tus mathites] (39) a. o dhaskalos arxise the teacher.NOM started.3SG stop.3PL SBJV scold.3PL the teacher.PL the students ‘The teachers stopped scolding the students.’ [[na maloni ta pedhia] ke [na mazevi tis ergasies]] SBJV scold.3SG the children and SBJV collect.3SG the papers ‘The teacher began to scold the children and collect the papers.’

b. arxise [[na maloni o dhaskalos ta pedhia] • quantifier float started.3SG SBJV scold.3SG the teacher the children floated quantifers are licensed in a clausemate configuration ke [na mazevi tis ergasies]] (43) a. ola ta pedhia irthan and SBJV collect.3SG the papers all the children came ‘All the children came.’ • scope b. ta pedhia irthan ola un-raised DP takes only narrow scope with respect to matrix negation the children came all baseline ‘The children came all.’ (40) a. oli i fitites dhen dhiavasan all the students.PL NEG read.3PL raised DP licenses a floated quantifier in its clause afto to vivlio (44) i dhaskali stamatisan oli [na malonun tus mathites] this the book the teacher.PL stop.3PL all SBJV scold.3PL the students ‘Not all the students read this book.’ NEG > ALL ‘The teachers all stopped scolding the students.’ ‘All the students did not read this book.’ ALL > NEG un-raised DP does not license floated quantifier in higher clause (41) a. oli i fitites dhen arxisan (45) a. *oli stamatisan [na malonun i dhaskali tus mathites] all the students.PL NEG begin.3PL all stop.3PL SBJV scold.3PL the teachers the students [na dhiavazun afto to vivlio] b *stamatisan [na malonun i dhaskali tus mathites] oli SUBJ read.3PL this the book stop.3PL SBJV scold.3PL the teachers the students all ‘Not all the students began to read this book.’ NEG > ALL c. stamatisan [na malonun oli i dhaskali tus mathites] ‘All the students did not begin to read this book.’ ALL > NEG stop.3PL SBJV scold.3PL all the teacher.PL the students b. dhen arxisan ‘All the teachers stopped scolding the students.’ NEG stop.3PL [na dhiavazun oli i fitites afto to vivlio] • binding SUBJ read.3PL all all the students.PL this the book variable binding is permitted only with raised subject ‘Not all the students began to read this book.’ NEG > ALL (46) a. kathe pedhii tis fenete tis miteras tui [na agapai to ouzo] *‘All the students did not begin to read this book.’ *ALL > NEG every child CL seems the mother his SBJV love s the ouzo ‘Every childi seems to hisi mother to love ouzo.’ un-raised DP takes narrow scope with respect to raising verb b. *dhen tis fenete tis miteras tui (42) a. mono i Maria stamatise [na perni kakus vathmus] NEG CL seems the mother.GEN his only the Maria.NOM stopped SBJV get.3SG bad grades [na agapai kathe pedhii to ouzo] ‘It’s only Maria who stopped getting bad grades.’ ONLY > STOP SBJV loves every child the ouzo b. stamatise [na perni mono i Maria kakus vathmus] (‘Every childi doesn’t seem to hisi mother to love ouzo.’) stopped SBJV get.3SG only the Maria bad grades ‘It stopped being the case that only Maria got bad grades.’ STOP > ONLY

• negative concord (cf. Giannakidou 2000) (50) Agree (Chomsky 2001)/AGREE (Bhatt 2005) NPI subject is licensed by clausemate negation Agree occurs between two syntactic objects, a probe α and a goal β (47) a. kanis dhen paraponiete a. α c-commands β nobody NEG.ROOT complained (b. α and β are active) ‘Nobody complained.’ c. α has an uninterpretable inflectional feature b. kanis dhen arxiso na paraponiete d. β has an interpretable feature nobody NEG.ROOT started SBJV complain e. α and β become valued for the matched features ‘Nobody began to complain.’ c. dhen arxiso na paraponiete kanis alternative: Move F (feature movement) NEG.ROOT started SBJV complain nobody Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 1999:22 propose that just the agreement ‘Nobody began to complain.’ features of the embedded DP raise to the matrix T˚

