Movement Operations After Syntax Davidembick Rolf Noyer

Movement Operations after Syntax DavidEmbick Rolf Noyer

Wedevelop a theoryof movement operations that occur after the syntacticderivation, in the PF component,within the framework of DistributedMorphology. The theory is anextension of whatwas called MorphologicalMerger inMarantz1984 and subsequent work. A pri- maryresult is that the locality properties of a Mergeroperation are determinedby the stage in the derivation at whichthe operation takes place:specifically, Merger that takes place before Vocabulary Inser- tion,on hierarchical structures, differs from Merger that takes place post–Vocabulary Insertion/ linearization.Specific predictions of the modelare tested in numerous case studies. Analyses showing the interactionof syntactic movement, PF movement,and rescue operations areprovided as well,including a treatmentof English do-support.

Keywords: morphology,syntax, Morphological Merger, adjacency, PF movement,Distributed Morphology

Theproperties of syntacticmovement have been studied extensively in linguistic theory, both in termsof localityconditions and in termsof thetypes of constituentsaffected (phrases, subparts ofphrases,heads). Despite differences in particular analyses or frameworks,the locality conditions onmovement operations are a centralconcern of current research. Here we addressmovement operationsas well, but operations of a differenttype. In particular, we examineand analyze movementoperations that occur after the syntactic derivation, in the PF component,and provide atheorythat makes proposals concerning (a) thelocality conditions on such movements, (b) the typesof constituentsthey affect, and (c) theposition of suchoperations in the sequential derivation from theoutput of syntaxto phonologically instantiated expressions. From asomewhatabstract perspective, the fact on which we baseour study is that not all structuresand strings are the result of operations that occur exclusively in thesyntacticcomponent ofthegrammar; this observation stems from abodyof prior research investigating the relationship betweensyntactic structure and phonological form. Theobservation covers two domains: one dealingwith linear sequences that are syntactically opaque, the other with movement operations. Inthe first domainit has been demonstrated that the internal ordering of clitic clusters cannot

Wewouldlike to thank Artemis Alexiadou,Karlos Arregi,Rajesh Bhatt,Jonathan Bobaljik, Morris Halle, Heidi Harley,Tony Kroch, Alec Marantz,David Pesetsky, Beatrice Santorini,and audiences at NYU, MIT,and ZAS/ Berlin, where partsof this article were presented.We wouldalso like to acknowledge the Penn Research Foundationfor financial supportfor our research.

Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 32, Number 4, Fall 2001 555–595 q 2001 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 555 556 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER followfrom syntacticprinciples (see Perlmutter1971; also see Bonet 1991 and Noyer, to appear, for explicitdiscussion in the framework assumedhere). In the second domain, which we explore here,it has also been recognized that syntactic movement cannot be responsiblefor certainmove- mentoperations. One of the most familiar comes from theinflectional system of English. While ithas long been recognized that English main verbs do not move to T(ense) in the syntactic derivation(Emonds 1978, Pollock 1989), it isneverthelessthe case that tense morphology appears ontheverb in the surface string: Johnkick-ed the ball to Mary. Thepositioning of tensemorphol- ogyon the verb has been attributed to Lowering, a movementoperation that ultimately derives from theAffix Hoppingtransformation of early generative grammar. Subsequent attempts to identifyand analyze ‘ ‘mismatches’’ betweenmorphology and syntax can be found in the work ofMarantz(1984, 1988) and Sadock (1991). Our goalin thisarticle is todevelop a morecompre- hensivetheory of the types of morphological movement operations in the grammar andto situate theseoperations within an explicit architecture for thePF derivation.The focus is on cases in whichsome sort of displacementmust apply to generate the proper phonological form from an identifiablesyntactic structure. We thusexclude from considerationcases in which, for example, thesyntactic distribution of clitic clusters is exactly what one would expect given the proper syntacticanalysis. 1

1Syntacticversus Postsyntactic Our initialdiscussion of movement in PFhastwo components. The first concerns why postsyntac- ticdisplacements are needed in addition to syntactic movement. The second addresses the idea thatsyntactic movements of the more familiar sort are part of thePF derivationas well.

1.1Clitic Placement Theneed for nonsyntacticmovements has been clearest in the domain of clitic placement —in particular,in the analysis of second-position clitics. In some cases the question that was posed was whetheror not syntactic movement could possibly account for patternsof cliticplacement, orinparticular second-position phenomena. We takethis question to be ill formed. Syntax is a generativesystem, and assuming that one is willing to loosen many of the constraints on syntactic movement,the ability of such a systemto capture certain linear orders should never have been inquestion. Rather, the question that we taketo be central is whether or not it is desirable to havesyntax perform such operations. The two positions that we wishto contrast,along with the meansby which each approach captures apparent postsyntactic movements, are as follows: (1) a. Syntaxonly: Syntaxperforms operationsthat are explicitly executed so astoresolve amorphophonologicalproblem. Patterns of apparent postsyntactic movement are reducibleto the effects of these‘ ‘special’’ syntacticprocesses. b. PFmovement: Syntaxgenerates and moves terminals according to itsown principles

1 Athirdtype of difference instructure between PFandsyntax proper involves the addition of morphemes at PF tomeet language-particularrequirements; this will be outlined below. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 557

andis oblivious to morphophonological concerns. PF takesthe output of syntax and resolvesmorphophonological dependencies according to its own principles. Theposition we adoptendorses the latter possibility. 2 Inessence, the idea in thedomain of cliticplacement is that unless syntax incidentally provides a hostfor aclitic,PF canperform movementoperations to satisfy a cliticdependency (see, e.g., Marantz 1984, 1988, Halpern 1992b, Schu¨tze1994, Embick and Izvorski 1995). Although the discussion of this section might seem somewhatperemptory, the literature on cliticizationis vastand cannot be addressedhere. Argu- mentsagainst syntactic treatments of various clitic placement phenomena are abundant in the literature.In the body of thearticle we willnot make a ‘‘notsyntactic’ ’ argumentfor eachcase studywe present,although such arguments could certainly be derived from theexamples we analyze.Rather than focusing on this aspect of the phenomena, we willprovide a theoryof the localityconditions on postsyntactic readjustments of the type outlined above.

1.2Syntax in PF? Recentdevelopments in syntactic theory, particularly those associated with the Minimalist Pro- gram,attempt to circumscribe the operations that syntax proper is supposed to perform.Although we donot adopt some of the more extreme versions of this view, such as Chomsky’ s (2001) positionthat head movement does not takeplace in syntax,we findthe generalpicture provided by suchtheoretical contexts compelling, particularly to theextent that they acknowledge movement operationson thePF branch.This having been said, the nature of themovements that we intend todiscuss must be clarified somewhat. Chomsky (2001) takes the more extreme position that a greatdeal of apparently phrasal movement also takes place in the phonological component (in somecases this is whathas been referred toas ‘ ‘stylisticmovement,’ ’ inother cases not). Unlike themovement operations to bestudied here, which have an immediately local character and which aremotivated by the satisfactionof primarilymorphological or morphophonologicalrequirements, themovements Chomsky relegates to PFseemto have many of the properties of straightforward syntacticmovement. We takethe position that the grammar includesonly one syntactic component: that is, every- thingthat looks like syntactic composition or movementtakes place in syntax;movement of this typeis not distributed across PF aswell. In part this position is motivated by parsimony: two modularlydistinct syntactic systems should not be posited unless absolutely necessary. Until it hasbeen conclusively demonstrated that a syntaxlikemovement system is requiredat PF, we will assumethe more restrictive option.

2BackgroundAssumptions Inthis section we sketchour background assumptions about the structure of the grammar. We assumea theoryin whichmorphology interprets the output of the syntactic derivation (Distributed

2 Muchof thediscussion of these issues centers aroundsecond-position cliticization effects, especially intheSlavic languages.Franks and Holloway King 2000 contains many relevant references totheliterature. 558 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

Morphology;Halle 1990, Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994, Noyer 1997, and related work). The basicelements of the syntactic computation are abstract features, which appear in bundles as terminalnodes. Universal as well as language-specific well-formedness conditions determine in whatmanner these features may combine to form syntacticcategories, the atoms of syntactic representation,which we callhere morphemes. We reservethe term morpheme inthis model to denoteterminal elements in syntactic or morphosyntacticrepresentations; we usethe term expo- nent todenote the phonological expression(s) of a morpheme. Overtsyntax denotesthose operationsthat assemble and manipulate this collection of morphemesinto a hierarchicalstructure that istheinput to computations concerned with morphological and phonological expression (PF) and aspectsof semanticinterpretation (LF). Thekinds of operationsthat take a representationfrom thePF/ LFbranchingto its phonologi- calform comprisethe (PF) Spell-Out ofthatrepresentation; the module of grammar responsible for Spell-Outis Morphology. Thatis, we use Morphology hereas a coverterm for aseriesof operationsthat occur on the PF branchfollowing the point at which the syntactic derivation splits betweenPF andLF. There is noLexiconin this model of grammar; word formation takes place eitherin syntax or throughpostsyntactic operations during Morphology.

2.1Morphemes and Exponents

Anumberof independent operations occur on the PF branch,and some of these are of direct relevanceto the present study. To begin with, not all morphemes relevant to pronunciation are presentin syntax prior to Spell-Out and Morphology. In other words, not all word constituents aresyntactic entities; many are not and are purely morphological (Harris 1991,Noyer 1997). Certainstructural positions within words and perhaps phrases are inserted in Morphologysubject tovarious conditions. For example,many languages require noun and adjective stems to be augmentedby case morphemes that are not themselves syntactic projections. These morphemes mustbe added postsyntactically during Morphology, as in (2).

(2) Noun [Noun ` Case ] ! N o u n Inthe terminology of Embick1997, such inserted morphemes are called dissociated, since theinformation their signalization conveys is partly separated from theoriginal locus of that informationin the phrase marker. Typical dissociated morphemes include case and agreement morphemesin atleastsome languages (see, e.g., Marantz 1992): these morphemes reflect certain syntacticproperties (or configurations)but do not in any sense contribute these properties to syntax.Dissociated morphemes are not interpreted at LF, sincethey are inserted only at Spell- Out. FollowingHalle and Marantz (1993), we adoptthe term Vocabulary todenote the list of phonologicalexponents and their privileges of occurrence.Each Vocabularyitem isaphonological representation,paired with a setof conditionson its insertion. Vocabulary items are inserted into terminalnodes following the syntactic derivation; because terminals are only provided with spe- cificVocabulary items postsyntactically, this is referred toas LateInsertion. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 559

We usethe term morphemes or,equivalently, heads torefer tothe basic atoms of phrase structure,which consist of abstract morphemes– that is, bundles of features.A varietyof operations,including head adjunction in syntax, morpheme insertion in Morphology, and the postsyntac- ticMergers to bestudiedbelow, can produce X 0 elementswith internal structure such as in (3). (3) Z adjoined to Y; Z 1 Y adjoined to X XP

X WP

Y X

Z Y g d

a b

WhenVocabulary Insertion occurs, the Vocabulary is searchedfor itemsto beinsertedinto thestructure. For certainmorphemes, Vocabulary Insertion is deterministicand only one choice ispossible in anygiven context. Following Harley and Noyer (1998), we willcall such morphemes f-morphemes: typicallysuch morphemes correspond to ‘ ‘functional’’ projectionsin syntax. For f-morphemes,the Vocabulary item with the largest subset of thefeatures present on theterminal nodeis inserted. 3 For othermorphemes, there exists a choiceas to which may be inserted; we callsuch morphemes Roots, symbolizedwith the notation Ï ROOT (see Pesetsky1995). Unlike theexponents inserted into f-morphemes, the Roots are not in competition with each other and anyRoot licensed in a givenenvironment may be inserted. 4 Moreconcretely, suppose that in (3) Z 4 Noun, Y 4 Number:dualand X 4 Case:instrumental.5 Inthe Vocabulary of Mansi, a Uraliclanguage, the most specific Vocabulary items for Number:dualand Case:instrumental will be @å and t@l, respectively(Ka ´lma´n1965).For theRoot positionthere exist many choices, naturally, but the following forms exemplifypossible outcomes:

(4) a. pu¯t-@å-t@l kettle-DUAL-INST ‘bymeans of twokettles’

3 See Halle 1997;but certain complexitiesarise indefining the precedence relationsamong competing Vocabulary items (see Harley andNoyer 1999:5 for discussion). 4 Fordifferent perspectives on theLate Insertionof Roots,see Halle 1990,Marantz 1995,Harley andNoyer 1999, andEmbick 2000. 5 Whetheror not the hierarchical structurepresented in (3) is theone that is neededfor this case dependsupon furtherassumptions about Number and Case, whichneed not be addressedat thispoint. 560 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

b. e¯rå-@å-t@l song-DUAL-INST ‘bymeans of twosongs’ Thearchitecture of thetheory establishes a directconnection between syntax and morphology.In the default case the structure interpreted in Morphologywill simply be theoutput of the syntacticderivation. As iswellknown, however, the PFbranchhas its own properties, and, simply asamatterof fact, there are sometimes apparent mismatches between morphological and syntactic structures.Distributed Morphology accounts for suchmismatches in terms of specificoperations thatoccur in thePF derivation.For instance,the operation of Fission(Noyer 1992, Halle 1997) producestwo terminal nodes from asingleterminal node. The status of suchoperations, and the conditionson their application, is thesubject of anongoing research program. The project of this articleis to focuson onespecific type of morphology/syntaxmismatch, involving PF movement; itisimportant to emphasize, however, that the present research is situated in atheoreticalframe- workin which morphological structure is, unless further operations apply at PF, simplysyntactic structure.

