Features, Syntax, and Categories in the Latin Perfect DavidEmbick Theanalysis centers on thenotion of category in synthetic and analytic verbalforms and on thestatus of thefeature that determines the forms ofthe Latin perfect. In this part of the Latin verbal system, active formsare synthetic (‘ ‘verbs’’) butpassive forms are analytic (i.e., participleand finite auxiliary). I showthat the two perfects occur in essentiallythe same structure and are distinguished by adifferencein movementto T; moreover,the difference in forms can be derived withoutreference to category labels like ‘ ‘Verb’’ or‘ ‘Adjective’’ on theRoot. In addition, the difference in perfects is determined by a featurewith clear syntactic consequences, which must be associated arbitrarilywith certain Roots, the deponentverbs.I discussthe implica- tionsof these points in the context of Distributed Morphology, the theoryin whichthe analysis is framed. Keywords: syntax/morphologyinterface, category, features, passive voice,Distributed Morphology 1Introduction Questionssurrounding the relationship between syntactic and morphological definitions of cate- goryhave played and continue to play an importantrole in grammatical theory. Similarly, issues concerningthe type, nature, and distribution of features in different modules of the grammar definea numberof questions in linguistic theory. In this article I examinethe syntactic and morphologicalprocesses and features at playin theconstruction of analyticand synthetic verbal forms, andin the determination of differentsurface categories. I focusprimarily on thefact that theLatin perfect is syntheticin the active voice (e.g., ama¯v¯õ ‘I(have)loved’ ) butanalytic in the passive,with a participialform ofthemain verb and a form oftheauxiliary ‘ be’( ama¯tus sum). Theoretically,the analysis addresses (a) thestatus of category in syntax and morphology, and (b) thestatus of thefeature underlying the analytic /syntheticdifference. Beginningwith category, the notion ‘ ‘participle,’’ whichplays a centralrole in the discussion ofanalyticverb forms, hasa dualstatus: on one level defined morphologically (‘ ‘verbthat agrees Iwouldlike to thankMorris Halle, Alec Marantz,and Rolf Noyer for numerous detailed discussions of thismaterial. Inaddition, I havebenefited from comments at variousstages fromElena Anagnostopoulou, Karlos Arregi,Rajesh Bhatt, JonathanBobaljik, Noam Chomsky,Paul Elbourne, Martin Hackl, Sabine Iatridou, Liina Pylkka ¨nen,Norvin Richards, DonRinge, and Philippe Schlenker. Parts ofthisarticle were alsopresented at theSecond Penn /MITWorkshop on the Lexicon,and I wouldlike to thank the workshop participants and members ofthe audience for additional comments. Finally,I wouldlike to thank the JST /MIT[Mind Articulation] Project for support during the time thatthe research presentedhere was conducted. Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 31, Number 2,Spring 2000 185–230 q 2000 bythe Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology 185 186 DAVIDEMBICK inthe ‘ adjectival’pattern’ ’), onanother level defined in terms of syntactic distribution (‘ ‘ verb appearing(in certain contexts) with a finiteauxiliary and with certain morphosyntactic features, etc.’’). Underlyingthese types of definitions is the intuition that a participlemay be defined as averbbehaving in some sense nonverbally. In traditional terms, this is akin to the classification ofa participleas a typeof (or asrelated to) a ‘‘deverbaladjective,’ ’ thatis, as part nominal (4 adjectival),part verbal. 1 Classificationsof this type lead naturally to the positionthat participles arein somesense ‘ ‘derived’’ asopposed to ‘ ‘primitive,’’ butdo notilluminate the nature of the derivation. Inthe abstract, we mayconsider two possible types of analysis in whicha V(erb) isrealized asaparticiple.The first sees an underlying V asbeingof necessityconverted into the category A(djective).On this view the designations V and A havesubstantive content, in that they are associatedwith both syntacticosemantic and morphological effects. For instance,the morphologi- calproperties of the derived A differ from thoseof the original V, inthat it would show gender/number/casedistinctions; at thesame time, properties such as Case assignment might also bedifferent in the derived A thanin the original V. Whateverthe particulars of the category- changingoperation are (i.e., whether it takes place in a lexicon,or by virtue of a syntacticAP dominatinga VP), theresult is the same: a clausecontaining the participle is distinct from one inwhich ‘ ‘regular’’ verbsare found. Thesecond alternative is that the syntax of participlesdoes not involve an ‘ ‘adjectivalizing’’ projectionAP aboveVP, orany lexical operation; instead, the category change from VtoA is onlyrelevant after the syntactic derivation. This is thetype of approachthat I develophere. The basisfor thisis an argument showing that the same syntactic structure underlies both auxiliary ` participleformations and finite verbs in the perfect. That is, the two types of perfect appear inthesame syntactic structure and differ onlyin the position to which the verb has raised in the tree.This treatment has clear implications for thenotion of category: different morphological categoriesare realized in thetwo perfects, but the syntactic structure from whichthey are derived isthesame. Thus, the difference in morphologicalcategory does not correspond to a difference insyntacticcategory. Against this background, the syntactic distribution and morphologicalbehav- iorof ‘‘pastpassive participles’ ’ foundin the perfect is shown to followdirectly from thesyntactic derivationand independently required properties of Latin morphology. No category-changing syntacticposition is needed to derive the participial form —itsappearance and behavior follow from generalprocedures operating on aspecificsyntactic structure. Rather than being ‘ ‘adjectives derivedfrom verbs,’’ participlesresult from therealizationof label-neutralRoots in aconfiguration thathas components associated with finite verbs, but that differ incrucial respects to be made explicitbelow. 2 1 Thus,for instance, in classical grammar, thesource of the Latin term participium is tobe found in the fact that participlesbehave in part like verbs, expressing temporal /aspectual distinctions,and in part like nouns, varying for case. See Varro 1938:VIII58 /X 17. 2 Theoriesemploying Roots underspecified in this manner are advancedin Marantz 1995,1997, developing ideas fromChomsky 1970; additional details of thisapproach will be made clear below. FEATURES,SYNTAX,ANDCATEGORIESINTHELATINPERFECT 187 Thearguments I developare presented in thecontext of aparticularconception of modularity inthe grammar. In order to make this clear, I willfirst reviewsome basic properties of Distributed Morphology(Halle and Marantz 1993 and related work), the theory in which the analysis is framed.Distributed Morphology operates in terms of LateInsertion, theidea that phonological piecesinstantiate terminals containing abstract features postsyntactically, with the syntax proper manipulatingsets of features. 3 Iwillrefer totheactual pieces of phonologicalmaterial as expo- nents. Theseexponents, along with a statementof the features they instantiate, are vocabulary items. Particularvocabulary items compete for insertioninto morphosyntactic positions, with the itemmost highly specified for thefeatures on a nodetaking precedence over less-specified items; thisis disjunctive realization, as in Anderson 1986, 1992. Defined in terms of positions,this is inaccordance with the Subset Principle, such that the vocabulary item specified for thegreatest subsetof featureson a terminalwill be inserted into that position. (1) SubsetPrinciple Thephonological exponent of avocabularyitem is insertedinto a positionif theitem matchesall or a subsetof the features specified in the terminal morpheme. Insertion doesnot take place if thevocabulary item contains features not presentin themorpheme. Whereseveral vocabulary items meet the conditions for insertion,the item matching thegreatest number of features specified in the terminal morpheme must be chosen. (Halle1997:427) Afurtherbackground assumption concerns the distinction between the functional and lexical vocabulariesof a language.I willassume that functional categories merely instantiate sets of abstractsyntacticosemantic features. Thus, notions like ‘ ‘determiner,’’ ‘‘tense,’’ andso on, are definablein terms of these features. The open-class (lexical) vocabulary items, referred toas Roots, arenot simply the realizations of featurebundles. They consist of phonologicalrepresenta- tions,which have encyclopedic (i.e., not purely featural) meanings. 4 Whatother content they possess—for instance,whether they are specified for syntacticcategory or for semanticfea- tures—isprecisely what is atissue. Accordingto a furtherhypothesis, expressed in Marantz 1994, 1995, Roots too are subject toLate Insertion; that is, they are only inserted into syntactic structures in the morphological component,like functional vocabulary items. 5 Thisposition on modularity makes specific predic- tionsabout the flow of information between components of the grammar. Specifically, in the simplestcase arbitrary features of vocabulary items could not affect the syntax, because the 3 Theposition that morphosyntactic and morphophonological features are distinctfrom one another is notunique toDistributed Morphology; it is theinstantiation of the SeparationHypothesis (named byBeard (1966))and is assumed ina numberof otherframeworks. Differences between DistributedMorphology