North East Linguistic Society ¦¢ MIT ⋅ ìÕ October óþÕ¦ Deconstructing quirky subjects Ethan Poole University of Massachusetts Amherst [email protected] (Õ) a. Can bind subject-oriented anaphora Main claim Hennii þykir [bróðir sinni ] leiðinlegur DPs exhibit a set of subjecthood properties as a function of how high they her.oZ± thinks brother. her.§u boring raise in the functional sequence. ‘Shei thinks heri brother boring’ [Zaenen et al. ÕÉ¢:¦¢þ] Empirical motivation b. Can be PRO Quirky subjects in Icelandic, German, Hindi, Basque, and Laz show that the Égi vonast til [PROi að vanta ekki peninga ] subjecthood properties exhibited by DPs obey the Quirky Subject Hierarchy: I. hope for PRO.Zhh to lack not money.Zhh binding ≫ PRO ≫ reduced relatives ‘I hope not to lack money’ [Zaenen et al. ÕÉ¢:¦¢¦] Analysis in a nutshell 7 Hindi • Tý is decomposed into two separate heads, Persp(ective)ý to host PRO and Hindi quirky subjects can bind subject-oriented anaphora, but cannot be PRO B(inding)ý to bind anaphora, where fseq = ⟨C ≻ Persp ≻ B ≻ v ≻ V⟩. (e.g. Mohanan ÕÉɦ; Bhatt óþþì): • DPs dier in (i) how high they raise in the functional sequence and (ii) (ó) a. Can bind subject-oriented anaphora whether they can undergo projecting movement from [Spec, PerspP], the Mujhei [apnei sab rishtedar¯ ] pasand hε˜ highest syntactic position, to form a reduced relative. I.oZ± §u..£ all relative. like be.£§«.£ ý ý [NP [PerspP Perspective [BP Binding [ QS ...]]]] ‘I like all my relatives’ [Bhatt óþþì:Õó] b. Cannot be PRO *Ravii [PROi Rina pasand a-n¯ a¯ ] nah˜¯ı Õ Introduction Ravi. PRO.oZ± Rina. like come- u chah-t¯ a.¯ • Quirky (nonnominative) subjects dier across languages in whether they display want-Zf..« the full range of properties exhibited by canonical nominative subjects. To Intended: ‘Ravi doesn’t want to like Rina’ illustrate, consider Icelandic and Hindi quirky subjects. • e consensus in the literature is that quirky subjects in languages like Icelandic 3 Icelandic are “true subjects”, whereas quirky subjects in languages like Hindi are not (e.g. Icelandic quirky subjects are well-known for exhibiting all the properties canon- McFadden óþþ¦; Preminger óþÕÕ, óþÕ¦). ically ascribed to subjects other than bearing nominative case and controlling • e subjecthood status of a quirky subject is determined by a suite of subject- verb agreement, such as binding subject-oriented anaphora and being PRO hood diagnostics, e.g. the diagnostics of Zaenen et al. (ÕÉ¢). (Andrews ÕÉßä; Þráinsson ÕÉßÉ; Zaenen et al. ÕÉ¢; Sigurðsson ÕÉÉ): Õ • However, it is clear that quirky subjects in languages like Hindi are not normal quirky subjects is the result of quirky subjects diering across languages in how obliques. ey possess extra properties that are typical of subjects, but atypical high they raise in the functional sequence. of obliques, such as the ability to bind subject-oriented anaphora. • Structure of this talk • Moreover, given the importance of quirky subjects in our understanding of Õ. I present a suite of crosslinguistic subjecthood diagnostics: binding of subject- the interaction between case, agreement, and movement, we do not want to oriented anaphora, PRO, and reduced relatives. base our theory on something like Icelandic quirky subjects if they might be typologically rare. ó. Applying these diagnostics to quirky subjects in Icelandic, German, Hindi, Basque, and Laz shows that the subjecthood properties exhibited by quirky ⇒ Question subjects constitute an implicational hierarchy, called the Quirky Subject How are subjecthood properties distributed amongst quirky subjects crosslin- Hierarchy (QSH). guistically? For example, one could imagine either of the following distributions: ì. I implement the QSH in the syntax by proposing the Height Conjecture: DPs exhibit subjecthood properties as a function of how high they raise in the functional sequence. ¦. I discuss how the empirical generalisations encoded in the QSH are incom- pÔ patible with the existing views of subjecthood in the literature. pç pò pÔ ó Subjecthood diagnostics • Standard subjecthood diagnostics pò pç e standard suite of subjecthood diagnostics comes from Zaenen et al. (ÕÉ¢) and includes four crosslinguistic tests for subjecthood: Õ. Binding of subject-oriented anaphora • To address this question, I investigated quirky subjects in Icelandic, German, ó. Being PRO Hindi, Basque, and Laz. I used three subjecthood diagnostics: binding of subject-oriented anaphora, being PRO, and undergoing relativisation in reduced ì. Raising-to-object (ECM) relatives. ¦. Conjunction reduction ✳ Quirky Subject Hierarchy • ese diagnostics (or a subset of them) are adopted in the recent literature on e pattern to emerge from the data is that the subjecthood properties crosslin- subjecthood (e.g. Sigurðsson ÕÉÉ, óþþó, óþþ¦; Mohanan ÕÉɦ; Fanselow óþþó; guistically exhibited by quirky subjects obey an implicational hierarchy: Barðdal óþþó; Barðdal & Eyþórsson