2.2Dependent Elements Thebreakdown of morphemes, exponents, and operations sketched above provides the basic inventoryfor thetheory we willdevelop here. However, further comments are in orderconcerning howthe ontology of our approach relates to distinctions found elsewhere in the literature. The elementsinvolved in the movement operations that we examineare often classified as clitics or as affixes, dependingupon certain criteria. Most salient is the distinction proposed in Zwicky and Pullum1983 and related work, in which a numberof propertiesare proposed in order to define thesetwo types of objects. According to a lineof reasoning prevalent in Lexicalist theoretical frameworks, cliticsmust be placed by syntax,whereas affixes are placed on theirhosts via Lexical rules.In the context of the present theory, the modular distinction between clitics and affixes cannotbe maintained. That is, there is no Lexical mode of derivation in the present theory, so sucha distinctionloses much of itsimportance. Instead, elements that appear bound to others on thesurface have heterogeneous derivational histories, with clitic and affix beingdescriptive terms for someof these. The important factor in any particular analysis is therefore not whether an elementis a cliticor an affix. Rather, one must identify (a) theprovenance of the morpheme (syntacticor dissociated) and its distribution, and, correspondingly, (b) themeans by which it comesto be attached to its host. Although we assumea non-Lexicalistmodel and believe the incorrectnessof Lexicalism to have been amply demonstrated in the literature, we willhave occasionto illustrate the inadequacy of the clitic/affix 4 syntactic/Lexical equationin our case studyof theBulgarian DP below.

2.3Morphological Merger MorphologicalMerger, as firstproposed by Marantz, was originallya principleof well-formedness betweenlevels of representationin syntax;in Marantz1988:261 Merger is generalized as follows: MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 561

(5) MorphologicalMerger At anylevel of syntacticanalysis (D-Structure, S-Structure, phonological structure), a relationbetween X andY maybe replaced by (expressed by) the affixation of the lexicalhead of Xtothe lexical head of Y. Inthis formulation Merger essentially ‘ ‘trades’’ or‘ ‘exchanges’’ astructuralrelation between twoelements at one level of representation for adifferentstructural relation between the ‘ ‘heads’’ oftheseelements at asubsequentlevel. Exactly what relations may be tradedis, on thisconception, dependentupon the levels of thegrammar relatedby theoperation.In one case the relevant notion ofheadednessin termsof which the operation applies is defined linearly; in another, in terms of structure. Thetheory that we presenthere follows the insight that Merger is an operationwith different domainsof application. This view is situatedin atheoryin whichMergers taking place at different stagesin asequentialPF derivationhave different locality properties. The proposal is thatthere arein factat least two varieties of Merger,depending upon whether Merger occurs (a) inMorphol- ogybefore Vocabulary Insertion or (b) inMorphology after or concomitant with Vocabulary Insertion.6 TheMerger of type (a) is Lowering;itoperates in terms of hierarchicalstructure. The Mergerof type(b), LocalDislocation, operatesin terms of linear adjacency.

3Loweringversus Local Dislocation We turnnow to initial definitions and illustrations of our movement operations. For expository purposes,we willinclude a marker t toindicate the position of originof anelement affected by Merger.This is notintended to representa trace(or acopy)in the technical sense in whichtraces behavein syntactic theory. Rather, its purpose is merelyto illustratethe nature of ourmovement operations,which occur after syntax and therefore do not leave traces or theirequivalents.

3.1Lowering Becausewe adoptthe view that phonological expression of complex words is determined by informationprovided by the syntactic derivation, in certain instances Lowering movement will berequiredto unite syntactic terminals that are phonologically spelled together but not joined in overtsyntax (by Raising). Here, thehead X lowersto Y, thehead of its complement. 7 (6) Loweringof X 0 to Y0 0 0 0 0 [ X . . . [ . . . Y . . . ]] [ . . . [ . . . [ 0 Y `X ] . . . ]] X P Y P ! X P Y P Y InEnglish, as opposed to anumberof otherlanguages, V doesnot move to T inovertsyntax.

6 Anotherpotential type of Merger, ProsodicInversion (Halpern1992b), involves the trading of relations at the levelof prosodic domains, such as PhonologicalWord and Phonological Phrase. We willnot be discussing Prosodic Inversionin detail here, but it is easily incorporatedwithin our proposals as avarietyof Merger operating immediately beforePhonology. 7 Apossiblerefinement tothis definition of Lowering will be suggestedin section 7.2. 562 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

However,T isrealized on V morphologically(except when negation appears, or when T-to-C movementhas occurred). English T thuslowers to V, thehead of its complement. 8

(7) a. Mary [T P t1 [v P loudlyplay-ed 1 thetrumpet]] b.*Mary did loudly play the trumpet. BecauseLowering involves adjunction of aheadto ahead,and these heads need not necessar- ilybe linearlyadjacent, Lowering has a (potentially)nonlocal, that is, nonadjacent, character. As Bobaljik(1994) discusses, an intervening adjoined adverb such as loudly in(7a) doesnot prevent Tfrom loweringto V.Insum, this postsyntactic operation is onethat skips potentially intervening adjunctsand adjoins T tothe head of itscomplement (i.e., v).

3.2Local Dislocation Asecondvariety of Merger, which we term LocalDislocation, occursafter Vocabulary Insertion. InLocal Dislocation the relation relevant for ‘‘affixation’’ isnot hierarchical, but rather linear precedenceand adjacency. By hypothesis,linear ordering is nota propertyof syntactic representa- tionsbut is imposed at PF invirtue of the requirement that speech be instantiated in time (see Sproat1985). It is thereforenatural to assumethat linear ordering is imposedon a phrasemarker atthe point in the derivation when phonological information is inserted, that is, at Vocabulary Insertion. (8) TheLate Linearization Hypothesis Theelements of aphrasemarker are linearized at Vocabulary Insertion. Our ideathat Local Dislocation is a varietyof Merger distinct from Loweringis based on Marantz’s (1988)position that the notion ‘ ‘headof aconstituent’’ relevantto Merger is defined differentlyat different levels of the grammar. The implementation of thisposition here is that the propertiesof Merger differ depending upon whether Merger applies on alinearizedor unlinearized structure.Specifically, before linear order is imposedon aphrasemarker, headedness is defined intermsof structure: where a constituentC 4 X(P), thenthe head of CisX 0 .After linearization, thisno longer holds and the head is definedin terms of peripherality within the constituent. To seehow this is so,consider the following hierarchical structure:

(9) [X P X [Y P [Z P Z] Y]] Here XtakesYP 4 [ZPY]asits complement, where ZP iseither a complementto Y oran adjunctto YP. We willuse the notation a * b todenotea requirementthat a mustlinearly precede b andbe adjacent to b. Apotentiallinearization of thisstructure is this: (10) [X * [Z * Y]]

8 Ona strict Lexicalisttheory such as thatassumed inChomsky 1995, play-ed is fullyinflected before syntax in theLexicon; its tense features neednot be checkeduntil LF. WhenSpell-Out occurs, play-ed alreadyhas theinflectional material withit. However, Distributed Morphology admits noLexicon in which play-ed mightbe constructed before syntax. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 563

Here Xmustimmediately precede [Z * Y]andZ mustimmediately precede Y. Inthe syntactic structure(9) from which(10) originates, Y isthe ‘ ‘head’’ ofthe constituent that X takesas its complement.In syntax Y couldraise to X; likewise,X couldlower to Y acrossZP. ButLocal Dislocationdoes not refer to(9);rather, it refers to(10). The relationship that is relevantis now oneof linear precedence and adjacency ( * ).Specifically,Local Dislocation can convert (10) to (11).

(11) [[ Z 0 Z`X] * Y] In (11) X’s * relationto [Z * Y]hasbeen exchanged for arelationof adjunction to the left- peripheralelement of [Z * Y], namely,Z. (11)is alegitimatetransformation of (10)because both * relationsin (10) have been either respected or properly converted by Local Dislocation. 9 In (10)Y mustimmediately follow and be adjacent to Z. In(11) this relationship is maintained becauseY stillfollows Z 0 ,whichis nowhowever internally complex as Z `X. As Marantz(1988) shows, the idea that Local Dislocation Merger exchanges relations of adjacencyfor thoseof adjunction places restrictions on thestructures in whichtwo elements can beinvertedin the string. Our interpretationof theserestrictions is asfollows:if X isan element peripheralin some constituent C, Xwillnot be able to invert with an element Y thatis outside oftheconstituent C (12b),although leaning is possible (12c). Consider the following cases:

(12)a. [ ...Y] * [C X * Z]

b. [ . . . X`Y] * [C Z]impossibleinversion

c. [ . . . Y`X] * [C Z]possibleleaning Givena pre–LocalDislocation structure such as (12a), X cannot‘ ‘escape’’ theconstituent C to invertwith Y asin (12b), since in so doing X wouldnot properly maintain its requirement of (left-)adjacencywith Z. Thisshould be contrasted with the derivation of (11), where X inverts withan element (Z) thatis containedwithin theconstituent that X isoriginally peripheral in. As we willillustrate throughout the article, the domain in whichthese Mergers apply is not limitedto absolute sentence-peripheral position, as originally envisioned by Marantz. Rather, Mergersapply within particular domains (e.g., DPs), suchthat peripheral elements within such domainsundergo Merger with other elements in that domain. In such cases it appearsthat material outsidethe domain is irrelevant.In (13), for example,X mayundergo Merger with Y, suchthat the(cross-domain) relationship Z * Xisviolated(domain boundary illustrated with | for clarity). (13) Z * | [ X * Y * W] Z * | [ Y`X * W] X P ! X P Thesame type of effect is found with Lowering. Thus, for instance,the head of DP may lowerto itscomplement, as we showbelow, without incurring any violation from havingremoved itsrelationship with a dominatingverb. Whether or notthese domains correspond to (or should correspondto) syntactically motivated subunits of structure, such as the phases introduced in Chomsky2000, 2001, is anopen question of substantialinterest.