embedded clause NPI is licensed by lower negation: despite the wide use of feature movement (Chomsky 1995, Agbayani 1998, (48) a. arxizi na min paraponiete pja kanis Roberts 1998, Pesetsky 2000, Ochi 1999, 2001, Aoun and Nunes 2008, and starts SBJV NEG.EMBED complain anymore nobody numerous others), it can and/or should be abandoned (Chomsky 2000, ‘Nobody begins to complain anymore.’ (lit.: “It starts being the case Boeckx 2004, Bobaljik 2002) that nobody complains anymore.”) b. *kanis arxizi na min paraponiete pja ¾ Greek LDA in subject-to-subject raising construction provides genuine nobody starts SBJV NEG.EMBED complain anymore evidence for a non-local Agree relation in syntax

other potential languages with Agree operating long distance (in subject raising 3.4 analysis constructions): Icelandic (Holmberg and Hróarsdóttir 2003), Hungarian (Szabolcsi 2008), Romanian (Rivero and Geber 2004), German (Sells 2006) lack of DP representation in the raising verb’s clause accounts for “low” characteristics of embedded DP BUT: possible scrambling analysis for some of these languages (e.g., Romanian) BACKWARD RAISING and SCRAMBLING analyses ruled out the agreement must be being determined non-locally, across a clause boundary 4 Beyond Adyghe and Greek in-situ Agree between the raising verb in T˚ and the embedded DP subject (49) ______Agree ______How common is covert A-movement? ? ? [TP T˚ arxisan [CP/TP na trehoun [DP ta pedhia]]] start.3PL SUBJ run.3PL the child.PL ‘The children started to run.’

(53) Deceptive diagnostics: morphological agreement Covert A-bar movement Covert A-movement morphological agreement is available under both covert A-movement, wh-movement (Huang 1982, May Backward Raising in Circassian Agree with scrambling, and Agree under long-distance agreement; thus it 1985, Srivastav 1991, Simpson 2000, cannot distinguish these phenomena (cf. Chung 2009 on the unreliable Richards 2000, a.o.) Backward Control (assuming the nature of morphological agreement) movement analysis of control)—NE scrambling (Mahajan 1990, 1997; Caucasian (Tsez, a. o.), Malagasy ¾ Difference between covert A-movement and Agree—both are needed in the Saito 1992, Nemoto 1993, Kawamura grammar, therefore, their division of labor needs to be made explicit 2004) Covert A-scrambling in Tlingit (Cable 2007, 2008) ¾ How much do we know A-movement? topicalizaton (Bayer 1996, Polinsky & Potsdam 2001) Covert reflexive movement (Pica A-movement leaves traces, at least in the Northwest Caucasus (cf. 1987, Battistella 1989, Cole et al. Lasnik 1999 on the contrast between A-bar and A-movement) 1990, Katada 1991, Lee-Schoenfeld 2005, Safir 2004) References