óþþìa,b, óþþ¢; Bayer óþþ¦; McFadden óþþ¦; Gutiérrez-Bravo óþþä; Rákosi óþþä; Wunderlich óþþÉ; Preminger óþÕÕ, óþÕ¦). (ì) Q¶§í S¶fuh± Hu§Z§hí binding ≫ PRO ≫ reduced relatives • Moreover, following Zaenen et al. (ÕÉ¢), the de facto assumption in the literature is that nominative case and controlling verb agreement are not properties of ⇒ Question that follows subjects. How do we account for this implicational hierarchy? ✳ Answer in this talk A DP exhibits a set of subjecthood properties as a function of how high it raises in the functional sequence. e crosslinguistic variation in the behaviour of ó • Section outline () Arbitrarily-controlled I select three tests to form a revised suite of subjecthood diagnostics: (i) binding a. [ PROarb to hug Fernanda ] is fantastic of subject-oriented anaphora and (ii) being PRO, taken from Zaenen et al. (ÕÉ¢), in addition to (iii) undergoing relativisation in reduced relatives.Ö b. *[ (Fernanda) to hug PROarb ] is fantastic ⇒ erefore, PRO provides a crosslinguistic subjecthood diagnostic: ó.Õ Binding of subject-oriented anaphora (É) PRODZ«±h • Many languages have a special subclass of anaphora whose antecedent must If XP can be PRO, XP is a subject. be the subject, which are called «¶fuh±-§u±uo ZZ£§Z (SOAs). English is not such a language, but Danish is: ó.ì Reduced relatives (¦) Danish at Peteri fortalte Michael j om sig selvi~∗ j • In reduced relative clauses (RRCs), the relativised element can only occur in that Peter told Michael about §u the subject position: ‘that Peteri told Michael j about himself ~∗ ’ [Vikner ÕÉ¢:Õþ] i j (Õþ) a. the Basquei [ ___i giving Stefan the rutabaga ] sig • ere is some variation in whether SOAs need bound locally (e.g. Danish b. *the Germani [ Jon Ander giving ___i the rutabaga ] selv) or nonlocally (e.g. Danish sig), or either (e.g. Finnish itse), but they are crucially always bound by a subject. c. *the rutabagai [ Jon Ander giving Stefan ___i ] ⇒ erefore, SOAs provide a crosslinguistic subjecthood diagnostic: ⇒ erefore, RRCs provide a crosslinguistic subjecthood diagnostic: (¢) Bo DZ«±h (ÕÕ) Ruo¶huo RuZ±êu DZ«±h If XP can bind subject-oriented anaphora, XP is a subject. If XP can be relativised on in reduced relatives, XP is a subject. • Whereas the Binding Diagnostic and the PRO Diagnostic are taken from Zaenen ó.ó PRO et al. (ÕÉ¢) and therefore commonly used in the literature, the Reduced Relative Diagnostic is new. As far as I am aware, it has not before been used to diagnose • PRO can be a subject, but not an object. is generalisation holds regardless subjecthood. of whether PRO is subject-controlled (ä), object-controlled (ß), or arbitrarily- controlled (): ì Experiencer subjects (ä) Subject-controlled • Assumptions a. Fernandai wanted [ PROi to hug Megan ] – A ¤¶§í «¶fuh± is a subject marked with a nonnominative case. b. *Fernandai wanted [ (Megan) to hug PROi ] – e «¶fuh± is the highest base-generated argument (working assumption). (ß) Object-controlled – By these denitions, quirky subjects include experiencers in Icelandic, Ger- man, Hindi, Basque, and Laz; ergatives in Hindi, Basque, and Laz; and a. Fernanda told Hsin-Luni [ PROi to hug Megan ] oblique objects under passivisation in Icelandic, German, and Hindi. b. *Fernanda told Hsin-Luni [ (Megan) to hug PROi ] ⇒ In this presentation, I will focus on experiencer quirky subjects because they ex- ist in all ve languages under investigation and suce to illustrate the empirical Ö In the interest of time, I have omitted the arguments against raising-to-object and conjunction reduction as subjecthood diagnostics. generalisation that emerges from the broader study. ì • Hindi • Basque Quirky subjects in Hindi can bind SOA, but cannot be PRO or undergo relativi- Quirky subjects in Basque can bind SOA, but cannot be PRO or undergo rela- sation in RRCs. tivisation in RRCs. (Õó) a. Binding Diagnostic 3 (Õ¦) a. Binding Diagnostic 3 Mujhei [apnei sab rishtedar¯ ] pasand hε˜ Jon-ii [bere buru-a ]i gusta-tzen zaio I.oZ± §u..£ all relative. like be.£§«.£ Jon-oZ± his head-ou±. like-£ê Z¶ì(ì«.Zf«-ì«.oZ±) ‘I like all my relatives’ [Bhatt óþþì:Õó] ‘Jon likes himself’ 7 b. PRO Diagnostic 7 b. PRO Diagnostic *Ravii [PROi Rina pasand a-n¯ a¯ ] nah˜¯ı *Jon-eki [PROi gustatu Miren ] nahi du Ravi. PRO.oZ± Rina. like come- u Jon-u§ PRO.oZ± like Miren. want Z¶ì(ì«.Zf«-ì«.u§) Intended: chah-t¯ a.¯ ‘Jon wants to like Miren’ want-Zf..« c. Reduced Relative Diagnostic 7 Intended: ‘Ravi doesn’t want to like Rina’ *[ ___i Miren gustatu-ta-ko ] gizon-ai ... c. Reduced Relative Diagnostic 7 ___.oZ± Miren. like-£±h£-h man-ou±. Intended: ‘the man who likes Miren . .’ *[ ___i cot. lag-a¯ ] lar.ka¯i ... ___.oZ± hurt contact-£ê boy • Icelandic Intended: ‘the hurt boy . .’ Quirky subjects in Icelandic can bind SOA and be PRO, but cannot undergo relativisation in RRCs. • German Quirky subjects in German can bind SOA, but cannot be PRO or undergo (Õ¢) a. Binding Diagnostic 3 relativisation in RRCs.