9 Theaffixation of X toY mightfirst involve rebracketing under adjacency, such that [X * [Z * Y]] becomes [[X * Z] * Y]priorto inversion of X.Formore onrebracketing, see below. 564 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

Onthe other hand, string-vacuous (i.e., noninverting) Local Dislocation is not subject to thesesame locality conditions (although of courseit affects only string-adjacent elements). Essen- tially,string-vacuous ‘ ‘rebracketing’’ isfreely permitted, much as proposed by Sproat (1985). For example,in (12c) X may‘ ‘escape’’ theconstituent C thatit was originallyperipheral within, sinceit will still maintain a left-adjacencyrelation to Z. Toreiterate, there is animportant difference between Lowering Merger and LocalDislocation Merger.Lowering is sensitiveto syntacticheadedness and can therefore affect elements that are not stringadjacent. Local Dislocation, however, is sensitive to relationsof adjacencyand precedence betweenconstituents, and not to syntactic headedness directly. Thus, Local Dislocation must always be local, asits name suggests; it cannot skip any adjoined elements, as Lowering can. Onlyadjacent elements can be reorderedby theoperation, and an intervening (syntactic) adjunct cannotbe ignored. Theformation of Englishcomparatives and superlatives of thetype tall-er,tall-est provides aclearcase in which a Vocabulary-specificoperation is constrainedto apply under linear adjacency.To begin with, we takethe syntactic structure to be one in which the comparative or superlativefeatures dominate the position of the adjective (Abney 1987). The realization of these morphemesis dependent upon whether or not they combine with the adjective they dominate. As iswellknown, there is a prosodiccondition on the host; the comparative/ superlativemorpheme cancombine only with an adjective with one metrical syllable. (14)a. John is smart-er thanBill. b.John is mo-re intelligentthan Bill. c.*John is intelligent-erthan Bill. d.?*John is mo-re smartthan Bill. Thecorrelation that we establishhere is simple: the suffixation of thecomparative/ superlative morphemeis dependent upon the prosodic shape of the host and therefore happens after the insertionof specific adjectives. The information that is requiredfor theprocessto occuris Vocabu- laryspecific; and, because structures are linearized by VocabularyInsertion, the processis defined overa linearizedstructure. Accordingly, the comparative/ superlativemorpheme cannot appear ontheadjective when there is anintervening adverbial; this is seen clearly with the superlative. 1 0

10 Thepoint can alsobe illustrated with the comparative, but with greater difficulty.The reason for this is thatwith thecomparative there are twodistinct scopal readings for the adverb; one in which it takes scopeover the entire comparative-adjective,and one in which it intervenes between thecomparative morpheme and the adjective. Thus, (i) is grammatical, butonly on a readingin which the adverb takes scopeover the comparative. (i)The DuPonts are amazingly t rich-er thanthe Smiths. Thatis, the degree towhichthe DuPonts are richer is amazing.The syntactic structure is thusone in whichthe adverb dominatesthe comparative morpheme. This may becomparedwith a case inwhich the adverb does not take scopeover thecomparative; in suchcases nocombinationof adjective and comparative morpheme is possible. (ii)The DuPonts are mo-re amazinglyrich than the Gettys. Thatis, both families are amazinglyrich, but the DuPonts are more so.The reason for this is thatwith the combined comparativeform the only structure available is the one in which the adverb does not intervene between theposition of thecomparative morpheme and the potential host adjective. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 565

(15)a. Mary is the mo-st amazingly smart person . .. b.*Mary is the t amazinglysmart-est person . ..

When amazing appearsas a modifierof smart, itis structurally between the position of the comparative/superlativemorpheme and the adjective. Accordingly, it is linearizedbetween these twoelements. Its presencein thisposition prohibits superlative -st from beingmerged with smart (15b),forcing the presence of mo-st. Thisanalysis here treats adjacency as anecessarybut not sufficient condition for theforma- tionof a syntheticform. Thatis, if the comparative/ superlativemorpheme is tocombine with the adjective,then they must be adjacent. But the converse does not hold. If thetwo are linearly adjacent,a syntheticform willnot necessarily result. Other factors, some of themstructural, will determinewhether or not Local Dislocation takes place.

4 A Model

Thedevice of MorphologicalMerger as developedby Marantz(1988) captures the generalization thatclitics are of essentially two types: ‘ ‘peripheral’’ clitics,which are either at the edge of a maximalprojection or in peninitial or penultimate ‘ ‘second’’ positionwithin that phrase, and ‘‘head’’ clitics,which adjoin to the head of a phrase. 1 1 Theinsight is that the notions ‘ ‘head’’ and‘ ‘periphery’’ arederivative of thetype of Merger that applies, and that the type of Merger thatapplies is different depending on thestage of thePF derivationat whichthe operation takes place.Figure 1 illustratesthe PF branchof the grammar aswe envisionit. The architecture of thismodel —inparticular, the ordering of events within the derivation —makesparticular predic- tionsabout what can and cannot happen in Morphology.In this section we makethese predictions precise;the remainder of thearticle exemplifies and defends these ideas.

4.1The Local Dislocation Hypothesis

BytheLate Linearization Hypothesis (8), linear order is imposed on a stringonly at Vocabulary Insertion,and after linearization Local Dislocation Merger can manipulate only string-adjacent elements.From thispremise it followsthat if a movementoperation is sensitive to properties that aresupplied at Vocabulary Insertion, it will necessarily apply only to string-adjacent elements. Propertiessupplied at Vocabulary Insertion include the specific identity of Vocabularyitems (i.e., whether beech hasbeen inserted into a morpheme,as opposed to elm or poplar),includingany idiosyncraticproperties of theinserted item, such as itsphonological features or itsinflectional orother diacritical class features. If amovementoperation is sensitive to such properties of

11 Onour view, Prosodic Inversion, defined by Halpern(1992b) as operatingin terms ofprosodicsubcategorization, wouldonly apply to sentence-peripheral elements. Thatis, if a clitic has adependencythat is purely prosodic, it would, all otherthings being equal, simply lean ona hostrather thanundergoing Merger. Whether or not purely prosodic operationsof this type are necessary beyondthe types of Mergerthat we haveproposed is not clear, however. 566 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

(Syntactic derivation) ¯ PF/LF BRANCHING

Hierarchical arrangement M Lowering of morphemes O R P Vocabulary Local Linearization imposed by H Insertion Dislocation Vocabulary Insertion O L Building of (Prosodic O prosodic domains Inversion) G Y

PHONOLOGICAL FORM

Figure 1 ThePF branchof thegrammar

Vocabularyitems, we callit Vocabularysensitive. The LocalDislocation Hypothesis can then bestated as follows: 1 2

(16) TheLocal Dislocation Hypothesis If amovementoperation is Vocabularysensitive, it involvesonly string-adjacent items.

For example,suppose A, B,andC areterminal nodes.

(17) [A B C] / [B C`A] or [B A`C] ! If themovement of A toC dependson the specific Vocabulary items inserted into A orCand notsolely on syntactic or abstract feature properties of AandC, thenthe movement is blocked wheresome other element B intervenes. Effectively,the Local Dislocation Hypothesis establishes an important correlation between thelocality of a movementoperation and what would have been called the ‘ ‘selectional’’ properties oftheclitic in the Lexicalist approach of Klavans(1985, 1995) or theAutolexical Syntax theory ofSadock(1991). Where a cliticdemands a hosthaving a particularidentity, such as inflectional class,morphological category, or phonologicalweight, then in our terms the operation is Vocabu-

12 Itwould also be possible to state aconditionlike (16) in terms ofsensitivity to phonology. Thus, the generalization thatis capturedhere couldbe capturedas well ina theoryin which Roots are notinserted late (e.g.,Halle 1990;see Embick2000 and Chomsky 2001 for related discussion).In principle, Vocabulary-sensitive and phonology-sensitive operationscould be distinct, but we willnot pursue this line of inquiryhere. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 567 larysensitive and the clitic and the host must be stringadjacent prior to Merger. Inversely, where theclitic element is indifferent to the Vocabulary item that fills its host morpheme, but perhaps sensitiveto the features on a node,then it is possible (although not necessary) for theclitic to reachits host by undergoingRaising or Lowering,operations that are permitted to cross syntactic adjuncts.

4.2Late Lowering

Whilethe Local Dislocation Hypothesis is the main focus of the present investigation, we will alsopoint to several other predictions made by themodel depicted in figure 1. As shownthere, Loweringoccurs in Morphology, after any application of syntactic movement. It follows from thisthat while syntactic movement may remove the environment for Loweringto apply, the oppositecan never hold.

(18) TheLate Lowering Hypothesis AllLowering in Morphology follows all movement in syntax. Lowering can never removean environment for syntacticmovement.

Inother words, Lowering operates only on the structure that is the output of syntax,that is, the structureafter all overt syntactic operations have occurred. For example,English Lowering of T tov cannotapply where vP hasbeen fronted to apositionhigher than T (see alsoBobaljik 1995). 1 3

(19)a. Mary said she would quietly play her trumpet, and [ v P quietlyplay her trumpet] 1

she did t1 .

b.*Mary said she would quietly play her trumpet, and [ v P quietlyplay-ed 2 hertrumpet] 1

she t2 t1 .

In(19a) vP frontingmakes it impossible for postsyntacticLowering to move T tov;(19b)shows whatwould result if Lowering could precede vP fronting. We predictthat no language should permitlowering of aheadY intoan XP thatsubsequently raises above Y.

4.3 Summary

Thestages in the model that we havediscussed above are part of alargerconception of the PF branch,which seeks to find the operations that are required in deriving a phoneticexpression from ahierarchicalarrangement of syntactic terminals. The model is assumed to be explicitly transformational.Stages in the derivation involve the addition or manipulation of structures or featuresthat are input from apriorstage. Unless otherwise indicated, this amounts to theaddition ofinformation;that is, structural distinctions from syntaxwill still be visibleat the stage of the derivationat which, for example,Vocabulary Insertion and Local Dislocation apply.

13 Theargument here is validon the assumption that the do inthe clause withellipsis is notemphatic do. 568 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

5Loweringin BulgarianDPs andthe Clitic/Affix Distinction Bulgarianshows a ‘‘suffixed’’ definitearticle, here abbreviated Def, whichhas a cliticlikedistribu- tionwithin the DP (see,e.g., Elson 1976, Scatton 1980, Sadock 1991, Halpern 1992a, Tomic ´ 1996, Bo¨rjars 1998,Caink 2000, Franks 2001). We demonstratein section5.1 that the distribution ofDef withinthe Bulgarian DP isthe result of itsbeing the head of D,andsubject to Lowering aswe havedefined it above. 1 4 Insection 5.2 we providefurther facts about the Bulgarian Def, concentratingon morphophonology. In particular, Def showsa numberof properties that are characteristicof affixes inLexicalist theories in whichaffixes and clitics are syntactic and lexical entities,respectively (see, e.g., Zwicky and Pullum 1983 and much subsequent work that assumes thevalidity of this distinction). We demonstratethat the distribution of Def hasto be stated in syntacticterms and that the syntactic/lexicalsplit underlying the clitic/ affixdistinction is incorrect.

5.1Lowering of Def Thedefiniteness element Def inBulgarian appears suffixed to nominals, or, when these are modifiedby adjectives, suffixed to the first adjective in a sequence.

(20)a. kniga-ta book-DEF b.xubava-ta kniga nice-DEF book c.Adj-Def ...(Adj) N(generalpattern) Theso-called suffixed article contrasts with the overt demonstrative, which appears in the expected place,on the(standard) assumption that the DP hasthe structure in (22) and that demonstratives appearin the specifier of DP. 1 5 (21)tazi kniga this book Incases with prenominal modifiers such as adjectives, the structure of the DP isassumed to be alongthe lines proposed by Abney (1987), in which adjectives are heads taking NP arguments. Inthis structure, shown in (22),the A headis thetarget of Loweringfrom D(theoperation takes placeon an abstract structure; Vocabulary items are shown here for clarity). 1 6

14 Argumentsagainst purely movement-based treatments are made byCaink (2000) and Franks (2001), who give verydifferent treatments ofDef elements. 15 Typically,demonstratives are incomplementary distribution with Def. Caink(2000), citing Arnaudova (1998), notesthat the two can cooccurin colloquial Bulgarian. 16 Withpossessive pronouns, Def appears suffixedto the pronominal element. (i)moja-ta xubavakniga my-DEF nice book We take these possessivesto be possessiveadjectives, and structurally in the same positionas theadjective in (22) (see Delsing1993). The syntactic distribution of thepossessive adjectives putsthem structurallyhigher than other adjectives, and thesuffixation of Def tothis head follows automatically. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 569

(22) Adj/Noun DP

t AP

A NP

A D N

xubava ta kniga

Whenother elements, such as adverbs, appear between the NP andD, adifferentpattern results.Adverbs may not host Def (23a),nor do they block Merger (23b).

(23)a. *mnog- @t star teat@r very-DEF old theater ‘thevery old theater’ b.mnogo starij- @ teat@r c.dosta glupava-ta zabelez Ïka(Franks and Holloway King 2000) quitestupid- DEF remark

Thepattern displayed above fits well with the idea of Merger at thelevel of category (i.e., Lowering),which skips intervening adverbs. Def lowersacross intervening material to the immedi- atelydominated head. The fact that Def doesnot appear on the adverb is then purely structural; whenDef undergoesMerger, it targets the head of its complement, stated in terms of syntactic headedness.The adverb, being an adjunct, cannot be the target of thisoperation, and structurally isinvisible for it. 1 7

17 Notice thata syntacticapproach to the positioning of Def faces several difficulties.The fact thatadverbs and adjectives appear togetherbefore Def showsthat a simple headmovement analysis of A- orN-movementto D cannot beadequate.The only alternative would be toraise entireAPs. On the assumption that AP isthe complement of D,this moverequires that lower material, suchas thehead noun, be scrambled outof theNP complementto AP beforethe AP is raised tothe pre-D position.This stipulation in syntaxis avoidedaltogether on ourLowering solution. Otherattempts totreat thepattern syntactically, assuming a differentphrase structure for the DP, havealso been proposed.See Caink2000 for a critique. 570 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

5.2Bulgarian DPs andthe Clitic /AffixDistinction We nowturn to anillustration of theincorrectness of the distinction between clitics and affixes thatstems from Zwickyand Pullum 1983 and much subsequent work. Our treatmentstems from thediscussion, but not the analysis, in Franks 2000. 1 8 Thepattern shown by Def proceedsin conjunctionwith an examination of possessiveclitics. As anillustration, consider the following phrase: (24)kniga-ta vi book-DEF your.CL ‘your book’ Franksargues that while the clitics are syntactic in nature, Def isaffixal and therefore generated onitshost through a lexicalprocess. In our view, however, this attempt to maintainthe modular distinctionbetween affixation and cliticization misses essential generalizations. Franks’s argumentsfor alexicaltreatment of Def involvea varietyof phenomena which, inLexicalisttheoretical frameworks, have been taken to diagnose lexical as opposedto syntactic derivation.One argument, for instance,is thatthe phonological form ofDef isdependent upon acombinationof phonologicaland morphological properties of thehost. In a Lexicalistmodel, inwhichindividual lexical items are the initial terminals in asyntacticstructure, this conditioning oftheDef form byits host is problematic unless the two are put together in the Lexicon. Inaddition, Def participatesin word-level phonological processes. Word-final devoicing is onesuch process. 1 9 (25)bratovc Ï ed [bratofcÏ et] ‘cousin’ mazÏ [masÏ] ‘husband’ Thisprocess is bled when these words appear with Def.

(26)bratovc Ï ed-@t [bratofcÏ ed@t]‘thecousin’ mazÏ -ot [mazÏot]‘ thehusband’ Onthe Lexicalist assumption that this kind of phonological interaction can be found only inobjects created in the Lexicon, Def’ s behaviorforces the conclusion that it is attached via a lexicalderivation, that is, that it is anaffix. Afurtherargument for the‘ ‘affixal’’ statusof Def comesfrom apparentlexical idiosyncra- sies,following the idea that affixation is lexical and therefore subject to unpredictability. The argumentis basedon the fact that certain kinship terms in Bulgarian have a specialappearance indefinite form. Tobegin with, Bulgarian has a possessiveclitic within the DP, whichis used onlyin definite environments. The kinship terms in question show no definite marker.

18 Franksbases hisanalysis on anumberof prior discussions of the morphophonology of Bulgariandefinites, including thoseof Scatton(1980), Halpern (1992b), and Tomic ´ (1996). 19 Asimilar argumentis adduced from the interaction of liquid metathesis/ schwa epenthesisand syllabification. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 571

(27)a. majka mu mother his.CL ‘hismother’ b.*majka-ta mu (28)a. brat ‘õ brotherher. CL ‘herbrother’ b.*brata-a/ @t ‘õ Thesyntactic environment is clearlydefinite, however, as is clearfrom caseswith adjectives.

(29)xubava-ta mu majka pretty-DEF his.CL mother ‘hispretty mother’

Furthermore,other kinship terms do in fact show Def.

(30)djado-to mu grandfather- DEF his.CL ‘hisgrandfather’

Thedifferences here between, for example,‘ mother’and ‘ grandfather’are taken to be hallmarks oflexicalidiosyncrasy. Following the idea that affixes are lexical while clitics are syntactic, this patternis taken as an argument for theaffixhood of Def. Combinedwith the prior arguments, theconclusion is that it musttherefore be affixal, that is, lexically derived. Frankscontrasts affixal Def withthe possessive clitics seen throughout the prior examples. Phonologically,the possessive clitics form aPhonologicalWord with their hosts to theleft, but donotinteract with the phonological process discussed above, to theextent that this can be clearly determined.Thus, following the assumptions enforcing the clitic/ affixdistinction, it must be the casethat the clitics are syntactic elements, that is, not affixes and not lexical. However, as Franks notes,this leads to an apparentparadox having to dowiththe distributions of Def andthe possessiveclitics. Caink (2000) and Franks (2000) demonstrate clearly that the possessive clitic has a distributionthat mirrors preciselythe distribution of Def (Def andthe possessive clitic italicized).

(31)a. kniga -ta vi book-DEF your ‘your book’ b. xubava-ta vi kniga nice-DEF your book ‘yournice book’ c. mnogo-to ti novi knigi many-DEF yournew books ‘yourmany new books’ 572 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

d. vecÏ no mlada-ta ni stolica perpetuallyyoung- DEF our capital ‘ourperpetually young capital’ Theproblem is that Franks’ s treatmentof thedistribution of Def isessentially lexical; that is,it appearswhere it doesby virtueof alexicaloperation. By distributionalreasoning, the clitic, whichhas the same distribution, should be treated identically. But, according to the tenets of Lexicalism,this is a contradiction;clitics are syntactic and hence cannot be generated lexically. Thisparadox does not arise in the non-Lexicalist framework outlinedabove. Assume that Cl(itic)is attractedto definite D (see Cardinaletti1998 and Schoorlemmer 1998 for thisconnection, albeitin different structural terms), suchthat syntax outputs a structurein which it is adjoined tothis head (the first tree in (32)). The Lowering operation responsible for thedistribution of Def affectsD andwill then automatically carry Cl along with Def whenit applies. When Cl is 2 0 attachedto D [d ef] ,Loweringmoves the entire D, whichis internally complex. Inthe trees in (32),illustrating this process, actual Vocabulary items appear in terminal nodes for expository purposesonly; as themovement is Lowering,the actual content of thesenodes is abstract. 2 1

(32) Clitic and Def DP DP

D AP t AP

D Cl A NP A NP

ta vi xubava N xubava D N

kniga D Cl kniga

ta vi

Thistreatment captures the identical distribution of Def andthe possessive clitics directly.

D[d e f] isplaced by Lowering with the DP. Cl,when present, is obligatorily attached to D [d e f] in syntaxprior to the stage at which Lowering occurs; thus, cliticization onto D feedsthe later Loweringprocess.

20 See section6 forstructural refinements aboutthe objects affected byMerger. 21 Incases inwhich there is anovert demonstrative and a clitic,nothing further needs to be said. The demonstrative is inthe specifier ofDP.The clitic has beenattracted toD [def],whichdoes not contain Def andhence doesnot need to undergoLowering. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 573

Franksconsiders various ‘ ‘hybrid’’ treatmentsof the identity in distribution, analyses moti- vatedby the idea that Def hasto be lexical while clitic placement has to be syntactic. There is, however,no need to resort to a hybridtreatment in the first place. The facts illustrated above providefurther evidence that elements whose distribution or provenance must be essentially syntacticcan occasionally interact with ‘ ‘lexical’’ phonologicalprocesses (see Embick1995 for thistype of argument). Additional cases of this type are presented in Hayes 1990. The point is simplythat different modes of phonologicalinteraction do not argue for alexicalversus syntactic modeof composition. All composition is syntactic,and cases like Bulgarian Def makethis point clearly.Something must be saidabout the connection between structures like those resulting from thelowering of Def andthe word-level phonological interactions illustrated earlier, but a treatment ofsuchfacts is beyond the scope of thepresent discussion. Theother properties of Def thatwere takenas evidence for ‘‘lexical’’ derivationcan be handleddirectly on our treatment. The positioning of Def happensprior to VocabularyInsertion.

Thus,what is beinglowered is D [d ef ] ,thatis, a nodewith features. The fact that the phonological form ofDef variesaccording to properties of the host is unsurprising; it is merely contextual allomorphyin Def’ s Spell-Out.In addition, the apparently exceptional cases of kinship terms, withno overtDef, couldperhaps be treatedas involving nouns that take a specialzero allomorph ofDef. Thiscontextual allomorphy for Def occursonly when it is adjoinedto oneof the nouns inquestion. This accounts straightforwardly for Def’s ‘‘reappearance’’ when,say, majka ‘mother’ ispremodified by an adjective. In such cases Def isadjoined to the adjective and spelled out overtlyaccordingly. 2 2

5.3Conclusions Withinthe Bulgarian DP, Def lowersto the head of its complement, illustrating clearly one of thetypes of PF movement.The more general conclusion of the discussion concerns the utility ofthedistinction‘ ‘cliticversus affix.’ ’ Withoutthe modular distinction ‘ ‘lexicalversus syntactic,’ ’ thisdistinction becomes a matterof terminology, without theoretical consequences.

6Refinements ofthe Model:Morphosyntactic Words and Subwords Thepreceding sections have illustrated the contrast between Lowering and Local Dislocation and haveshown how the locality conditions of each are identified with distinct stages of themodel ofgrammar we espouse.In this section we refineour definitions of the elements that undergo

22 Tworemarks are inorder here. First,the manner inwhich Def is spelledout based on thehost it attaches tohas aparallel inEnglish T, whichis subjectto host-dependent allomorphy when it undergoes Lowering to v. Second,Caink (2000), developing the notion of alternativerealization foundin Emonds 1987, proposes that Def andthe possessive clitic may appear somewhere insidethe extended projection in which they occur. According to our account,in which the clitic is movedto D syntactically,and Def undergoesLowering after syntax,the range of places inwhich Def couldbe foundis sharply circumscribed: it can onlyappear onthehead of D’ scomplement.We take this tobe a more restrictive accountof postsyntacticmovements. 574 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

Merger.We introducea distinctionbetween two types of objectsin Morphology,which we call morphosyntacticwords and subwords, anddemonstrate that movement of eachby Merger obeys distinctlocality effects.

6.1Definitions First,we definethe morphosyntacticword as follows:2 3 (33)At theinput to Morphology, a nodeX 0 is(by definition) a morphosyntacticword (MWd) iff X0 isthehighest segment of an X 0 notcontained in another X 0 . For example,consider the structure in (34). (34) Z adjoined to Y; Z +Y adjoined to X XP

X WP

Y X

Z Y h u

a g b d

In (34) X0 4 Z`Y`Xconstitutesan MWd but Y 0 4 Z`Ydoesnot (at least after adjunction to X0 ), since Y0 isdominatedby X 0 . Second,we define subword as follows: (35) A node X0 is a subword (SWd) if X0 isa terminalnode and not an MWd. In (34) Z0 ,thelower segment of Y 0 ,andthe lowest segment of X 0 areall SWds. Thus, an SWd isalwaysa terminalconsisting of afeaturebundle, or, if nodelabels are required, an X immediately dominatinga featurebundle and nothing else, while being itself dominated. In the case in which anodeimmediately dominates a singlefeature bundle, this will be by definition an MWd, and not an SWd.2 4 Insum, any terminal that has undergone head movement in syntax to adjoin to anotherhead,

23 Thisdefinition seems tocorrespond to what Chomsky (1995) calls H 0max. 24 Inaddition, intermediate levels ofstructure, such as theY dominatingZ andY, are neitherMWds nor SWds. Whetheror notsuch structural units have a particularstatus in movement operations is an open question; we knowof nocases inwhich they play a role. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 575 orany dissociated morpheme adjoined to another head in Morphology, will count as an SWd. As we willdemonstrate, MWds and SWds arethe basic atoms of postsyntacticmovement operations,and these distinct objects impose important restrictions on the types of possibleMergers.

6.2Two Kinds of Local Dislocation BothMWds and SWds canbe moved by Local Dislocation. 2 5 We proposethat when an MWd ismoved by Local Dislocation, it adjoinsto an adjacent MWd, and when an SWd ismovedby LocalDislocation, it adjoinsto anadjacentSWd. This type of restrictionmirrors thecommonly heldassumption that syntactic movement treats heads and phrases differently. We firstreview anexample of each type and then consider the formal properties of Merger that lead to this restriction. 6.2.1Local Dislocation of Morphological Words TheLatin enclitic -que, usedin conjunction androughly equivalent to and, appearsafter the first word of thesecond of the two conjuncts it appearswith.

(36) Input: (C o n ju n ct 1 X Y) -que (C o n ju n c t 2 W Z)

Surface: (C o n ju n ct 1 X Y) t (C o n ju n c t 2 W-que Z) Inaddition, -que, whichis itself an MWd, attaches not to the first SWd ofits complement, but tothe first MWd of itscomplement (see Marantz1988). (37)a. [[bon `¯õ puer`¯õ ] [-que [bonàe puellàe]]] ! good`NOM.PL boy`NOM.PL and good`NOM.PL girl`NOM.PL b.(after Merger):bon `¯õ puer`¯õ bonàe`que puellàe ‘goodboys and good girls’ c. *bon`¯õ puer`¯õ bon-queàe puellàe Here -que doesnot interpolate inside the MWd bonàe, eventhough this word is internally complex.In other words, given the structure in (38), X anMWd, only (39a) is a legitimate transformationof (38);(39b) is not.

(38) [X * [[ W W`Y] * Z]]

(39) a. Possible: [[ W [W W`Y]`X] * Z]

b. Impossible: [[W [W W`X]`Y] * Z] Theappearance of -que whenit occurswith prepositional phrases adds a slightcomplication tothis picture. With disyllabic prepositions -que typicallyattaches to theP itself;but with many monosyllabicprepositions it attaches to the complement of P(Ernoutand Thomas 1951:120). 2 6

25 Ourproposal does not, however, allow subconstituents of MWdsto move by Raising(Excorporation) or Lowering. 26 Ernoutand Thomas identify exceptions to thispattern, which are categorizedinto a few groups:(a) certain fixed phrases,(b) cases inwhich the complement of the preposition is eithera demonstrativeor a formof the 3rd person pronoun is, and(c) cases inwhich the preposition is repeated ineach conjunct.In general, the process doesnot seem to beobligatory. 576 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

(40)a. i. circum-que ea loca around-andthose places ‘andaround those places’ ii. contra¯-que le¯gem against-andlaw ‘andagainst the law’ b.i. in re ¯bus-que inthings-and ‘andin things’ ii. de¯ pro¯vincia¯-que from province-and ‘andfrom theprovince’ Insuch cases a string-vacuousvariety of Local Dislocation can apply to phonologically light (monosyllabic)prepositions and their complement, uniting them into a singleSWd. 2 7 (41) -que * [in * re¯`bus] que * [in`re¯`bus] ! Subsequentto this,Local Dislocation of -que placesit afterthe P `Nunit,ignoring the preposition, muchas the adjectival desinence is ignoredin the example in (37).

(42) -que * [in`re¯`bus] [in`re¯`bus`que] ! Examplesof thistype illustrate two important points. First, Local Dislocation applies twice, operatingfrom themore deeply embedded structure outward, that is, cyclically: first the string- vacuousapplication, uniting P andits complement, and then the outer application, placing -que withrespect to this derived unit. Second, the MWd status of -que determineswhere it is placed inaderivedobject consisting of morethan one SWd: it isplaced after the entire derived MWd, notafter the adjacent SWd. 6.2.2Local Dislocation of Subwords Onthe otherhand, where Local Dislocation targets SWds, itadjoins them to adjacent SWds. For example,in Huave (Huavean, spoken in Mexico), the reflexiveaffix -ay appearsdirectly before the final inflectional affix of averb,if any. Consider thefollowing examples (Stairs and Hollenbach 1981; reflexive affix italicized): (43)a. s-a-kohc Ï -ay 1-TH-cut-REFL ‘Icutmyself’ b. s-a-kohcÏ -ay-on 1-TH-cut-REFL-PL ‘we cutourselves’

27 Supportfor this position, which makes these prepositionsproclitic on their complements, is found in Latin orthogra- phy,which occasionally treated monosyllabicprepositions as partof the same wordas thecomplement (see Sommer 1914:294,Leumann, Hofmann, and Szantyr 1963:241). MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 577

(44)a. t-e-kohc Ï -ay-os PAST-TH-cut-REFL-1 ‘Icut(past) myself’ b.*t-e-kohc Ï -as-ay PAST-TH-cut-1-REFL (45)a. t-e-kohc Ï -as-ay-on PAST-TH-cut-1-REFL-PL ‘we cut(past) ourselves’ b.*t-e-kohc Ï -ay-os-on PAST-TH-cut-REFL-1-PL Although -ay ‘reflexive’directly follows the Root and precedes -Vs ‘1stperson’ in (44a), it follows -Vs ‘1stperson’ in (45a). 2 8 We canaccount for thesefacts by assuming that -ay is structurallyperipheral to theverb ìnflectioncomplex, but undergoes Local Dislocation to left- adjointo the rightmost inflectional affix. (46)a. [[s-a-kohc Ï ]on]ay [[s-a-kohcÏ ]ayòn] ! b.[[[s-a-kohc Ï ]as]on]ay [[[s-a-kohcÏ ]as]ayòn] ! 6.2.3Discussion TheHuave examples (43)– (45) establish that Local Dislocation cannot be restrictedto MWds. Dislocation of SWds mustalso be permitted.But movement of an MWd to adjointo anSWd, or ofanSWd toadjointo anMWd, as in(39b),is apparentlyimpossible. To obtainthe correct restriction on inversion operations, it sufficesto require that (47)If aMergeroperation moves an element A toa targetB, thenA andthe head of Bare eitherboth MWds or both SWds. Clearlythe same restriction is standardly assumed to hold when the operation in question is syntacticmovement: XPs adjointo XPs andX 0 s adjoin to X0 s(see Baltin1991 for somediscus- sion). For thepurposes of exposition, it will be convenient to distinguish notationally between instancesof Merger of an MWd and Merger of anSWd. To make explicit whether a particular instanceof Local Dislocation moves an MWd or an SWd, we willuse the symbol Å to denote adjunctionof oneSWd toanother. The symbol ` willcontinue to denoteother types of adjunction, asis standard. Thetheory predicts certain interactions concerning domains that are accessible for Merger operationsand concerning the relative ordering of operations. First, a complexX 0 created in syntax(or byLowering)cannot be infixedwithin another X 0 duringMorphology. In other words, ‘‘second’’ positionfor anMWd is after (or before)the first (last) MWd in aphraseand nowhere else.2 9

28 The1st person suffix shows an alternation: -as/-os/-i@s. 29 Klavans(1995) and Halpern (1992b) (among others) discuss cases inwhich second position appears tobe either after thefirst word or after thefirst phrase. On the present proposal, positioning after thefirst phrase cannot arise from 578 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

(48) X * [ 0 Y * Z] / [ 0 Y`XZ], whereX isanMWd Y ! Y Second,an SWd (i.e.,a terminalnode within a complexX 0 createdby Raising or through theinsertion of dissociated morphemes in Morphology) can never adjoin to an element outside that X0 .Schematically:

(49) X * [ 0 Y * Z] / Y`X [ 0 Z], whereX isanMWd and Y isan SWd Y ! Y Thelatter point is of particular interest in light of the analysis of Bulgarian Def above. Loweringin the Bulgarian DP movesan MWd, D, tothe head of itscomplement. When a clitic hasattached to the D inthe syntax, Def cannotbe lowered independently of the clitic, as this wouldbe a caseof lowering an SWd toan MWd, which is prohibited on our approach. The processthus affects the MWd D dominatingboth [Def] featuresand Cl, with the result that the possessiveclitic and Def havean identical distribution.

6.3The Lithuanian Reflexive Thebehavior of thereflexive morpheme -si inStandard Lithuanian (Senn 1966, Nevis and Joseph 1992)provides an importantshowcase for theinteraction of LocalDislocations at the SWd level. Insimple verbs such as (50a), -si appearsas a suffixto the complex of verbstem ` tense and agreementinflection (50b). In verbs with certain ‘ ‘preverb’’ prefixes,historically derived from adverbs, -si appearsnot after the verb ` inflectionbut between the prefix and the verb (51b). (50)a. laikau ˜ ‘Iconsider,maintain’ b. laikau˜-si ‘Igetalong’ (51) a. isÏ -laikau˜ ‘Ipreserve,withstand’ b. isÏ -si-laikau˜ ‘Iholdmy stand’ Whentwo such prefixes appear before the verb, the reflexive morpheme appears between them. (52) a. pa-zÏ inti‘ toknow [someone], to recognize’ b.su-si-pa-z Ïinti‘ tobecome acquainted with’ Furthermore,when a verbis negated by the prefix ne-,thenegation prefix appears before any preverbs,and reflexive -si isimmediately to its right (examples from Dambriu˜nas,Klimas, and Schmalstieg1972). (53) a. a‘sÏ lenkiu‘‘Ibend’ b. a‘sÏ lenkiu´o-si‘ Ibow’(lit. ‘ Ibendmyself’ ) c.a ‘sÏne-si-lenkiu‘ ‘Idonot bow’

LocalDislocation. It must be the case thatthe initial XP inquestion has raised (e.g.,by a topicalizationfronting) to sentence-initialposition. Whether or nota prosodicoperation is neededin addition to movement for cases inwhich an XPprecedes aclitic is anopen question. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 579

Thegeneralization emerging from thesedata is that -si appearsas asuffixto the first prefix (of acertaintype) on theverb; where there is noprefix, -si suffixesto theverb ` inflection.In termsof Local Dislocation, -si hasmoved from apositionas a prefixto the verb complex to secondposition, where, crucially, the verb ` inflectiontogether count as a single‘ ‘position.’’ Like Latin -que, Lithuanian -si cannotbe positioned between the stem and an inflectional suffix; but unlike -que, -si canbe positionedinside an MWd, namely, between a prefixand a following stemor prefix. Our analysisof thesefacts is asfollows. We assumethat in Lithuanian Pr(everb)s areadjoined toV, andthis complex moves to Neg if present, and further to T.

(54) [T P [Neg1 `[Pr`Pr`V]2 ]`T [N e g P t1 [V P . . . t2 ]]] We take -si tobe a dissociatedmorpheme inserted in Morphology, left-adjoined to the highest segmentof the MWd of whichv isa member,that is, to the entire [ ...V] `Tcomplexin the casesunder discussion. 3 0 From thisposition, it undergoesLocal Dislocation. As anSWd andnot anMWd itself, -si tradesits relation of left-adjacencyto the [ ...V] `Tcomplexfor arelation of(right-)adjunctionto theleft-peripheralSWd withinthis complex, namely, the leftmost prefix. 3 1 (55) [-si * [Pr . . . V * T]] [[Pr Å si . . . V * T]] ! Thisprocedure gives the correct results whenever the verb has a prefixor is negated. How- ever,since both V and(the lower segment of) TareSWds, we incorrectlypredict that -si will dislocateto between V andT ina verbwith neither negation nor a prefix. (56) [-si * [V * T]] [[V Å si * T]] ! Thereason this does not happen, evidently, is that V andT form aunitimpenetrable to Local Dislocation.This fact reflects another: namely, that in most Indo-European languages suffixes form closerphonological domains with stems than do prefixes: prefixes are more ‘ ‘loosely’’ attachedthan suffixes, and suffixes show more pronounced allomorphy conditioned by the stem

30 The si underdiscussion here isclassified as ‘‘reflexive’’ forconvenience only. In fact, itappears ina numberof differentverbal types in Lithuanian, many of which are notactually reflexive. This pattern is typicalof voicemorphology thatdoes not actually instantiate a syntacticterminal, although we cannotundertake a detailedanalysis showing that this is thecase here (see Embick1997). For full distribution of this element inLithuanian see GeniusÏ ieneÇ 1987. Thestatement ofthe process interms of‘‘highestMWd’ ’ isintendedto cover cases inwhich the v has combined withAsp but not with T, thatis, participles. The pattern of -si inthese cases parallels itspattern in thedomain of tensed verbs. 31 Theposition of -si isnotconstant across Lithuaniandialects. Endzelõ ¯ns(1971) provides data froma dialect in which -si is suffixedto the verb `inflectioncomplex even when there isa preverb. (i)su-pran ˜ta-si PR-understand- REFL ‘(they)understand each other’ Insuch dialects -si is presumablyright-adjoined to (the highest segment of)T 0 anddoes not undergo any dislocation. Doublingof reflexives also takes place incertain dialects; Senn(1966:sec. 401) reports that in Lower Lithuanian ( Nieder- litauisch) s(i) appears after theverb when negation is present,but after verbalprefixes when these are present;in the latter cases doublingis alsopossible, with a second s(i) appearingafter theverb. We donot attempt afullanalysis of suchforms here,but see section7.1 for some discussionof doubling. 580 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER thando prefixes. 3 2 Wherethe suffix in question is T,thiscloser phonological affinity to the stem isdirectlyat oddswith the syntactic derivation, where, by hypothesis,T hasattached last during syntactichead raising (54). Toexpress this restructuring, we proposethat T inLithuanian always undergoes string- vacuousLocal Dislocation, adjoining to its left neighbor V.

(57) [V * T] [[ 0 V Å T]] ! V Recallnow that Local Dislocation manipulates SWds, where these are defined as the terminal elementswithin an MWd. Because SWd statusis definedbefore Local Dislocation, if theSWd T0 Å -adjoinsto the SWd V 0 asin (57), the result is a singlecomplex SWd andnot two SWds. Itfollows that subsequent Local Dislocation will treat the [V Å T]unitas asingle‘ ‘position.’’ Thisis indeedwhat we find,since -si dislocatesto the left of [V Å T]asa whole. Theordering of the two hypothesized Local Dislocations is not arbitrary: it is predicted by theprinciple of cyclic application. Since -si isadjoinedto T, andT isadjoinedto [ ...V], then anydislocation operating over T andV willprecede any dislocation operating over -si and T.3 3

7Interactionsand Requirements 7.1Swedish Determiners and Definiteness Marking Thedistribution of definitenessmarking in theSwedish DP providesa casestudy for theinteraction ofrequirements,movement operations, and support processes. There is anextensiveliterature on thetopic; for relevantreferences, see Bo ¨rjars 1998. Adefinitenessmarker in Swedish appears suffixed to the noun, when there is nothing else in the DP. (58) mus-en mouse-DEF ‘the mouse’ Overtdeterminers cooccur with definiteness marking on nominals when, for instance,an adjectiveprecedes the head noun, resulting in a typeof doubling. 3 4

32 Evidentlythe formation of definiteadjectives inOldLithuanian shows a similar patternwith respect tothestatus ofprefixes. An element thatwas historicallypronominal (the * Æio-stem pronoun)appears between prefixesattached to definiteadjectives andthe stem, althoughsome doublingof this element inpostadjectival position seems tooccur as well.See Stang1966:70 and Zinkevic Ï ius1957:7ff. for discussion. 33 See Minkoff1994 for a discussionof cyclicity and Merger in the case ofCaribbeanSpanish clitics. 34 Adifferentsituation obtains with overt determiners/ demonstratives.Certain determiners requirethe presence of thedefinite marker, whileothers are unableto cooccur with it (nosyntacticosemantic difference isknown to distinguish thedeterminers thatdo and do not require ‘ ‘doubledefiniteness’ ’; we thankAnders Holmberg for discussion of this point). (i) Swedish:Det andDef a. dengamla mus-en/ * mus ‘the/thatold mouse- DEF’ b.den mus-en/ * mus ‘thatmouse’ c. denha ¨rmus-en/ * mus ‘thismouse’ d.denna mus/ * mus-en‘ thismouse’ MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 581

(59)den gamla mus-en theold mouse- DEF ‘theold mouse’ Theapparent ‘ ‘doubling,’’ inwhich an overt determiner den cooccurswith a definiteness- markednoun, is obligatory. Structurally, the head noun is crucially at issue here. That is, it is notsimply the case that a [def] elementis phonologically associated with the right of an entire DP, asfor instancethe English possessive is (e.g., [ theguy on the left ]’s dog).Thisis clear in exampleswith postnominal modification (Bo ¨rjars 1998). (60)Gris-en medla ngsvans grymtade. pig-DEF withlong tail grunted ‘Thepig with the long tail grunted.’ Thus,there is always definiteness marking on the head noun, whether or not prenominal modifiersappear. The fact that definiteness marking cooccurs with a numberof overtdeterminers suggeststhat the definiteness marker on nouns in such cases is a dissociatedmorpheme rather thanthe realization of D, servingas a sortof agreement. Notice that the alternative to this is to complicatesyntax unnecessarily, holding for instancethat Swedish has twodistinct D headsunder certaincircumstances but not others (Kester (1992)makes such a proposal;see the critique in Delsing1993). Interms of where the requirements responsible for theattested pattern are localized, Swedish providesan instancein which two elements, D [d ef] andthe head N, forcecertain conditions to be met.As notedabove, a headN ina definiteDP inSwedish always shows marking for definiteness. Our interpretationof thisis asfollows.First, Swedish has a conditionto the effect that N inthe context of D[d e f] mustbe marked morphologically for definitenessin a kindof concord. This amountsto awell-formednesscondition on N. At thesame time there is alsoa morphophonological requirementon the syntactically projected D [d ef]:itmust have a host.Thus, when D [d e f] and the headN cannotbe put together, den instantiatesthe D position(see Santelmann1992). The two requirementsare stated as follows: (61) Requirements(imposed at PF) a.The head N mustbe marked with definiteness when D is[def].

b. D[d ef] musthave a host.

Itis possiblefor the overt determiner toappear witha definiteness-markednoun without an adjective, as in den mus-en;theinterpretation is thatof a demonstrative. Afurtherquirk involves restrictive relative clauses. Bo¨rjars (1998)reports optionality here: eithera suffixednoun oranovert determiner witha suffixednoun (with nonrestrictive relatives onlythe suffixed-noun version is possible). (i)a. mus-ensom inte. .. mouse-DEF that not b.den mus som inte. .. DET mousethat not 582 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

Noticethat in requirement (61a) the condition may be triggered either by D [ d ef] itself or byvirtue of the presence of one of the other demonstrative elements noted above that require definiteness. Theserequirements are directly affected by what has taken place in the syntactic derivation. Inthe case in which nouns without preceding modifiers appear suffixed with the definiteness marker,the simplest analysis is to invoke head movement to D; in this we followTaraldsen (1990)and Delsing (1993). That is: 3 5 (62)N movesto D ifpossible. WhenN-to-D movementoccurs, each of the requirements in (61) is satisfied. The N is markedwith definiteness, and D [d ef ] hasa host,the incorporated N. At thesame time, however, (62)is restricted to N andwill not occur if N isdominated by a modifier. 3 6 Whensyntactic movementdoes not occur, the two requirements in (61) have not been met, and further PF processesmust apply. In such cases we takethe output of syntax for anexample like (59) to be (63),where A andN Rootsare inserted for clarity.

(63) Output of syntax DP

D AP

[def] A NP

Ï §GAML§ § N

Ï § MUS§ §

35 Inline with a specific treatment ofderivational morphology within Distributed Morphology, we take N here as shorthandfor a functionalhead n, analogueof thev ofthe verbal system (see Marantz 2000). 36 Sandstro¨mandHolmberg (1994) note an interesting pattern in northern Swedish, in which adjectives andnouns togetherin atypeof compound structure appear suffixedas awholewith the definiteness marker: forexample, compare northernSwedish gamm-svart-kjol-n ‘old-black-skirt- DEF’withStandard Swedish dengamla svarta kjol-en. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 583

(64) Processes DP

D AP

d- [def] A NP

Ï §GAML§ § N

Ï § MUS§ § [def]

As we discussedat the outset, the assignment of dissociated morphemes occurs at PF in accordancewith language-specific requirements. In the present case requirement (61) triggers the assignmentof a dissociatedmorpheme to N,inwhat could be viewed as a typeof concord.That is, muchas features of, say, subject DPs arecopied onto Agr nodeson T for subject-verbagreement, or muchas features in aDPlike[number] appear on Anodeswithin a DP, Swedishhas a requirement tothe effect that Ns in[def] environmentsreflect the [def] featurevia concord. The process that bringsabout this ‘ ‘agreement’’ isasfollows: (65)Assign [def] tothe head N ina DPwiththe [def] property. Thisprocess takes place in PF, thatis, after syntax. Moreover, it appliesonly when necessary. Incases in which N movesto D, syntaxwill output a structurein which [N Def] area unit.This willmeet requirement (61a). Thus, (65) will not apply. Syntax therefore can bleed the application ofthePF process.Syntax may also satisfy the second requirement, (61b). The other component oftheSwedish determiner system involves the support of strandedD [d e f] ,requirement(61b). As notedabove, we followSantelmann (1992) in regardingthis as a caseof support by d-ofstranded

D[d e f] .Onceagain, this process may be bled if N-to-D movementhas occurred in syntax. Thefirst point illustrated by thiscase study concerns the multiple requirements that may be involvedin PF well-formedness,and their interaction with the syntactic derivation. Because of theexistence of requirement(61a) in Swedishmorphology, we findthe doubling of aheadthat isrelevant to LFinterpretation;but there is nodoublingat the syntacticosemantic level, because thefeature [def] isonly copied in PF. Theinteraction of requirements here also paves the way for ourstudyof thecomplicated array of syntacticderivations, morphological and morphosyntactic requirements,rescue operations, and Lowering movement that must be acknowledged in the Englishverbal system, the topic of section 7.2. 584 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

Thesecond point is that our analysis captures the essential properties of the Swedish DP withoutintroducing a complicationinto the syntactic component. The importance of thisposition isclear when we lookat additional patterns from theScandinavian languages. The situation in Swedishforms aminimalcontrast with the distribution of definiteness marking in Danish. The articlein Danish (definite or indefinite) occurs in complementary distribution with all overt deter- minerswhen it appears suffixed to a noun. (66) Danish a.mand-en ‘ man- DEF’ b.den unge mand c.*den unge mand-en ‘ theyoung man’ We takethe difference between Danish and Swedish to be localizedin Morphology. Specifi- cally,Danish has requirement (61b), but not (61a). It therefore requires D [ d ef] tobe supported, butit crucially does not require the type of agreement that results in the doubling of [def] in Swedish.In terms of our analysis, Swedish and Danish are quite similar syntactically; the differ- encebetween them is found at PF. Thealternative to this, which is tosaythat Swedish and Danish differsignificantly in termsof whereD islocatedin theDP andin termsof thetypes of movement operationsthey allow, complicates the syntax unnecessarily in comparison with our treatment, whichanalyzes the phenomena as arising from theindependent requirements of syntaxand PF.

7.2T andv inEnglish Earlierwe noted,following previous treatments, that T attachesto V inEnglish by Lowering. We nowturnto afurtherquestion, concerning the natureof therequirements surrounding Lowering inEnglish, concentrating in particular on the interaction of Lowering with do-support. Thefirst point we consideris one discussed by Bobaljik (1995): the Lowering of T toV treatsintervening adverbs as invisible. 3 7 Inorder to establish this point clearly, however, we must addressa specificpoint concerning the relative positions of T,V,andintervening adverbs. The distributionof certain adverbs with respect to TP andVP varies,as shown by the following examples: (67)a. John always has read a lotof books. b.John has always read a lotof books. Incases in which always issupposed to be invisible for Lowering,it cannot be known

37 Bobaljikargues that adjacency isrelevantfor the process thatwe treat as Loweringhere. The major difference between thetwo approaches is thatby defining Lowering structurally, we havea clear reasonwhy adverbs do notinterfere withthe process. Lowering relates Twiththe head that it immediately dominates,v. Othermaterial thatintervenes linearly between these twopositions simply does not count for the process, unless there is additionalsyntactic structure (i.e., NegP).Note that this difference holdsonly if we assume thatadverbs do not always appear inthe specifier positionof accompanyingfunctional heads. If thiswere thecase, itwould be necessary tostipulatea reasonwhy the heads in question donotcount for the purposes of Lowering. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 585 withoutfurther argument whether it is adjoined to TP insteadof VP. Thatis, the structure of (68a)with Lowering might be thatin (68b). (68)a. John always reads.

b. John [T P always [T P T [V P reads]]] We believethat the invisibility of adverbsfor Loweringcan be establishedby adverb phrases thatcan appear only on VP, noton TP, and that do not block Lowering. 3 8 Takingthe presence ofanovertauxiliary to show the position of T,thefollowing examples illustrate this pattern with the adverb completely. (69)a. John has completely destroyedthe opposition. b. *?John completely hasdestroyed the opposition. c. John tcompletely destroy-edthe opposition. Loweringin Englishis drivenby a morphologicalrequirement on finiteT. Structurally,the invisibilityof adverbsis expected given a Loweringanalysis of T-to-V movement.To this point, then,the English system is unremarkable. However, examples involving constituent negation showthat the relationship between Lowering and do-supportin English is more complicated thanthe analysis above would indicate. 3 9 Considerfirst the following examples with constituent negation;sentential negation is provided in (70b) for clarity. (70)a. John can always not agree. b.John can’ t alwaysnot agree. Therelevant examples show that in caseswithout the modal, there is nogrammaticaldeclara- tiveversion, either with Lowering or with do-support. (71)a. *John always not agrees. b.*John does always not agree. Thegeneralizations arising from theseexamples are that Lowering is impossible and that do-supportfails as wellif T remainsin situ. For instance,when T-to-C movement occurs, it is infact possible to realize T with do. (72)Did he alwaysnot agree? Whatthis shows is that when T isremoved from thestructural domain in which Lowering occurs, do-supportis not blocked. Similarly, when Lowering is precluded by the presence of normalnegation, do-supportis once again possible. (73)He didn’t alwaysnot agree. Theseexamples are crucial for understandingthe factors that interact in English to yield do- supportphenomena. Before this can be seen, however, the basic elements of do-supportmust be presented.At firstglance this appears to be a morphophonologicalrescue strategy, that is, an

38 Additionaldiachronic evidence for the invisibility is presentedin Kroch 1989. 39 We thankTony Kroch for bringing these cases toour attention. 586 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER operationaimed solely at resolvingthe dependency of anotherwise stranded T. Twoconsiderations suggestthat this is not correct. The first is basedon the examples with constituent negation above. Theyshow that do-supportcannot apply when constituent negation is present.If do-supportwere simplythe insertion of a dummystem in Morphology, this fact would be entirely unexplained; thereis no reasonwhy the presence of constituent negation should preclude the insertion of do. Thesecond argument is basedupon the distribution of features and feature types in thegrammar. We assumethat do, asa lightverb, is essentially the default Spell-Out of the head v. Viewed from thisperspective, in order for do-supportto take place, there must be a positioninto which the forms of do areinserted, that is, a v;however,the casesin which do-supportapplies in English arethose in whichv cannotcombine with T. Thus, do-supportmust involve two steps: first, the additionof v toT; and,second, the realization of thisv as do. Thisis the basis for thesecond argumentagainst treating do-supportas purelymorphological. The head v isa syntacticosemantic object.On the assumption that Morphology interprets the output of syntax, v issimply not the typeof objectthat Morphology can insert. A consequenceof LateInsertion called FeatureDis- jointnessinEmbick1997, 2000, is thatpurely morphological/ phonologicalfeatures are not present insyntax,and syntacticosemantic features are not introduced in Morphology. Reintroducing a v inMorphology, as is requiredby the morphological support analysis of dummy do, contradicts thisbasic and architecturally motivated position concerning features in the grammar. 4 0 Theconclusion drawn from thesearguments is that do-supportmust be essentially syntactic. We thereforepropose to treat do-supportas occurring in syntax; that is, there is a specificstructural environmentin which T isprovided with v insyntax. 4 1 Themotivation for thisis a syntactic localitycondition governing the relationship between T andv. (74)T mustbe in an immediately local relationship with v. Here we take immediatelylocal tomean that T musteither have a vPsister or be in an MWd withv. This amounts to a strictselectional requirement on T, tothe effect that it must be local tov.So,for instance,when auxiliaries move to T, therequirement is satisfiedbecause T isina complexhead with v. This is a manifestationof a moregeneral principle according to which a requirementof this type can be met by a headX, orthe XP projectedfrom X,ina theoryin whichnotions like ‘ ‘X’’and‘ ‘XP’’ arederivative of structure. If atany stage in the derivation the requirement in (74) cannot be met, a syntacticprocess mustoccur to meet the locality condition on T. 4 2 (75) v is syntactically mergedonto T whenT doesnot have a vPcomplement. Thiscovers two cases: simple negation, in which T immediatelydominates NegP, or morepre- cisely S P,inthe sense of Laka (1990); and T-to-C movement environments, in which T has

40 Forpotential complications, see thediscussion in Embick 2000. 41 Thecase ofsupportwith d- inSwedish could also be examined in greater detailin lightof ourclaim thatsome supportphenomena are syntactic. 42 Incases inwhich auxiliaries move to T viaNeg, as in Johnisn’ t achef, T’srequirementwould have to be met byheadmovement rather thanby do-support. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 587 moved.In the former casethe head S actuallyhosts either affirmative/ emphaticfeatures or [neg], inwhich case it is referred toas NegP. In either case, however, do-supportis found. Negation isillustrated above; with the emphatic S do-supportis alsoobligatory. We take so in examples likethe following to be realized in the S projection: (76)a. John did eat the apples. (emphatic) b.John did SO eatthe apples. c.*John SO atethe apples. Whenthere is no S P,ornoT-to-C movement, there is no do-support.The combination of Tandv thencomes about in Morphology,via Lowering. The derivation is sketchedin trees (77) and(78). When T isnot in an immediately local relationship with v, the requirement in (74) must besyntacticallysatisfied by merging a vwithT. 4 3

(77) T does not dominate v: requirement of T not met T

T NegP

Neg

[neg] vP

eat the apples (78) Do-support in the syntax: default v satisfies requirement T

T NegP

v T Neg

[neg] vP

agree with Bill

43 Statedderivationally, in cases inwhich there is T-to-Cmovement, or S P,butthere is noauxiliary verb or v attached toT, thederivation crashes. 588 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

Theremaining complication to thispicture concerns the ungrammaticality of both do-support andLowering in sentences with constituent negation. We proposeto account for thiscase of ineffabilityin structural terms. In outline, the idea is that the syntactic requirement of T ismet whenconstituent negation modifies the vP; that is, T continuesto dominatethe vP, unlike what happenswhen a fullNegP is present. Following the (licit) syntactic derivation, Morphology is thenprovided with a casein which Lowering must occur to place T onv. However, when constituentnegation is present, the structural head of T’ scomplementis no longer v; rather, it isNeg,headed by constituent negation. The postsyntactic derivation cannot yield an acceptable outcomevia Lowering in thiscase. And because do-supportis syntactic,as demonstratedabove, thereis nomorphophonological rescue strategy. Constituentnegation is aheadadjoined to a phrasein the examples we areconsidering. In general,we takeconstituent negation to be essentially the same [neg] feature that is foundwith normalnegation. In the ‘ ‘normal’’ case[neg] is afeatureon S , and the S Pisreferred toas NegP. Beyondthis, however, Neg can adjoin to other syntactic elements. When Neg is adjoined to somephrase (or head;see below) and does not head S ,itis called constituentnegation. But despitethe difference in syntactic distribution, the same feature underlies so-called normal negation.4 4 Afurtherquestion regards what precisely it means for constituentnegation to be a head adjoinedto a phrase.We willexplicate this within a versionof barephrase structure (Chomsky 1994).When Neg is adjoined to a phrase,it does not project further. Thus, it is potentially simultaneouslymaximal and minimal, a possibilitydiscussed in some detail in Chomsky 1995. Inorder to show how this structure for constituentnegation interacts with Lowering, we must firstexamine the nature of the Lowering operation in greater detail. On the definition we have beenemploying, Lowering relates a headto the head of its complement. In the cases we have examinedin previous sections, the XP intowhich Lowering occurs is headedby an MWdX, as in (79).

(79) [X P (ZP) [X X (YP)]] Whenconstituent negation occurs, Neg is adjoined to the vP. As noted,as aheadadjoined to a phraseit has the properties of both a headand a phrase.The fact that it counts as a minimal projection(i.e., an X 0 )intherelevant configuration is crucial.The vP thatis thecomplement of theT tobe lowered has the following structure:

(80) [v P DP [v P Neg [v v Ï P]]] Inthe typical case, illustrated in (79), the closest MWd of theXP isidenticalto the syntactic

44 Thisaccounts for the semantic similarities ofthe two and for the fact thatboth ‘ ‘normal’’ and‘ ‘constituent’’ negationcan license negativepolarity items, giventhe correct structure. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 589 headof theprojection, X. By closest MWdhere, we meanthe structurally highest MWd attached withinthe complement of the Lowering head. In (79) and (80) no head Y withinZP orDP willbe structurally close in this sense, as it is embedded within an adjoined projection that is (unambiguously)phrasal. 4 5 Theintuition we willpursue is that Lowering in fact targets not the headof itscomplement, but the closestMWd (as definedabove) of the complement. Under normal circumstances‘ ‘headof complement’’ and‘ ‘closestMWd of complement’’ willpick out the same object,as in (79). In (80), however, there is an MWd Neg that is hierarchicallyhigher than the headv, suchthat the MWd targeted by Lowering (Neg) andthe MWd heading the projection (v) aredifferent heads. In particular, with constituent Neg adjoined to vP the closest MWd in the complementof TisNegitself, and this prohibits successful Lowering. We illustratethis analysis ingreater detail in comparison with adverbs like completely. Inthe cases under consideration, Neg is adjoined to the vP. However, it is not adjoined as anAdverb Phrase (AdvP) wouldbe. AdvPs do not block Lowering or lead to a crash.This is structural.Adverbs such as completely appearin AdvPs that are adjoined to the vP (thesubject DPisomittedhere for simplicity).

(81) Invisibility of the adverb T

T vP

AdvP v

completely v Ï P

Ï AGREE§ § § v t with Bill Inthis case the structural head of T’ scomplementis v, and Lowering applies to yield the grammaticaloutcome. In the case of constituentnegation, it is simply the head containing [neg] thatis adjoinedto the phrase. Tree (82) shows [neg]’ s adjunctionto the vP.

45 Thistype of restrictionparallels thecase ofhead movement, which allows movement to an immediately dominating head,not for example movementfrom an adjoined XP toa higherhead outside that XP. 590 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

(82) Constituent negation: syntactic requirement of T met T

T vP

DP v

John [neg] v

not v Ï P

Ï AGREE§ § § v t with Bill

Unlikein (78), in which T hasa NegPcomplement and thus has a defaultv mergedwith it,in (82) T stillhas a vPcomplement.Thus, do-support(i.e., merging default v withT) isnot triggered.The structure is thuslegitimate and is shippedto thePF componentas is. At PF,Tis notjoined with v, with the result that Lowering must apply. In this case, however, the target visiblefor Loweringis Neg, not v, asNegis the closestMWd of T’scomplement.Thus, Lowering cannotapply; or, if itapplies blindly, it yieldsthe morphologically illegitimate object Neg-T. On eitherscenario the result is ungrammatical.In this way the analysis captures the intuition that the ineffabilityof these examples with constituent negation follows from thedistinct requirements oftwomodules of thegrammar. 4 6 Partof the solution to the constituent negation problem involves the idea that this element isa headadjoined to a phrase. Our accountthus predicts that the attachment of a Negelement intothe MWd in which the verb appears should not create a problem.As thefacts show, the caseswith constituent negation and the structural anomaly that it induces contrast sharply with examplesinvolving prefixes like dis-. (83) John t quicklydis-agree-d with Bill. Thisfollows directly from structuraldifferences between constituent negation and dis-. We take thelatter to attach directly to the Root, which, in the verbal example, then moves to v asaunit asshownin (84). 4 7

46 Analternative to the treatment proposedin thetext is foundin Flagg 2000. The analysis ties thecrash inquestion directlyto the effects ofphases ina cyclic derivation,but is similar inother respects toour treatment. Whilethe structure- basedand phase-based treatments make differentpredictions, we willnot explore these differences here. Ultimately,the predictive power of theapproach developed in the text will have to be examined with further case studiesof Lowering. 47 We indicatethe features underlying dis- here as X,as theyare notidentical to Neg. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 591

(84) dis-agree v

Ï P v

X Ï P

dis Ï AGREE§ § §

Inthis structure the head of T’scomplementis the (internally complex) v, which is the target for Lowering.The grammaticality of (83)follows, because the target of Tisa legitimatemorphologi- calhost for it. 4 8 Thecase studies presented in thissection highlight the interactionof syntacticand postsyntacticmovement processes with support phenomena, and illustrate the combination of syntacticand morphologicalrequirements underlying the Swedish determiner system and the English tense system.In particular, we providedan account of do-supportaccording to which this process is syntactic,allowing the ineffability found in cases with constituent negation to be accounted for directly.

8Conclusions Thisarticle is intended as a contributionto a generaltheory of the Morphology component, whichprovides phonological expression to abstract syntactic structures. We haveassumed that Morphologyhas recourse to a restrictedrange of readjustment operations modifying syntactic structures,where such readjustments in some cases lead to surface effects commonly termed ‘‘morphosyntacticmismatches.’ ’ Includedin thesereadjustments is amechanismfor movement, identifiedhere with Morphological Merger as introduced by Marantz (1988). Our proposals,based oncase studies from arangeof languages,make explicit these operations and the primitives of constituentstructure that they manipulate, substantially extending earlier formulations of Merger. First,we haveidentified two species of Merger, Lowering and LocalDislocation, and have shownthat where the conditions on the operation of the Merger make reference to particular Vocabularyitems, the operation is purely local, operating under string adjacency only. This prediction,the LocalDislocation Hypothesis, followsautomatically from thearchitectureof gram-

48 Somethingsimilar appears tobe marginally possible for some speakers, withconstituent negation replacing dis-. Theaffixation of Neg insidethe MWd of the V can bediagnosedmorphophonologically. (i)a. no´tagre´e b. no´t agre‘e In (ia) not isattached tothe vP, while in (ib) it is attached tothe MWd containing the verb, much as is dis-;thephonology is more characteristic ofa compoundin (ib) than in (ia). In (ib) Neg attaches verylow, perhaps in the same way that thefeature realized by dis- is adjoinedto the Root. 592 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER mar proposedhere and, we believe,represents a novelempirical observation that alternative modelsof grammar cannotencode without stipulation. Second, we haveformally defined the categories morphologicalword and subword astheprimitive constituents of Morphologicalmove- mentoperations. Further constraints on potential syntax/ morphologymismatches are defined in termsof thesefundamental categories. The distinction between clitics and affixes, on the other hand,has no placein ournon-Lexicalist approach: we haveshown that this cumbersome artifact ofLexicalism obscures rather than clarifies basic aspects of the syntax-morphology interface. Third,we illustratedthe interaction of postsyntactic requirements with syntactic movement and concordphenomena. In clarifying how multiple requirements across two distinct components of thegrammar canresult in complex surface patterns, we havealso introduced a noveltreatment of English do-support. Moregenerally, the interactions that we haveanalyzed highlight how our approach differs from otherattempts to characterizesyntax and its relationship to morphology. In each of the case studiespresented above the analysis of morphologicaloperations relies crucially on a syntactic structure.The intimate connection between syntax and morphology that underlies our approach isabasicassumption of the Distributed Morphology research program. The well-formedness of anyparticular surface string results from diverserequirements that are distributed across different partsof the grammar. In this way we rejectthe view that morphology is insulated from syntax orcanbe understoodwithout reference to thegrammar asa whole.Our proposalsinstead provide aspecificframework inwhich deviations from adirectreflection of syntax in morphology can beisolated and understood.

References Abney,Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in itssentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Arnaudova,Olga. 1998. Demonstratives and the structure of the Bulgarian DP. In Papersfrom the Second Conferenceon Formal Approaches to South Slavic Languages, 1–32. Trondheim Working Papers inLinguistics31. Department of Linguistics, University of Trondheim. Baltin,Mark. 1991. Head movement and Logical Form. LinguisticInquiry 22:225–250. Bobaljik,Jonathan David. 1994. What does adjacency do? In MIT workingpapers in linguistics 21: The morphology-syntaxconnection, 1–32.MITWPL, Departmentof Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge,Mass. Bobaljik,Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: On the syntax of verbal inflection. Doctoral dissertation, MIT,Cambridge, Mass. Bonet, Eula‘lia.1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,Mass. Bo¨rjars,Kersti. 1998. Featuredistribution in Swedishnoun phrases. Oxford:Blackwell. Caink,Andrew. 2000. In favour of a ‘‘cliticcluster’ ’ inthe Bulgarian and Macedonian DP. In Papers from theThird Conference on Formal Approaches to South Slavic and Balkan Languages, 170–182. TrondheimWorking Papers in Linguistics 34. Department of Linguistics,University of Trondheim. Cardinaletti,Anna. 1998. On the deficient/ strongopposition in possessive systems. In Possessors,predicates andmovement in the Determiner Phrase, ed.Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder, 17 –54.Amster- dam:John Benjamins. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 593

Chomsky,Noam. 1994. Bare phrase structure. MIT OccasionalPapers in Linguistics 5. MITWPL, Depart- mentof Linguisticsand Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. [Published in Governmentand Binding Theoryand the Minimalist Program, ed.Gert Webelhuth, 383 –439.Oxford: Blackwell (1995).] Chomsky,Noam. 1995. TheMinimalist Program. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky,Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Stepby step:Essays on minimalist syntax inhonor of Howard Lasnik, ed.Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89 –155. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press.[Also available as MIT OccasionalPapers in Linguistics 15, MITWPL, Departmentof Linguisticsand Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.] Chomsky,Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In KenHale: A lifein language, ed.Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Dambriu˜nas,Leonardas, Antanas Klimas, and William R. Schmalstieg.1972. Introductionto modernLithua- nian. New York:Franciscan Fathers. Delsing,Lars-Olof. 1993. The internal structure of nounphrases in Scandinavian languages. Doctoral dissertation,University of Lund. Elson,Mark. 1976. The definite article in Bulgarian and Macedonian. Slavicand East European Journal 20:273–279. Embick,David. 1995. ‘ ‘Mobileinflections’ ’ inPolish.In NELS 25, 127–142.GLSA, Universityof Massachu- setts,Amherst. Embick,David. 1997. Voice and the interfaces of syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Embick,David. 2000. Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. LinguisticInquiry 31:185–230. Embick,David, and Roumyana Izvorski. 1996. Participle-auxiliary word-orders in Slavic. In Formal Ap- proachesto Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting, 210–239.Michigan Slavic Publications, Univer- sityof Michigan, Ann Arbor. Emonds,Joseph. 1978. The verbal complex V ¢ -VinFrench. LinguisticInquiry 9:151–175. Emonds,Joseph. 1987. The Invisible Category Principle. LinguisticInquiry 18:613–632. Endzelõ¯ns,Janis. 1971. Comparativephonology and morphologyof theBaltic languages. Trans.by William R.Schmalstiegand Benjamin .sÏ Je¯gers.The Hague: Mouton. Ernout,Alfred, and Franc ¸oisThomas. 1951. Syntaxelatine. Paris:Klincksieck. Flagg,Elissa. 2000. Aspect and the syntax of English imperatives. Generals paper, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Franks,Steven. 2001. The internal structure of Slavic noun phrases, with special reference to Bulgarian. Ms.,Indiana University, Bloomington. Franks,Steven, and Tracy Holloway King. 2000. Ahandbookof Slavicclitics. Oxford:Oxford University Press. GeniusÏ ieneÇ ,Emma. 1987. Thetypology of reflexives. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. Halle,Morris. 1990. An approach to morphology. In NELS 20, 150–184.GLSA, Universityof Massachusetts, Amherst. Halle,Morris. 1997. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In MITworkingpapers in linguis- tics30: PF— Papersat theinterface, 425–449.MITWPL, Departmentof Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT,Cambridge, Mass. Halle,Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection.In The view fromBuilding 20: Essaysin linguisticsin honor of SylvainBromberger, ed.Kenneth Hale and Samuel JayKeyser, 111 –176.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Halpern,Aaron. 1992a. The Balkan definite article and pseudo-second position. In Proceedingsof the EighteenthAnnual Meeting of theBerkeley Linguistics Society, 338–349. Berkeley Linguistics Soci- ety,University of California,Berkeley. Halpern,Aaron. 1992b. Topics in the placement and morphology of clitics.Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University,Stanford, Calif. 594 DAVIDEMBICKANDROLFNOYER

Harley,Heidi, and Rolf Noyer. 1998. Licensing in thenon-Lexicalist lexicon: Nominalizations, Vocabulary items,and the encyclopaedia. In MITworkingpapers in linguistics 32: Proceedings of the Penn / MITRoundtableon ArgumentStructure and Aspect, 119–138. MITWPL, Departmentof Linguistics andPhilosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Harley,Heidi, and Rolf Noyer. 1999. Distributed Morphology. GlotInternational 4:3–9. Harris,James. 1991. The exponence of gender in Spanish. LinguisticInquiry 22:27–62. Hayes,Bruce. 1990. Precompiled phrasal phonology. In Thesyntax-phonology connection, ed.Sharon Inkelas andDraga Zec, 85 –108.Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. Ka´lma´n, Be´la. 1965. Vogulchrestomathy. Bloomington:Indiana University Press. Kester,Ellen-Petra. 1992. Adjectival inflection and dummy affixation in Germanicand Romance languages. In Papersfrom the Workshop on the Scandinavian Noun Phrase. Universityof Umea . Klavans,Judith. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61:95–120. Klavans,Judith. 1995. Onclitics and cliticization. New York:Garland. Kroch,Anthony. 1989. Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do. In Languagechange andvariation, ed.Ralph W. Fasoldand Deborah Schiffrin, 133 –172.Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Laka,Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Doctoral dissertation,MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Leumann,Manu, Johann Baptist Hofmann, and Anton Szantyr. 1963. LateinischeGrammatik auf derGrund- lagedes Werkes von Friedrich Stolz und Joseph Hermann Schmalz. 1. Band, LateinischeLaut- und Formenlehre. Munich:Beck’ sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Marantz,Alec. 1984. Onthe nature of grammaticalrelations. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press. Marantz,Alec. 1988. Clitics, Morphological Merger, and the mappingto phonologicalstructure. In Theoreti- calmorphology, ed.Michael Hammond and MichaelNoonan, 253 –270.San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press. Marantz,Alec. 1992. Case and licensing. In ESCOL ’91, 234–253.CLC Publications,Cornell University, Ithaca,N.Y. Marantz,Alec. 1995. A latenote on LateInsertion. In Explorationsin generative grammar, ed.Young-Sun Kim,357 –368.Seoul: Hankuk Publishing Co. Marantz,Alec. 2000. Reconstruction of the lexical domain with a singlegenerative engine. Handout of a talkpresented at MIT,Cambridge, Mass. Minkoff,Seth. 1994. Plurality, clitics, and Morphological Merger. In MITworkingpapers in linguistics 20: Papersfrom the 5th Student Conference in Linguistics, 177–192. MITWPL, Departmentof Linguis- ticsand Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Nevis,Joel A., andBrian D. Joseph.1992. Wackernagel affixes: Evidence from Balto-Slavic. Yearbook of Morphology 3:93–111. Noyer,Rolf. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomousmorphological structure. Doctoral dissertation,MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Noyer,Rolf. 1997. Features,positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. New York: Garland. Noyer,Rolf. To appear. Clitic sequences in Nunggubuyu and PF convergence. NaturalLanguage & Linguistic Theory. Perlmutter,David. 1971. Deepand Surface Structure constraints in syntax. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Pesetsky,David. 1995. Zerosyntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press. Pollock,Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. LinguisticInquiry 20:365–424. Sadock,Jerrold. 1991. AutolexicalSyntax: A theoryof parallel grammatical representations. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. MOVEMENTOPERATIONSAFTERSYNTAX 595

Sandstro¨m,Go ¨rel,and Anders Holmberg. 1994. Adjective incorporation and the syntax of the Scandinavian nounphrase. In Reportsfrom the Department of General Linguistics, University of Umea , 35, 81–97. Universityof Umea . Santelmann,Lynn. 1992. Den-support:An analysis of double determiners in Swedish. In Papersfrom the Workshopon the Scandinavian Noun Phrase, 100–118.University of Umea . Scatton,Ernest. 1980. The shape of theBulgarian definite article. In Morphosyntaxin Slavic, ed.Catherine Chvanyand Richard Brecht, 204 –211.Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. Schoorlemmer,Martin. 1998. Possessors, articles, and definiteness. In Possessors,predicates and movement inthe Determiner Phrase, ed.Artemis Alexiadou and ChrisWilder, 55– 86. Amsterdam: John Benja- mins. Schu¨tze,Carson. 1994. Serbo-Croatian second position clitic placement and the phonology-syntax interface. In MITworkingpapers in linguistics 21: Papers on phonology and morphology, 373–473.MITWPL, Departmentof Linguisticsand Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Senn,Alfred. 1966. Handbuchder litauischen Sprache. Heidelberg:Carl Winters Universita ¨tsverlag. Sommer,Ferdinand. 1914. Handbuchder lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre. Heidelberg:Carl Winters Universita¨tsbuchhandlung. Sproat,Richard. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Stairs,Emily F., and Barbara E. Hollenbach.1981. Grama ´ticahuave. In Diccionariohuave de San Mateo del Mar, ed.G. A.S.Kregerand Emily F. Stairs,283– 391. Mexico City: SIL. Stang,Christian S. 1966. VergleichendeGrammatik der baltischen Sprache. Oslo:Universitetsforlaget. Taraldsen,Knut Tarald. 1990. D-projections and N-projections in Norwegian. In Grammarin progress: GLOW essaysfor Henk van Riemsdijk, ed.Joan Mascaro ´ andMarina Nespor, 419 –431.Dordrecht: Foris. Tomic´, Olga MisÏ eska.1996. The Balkan Slavic nominal clitics. In Approachingsecond: Second position cliticsand related phenomena, ed.Aaron Halpern and Arnold Zwicky, 511– 536. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. ZinkevicÏ ius,Zigmas. 1957. LietuviuÎ kalbos ÎivardzÏiuotiniuÎ bu¯dvardzÏiuÎ bruozÏai. Vilnius:Valstybine Ç politineÇ s ir mokslineÇ s literatu¯rosleidykla. Zwicky,Arnold, and Geoffrey K. Pullum.1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59: 502–513.

Departmentof Linguistics 619Williams Hall Universityof Pennsylvania Philadelphia,Pennsylvania 19104– 6305 [email protected] [email protected]