Agbayani, Brian. 1998. Feature attraction and category movement. Ph.D. dissertation, UC-Irvine. Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1999. Raising without infinitives and the nature of agreement. In S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. Haugen, and P. Norquest (eds.). The Proceedings of WCCFL 18, 14-26. Somerville, Ma.: Cascadilla Press. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003 The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Outstanding question: can covert A-movement or LDA be predicted on the basis Aoun, Joseph and Jairo Nunes. 2008. Vehicle change phenomena as an argument for of independent language properties? Move F. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 525-538. Bejar, Susana, and Diane Massam. 1999. Multiple case checking. Syntax 2, 65-79. Benigni, Valentina. 2006. The decline of the Russian genitive-accusative alternation in the expression of the direct object. Studi italiani di linguistica teorica e applicata 35: 505-547. 5 Conclusions and open questions Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23, 757-807. ¾ Covert A-movement is a genuine linguistic phenomenon Bobaljik, Jonatahan, and Susi Wurmbrand. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23, 809-865. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Phil Branigan. 2006. Eccentric agreement and multiple case (51) Genuine covert A-movement: Backward Raising (Circassian) checking. In Alana Johns, Diane Massam and Juvenal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: a. the embedded subject shows evidence of being in the higher clause Emerging Issues. Springer: Dordrecht. beyond agreement: scope interactions, binding, quantifier float Boeckx, Cedric. 2004. Long-distance agreement in Hindi: Some theoretical implications. b. agreement is established locally Studia Linguistica 58, 23-36. Boškovic, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351-383. (52) Reliable diagnostics: Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. a. constituency: scrambling, coordination diagnostics Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale & S. J. b. binding and coreference options for subject Keyser (eds.). The view from building 20, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. c. scope options for subject with respect to the matrix verb or matrix Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. clause operators Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagareka (eds.). Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honour of d. licensing of floating matrix clause elements Howard Lasnik, 89-115. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.). Ken Hale: A Leiden University Press. Life in Language, 1-52. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Szabolcsi, Anna. 2008. Hidden in plain sight: Overt subjects in infinitival control and Chung, Sandra. 2009. The relation(s) behind agreement. Paper presented at this meeting. raising complements. Ms. NYU. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. Negative… concord? Natural Language and Linguistic http://homepages.nyu.edu/~as109/Szabolcsi_Hidden_in_plain_sight.Jan_2008.pdf Theory 18, 457-523. Uehara, Keiko. 2003. Center embedding and nominative repetition in Japanese sentence Holmberg, Anders and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2003. Agreement and movement in processing. Ph. D. Dissertation, The City University of New York. Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113, 997-1017. Iatridou, Sabine. 1988/1993. On nominative case assignment and a few related things. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, Papers on Case & Agreement II, 175-196. Joseph, Brian D. 1976. Raising in Modern Greek: A copying process?. In Jorge Maria Polinsky Hankamer and Judith Aissen (eds.). Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics 2, 241- Department of Linguistics 281. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University. Boylston Hall Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Samuel Epstein and Norbert Hornstein Harvard University (eds.). Working minimalism, 189-215. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cambridge, MA 02138 Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical [email protected] semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Moore, John and David Perlmutter. 2000. What does it take to be a dative subject? I would like to thank my Adyghe language consultants Raxmet Esheva, Raxmet Gisheva, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 373-416. Mira Unarokova, Acherdan Abzhegov, Svetlana Kinokova, and the research team at the Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: Russian University for the Humanities (RGGU) under the direction of Yakov Testelets. I MIT Press. would like to thank Elena Anagnostopoulou, Amalia Arvaniti, Anastasia Giannakidou, Ochi, Masao. 1999. Constraints on feature checking. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Sabine Iatridou, and Vina Tsakali for their help with the Greek data. Connecticut. Ochi, Masao. 2001. Move F and ga/no conversion in Japanese. Journal of East Asian This project was supported in part by NSF grants BCS-0131993 and BCS-0231946, a Linguistics 10, 247-286. grant from the Center for Research in Language at UCSD, and by a grant from the Davis O’Herin, Brian. 2002. Case and agreement in Abaza. Arlington: University of Texas Center at Harvard University. Press. Perlmutter, David, and Scott Soames. 1979. Syntactic argumentation and the structure of English. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Ph.D. Diss, MIT. Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Polinsky, Maria and Eric Potsdam. 2005. Backward raising: Theoretical and empirical options. Paper presented at the New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising and Control Workshop, 2005 LSA Summer Institute, Cambridge, Ma. Polinsky, Maria and Eric Potsdam. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9, 171-192. Potsdam, Eric. 2006. Backward object control in Malgasy: Against an empty category analysis. WCCFL 25, 328-336. Rappaport, Gilbert C. 1986. On anaphor binding in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4, 97-120. Rivero, Maria Luisa and Dan Geber. 2004. Romanian Raising: Move and Agree. Paper presented at the 34th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~romlab/LSRL34Paper3.pdf. Rogava, Georgij, and Zejnab Keraševa. 1966. Grammatika adygejskogo jazyka. Majkop: Krasnodarskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo. Sells, Peter. 2006. Backward and forward control and raising in LFG via subsumption. In M. Butt and T. King (eds.) Proceedings of LFG-06, Universität Konstanz. Online Proceedings, CSLI Publications. Smeets, Rijks. 1984. Studies in West Circassian phonology and morphology. Leiden: