The_Syntax_of_Some_Imposter_DPs

Congrès International des Linguistes, Genève 20-27 Juillet 2013
International Congress of Linguists, Geneva 20-27 July 2013
Travaux du 19ème CIL | 19th ICL papers
Gabriela SOARE
University of Geneva, Switzerland
gabi.soare20@gmail.com
The Syntax of Some Imposter DPs
oral presentation in session: 5 Theoretical and comparative syntax (Luigi Rizzi)
Published and distributed by: Département de Linguistique de l’Université de
Genève, Rue de Candolle 2, CH-1205 Genève, Switzerland
Editor: Département de Linguistique de l’Université de Genève, Switzerland
ISBN:978-2-8399-1580-9
ICL 19th International Congress of Linguists
July 21-27, 2013
University of Geneva
Gabriela.Soare@unige.ch
THE SYNTAX OF SOME IMPOSTER DPs
Gabriela Soare, University of Geneva
1.
Theoretical background
We adopt the syntactic account put forth in Collins & Postal (2012) where an imposter is defined
as being a notionally n person DP which is grammatically m person, n≠m.
(1)
a.
b.
c.
In this reply, the present authors (= the writers of the reply) attempt to defend
ourselves/themselves against the scurrilous charges which have been made.
This reporter (= speaker) and his son are proud of ourselves/themselves.
Your Majesty (= the addressee) should praise yourself/herself.
The structure of an imposter DP (see also den Dikken 2001):
(2)
DP shell
I/You covert
indexical core
Collins & Postal (2012) assume there are null DPs, AUTHOR/ADDRESSEE, in the left periphery
of the clause encoding indexical information (see also Sigurdsson 2004, 2011, Bianchi 2003,
2010, Collins et al. 2008; Giorgi 2010, etc).
UA
(3)
AUTHOR
UA
ADDRESSEE
(4)
IA
The present authors attempt to defend ourselves/themselves.
IA
Your Majesty should praise yourself/herself.
Pronominal Agreement Condition:
If P is a non-expletive pronominal, then for all phi-features F of P for which P is not inherently
valued, P agrees in F with some source.
1
(5)
AUTHOR/
ADDRESSEE
Antecedence
DP4
3
DP3
Antecedence
A
D’
3
D
DP1
3
DP2
I
Clause
6
<DP3>
(6)
Definition: primary source
A is a primary source for B if and only if
a.
A immediately antecedes B, or
b.
A is a key conjunct of B, or
c.
A shares a lexical basis with B.
(Collins & Postal 2012, 188)
2.
Goals
To consider imposters in French and Romanian, which due to their rich verbal morphology,
represent a good testing ground for (some of) the theoretical assumptions in Collins &
Postal (2012).
To provide a description of the effects of plural imposters on verbal (and pronominal)
agreement in the two languages.
To consider potential sources of phi-feature values for a verb (and pronominal) in
Romanian and French.
3.
(7)
Plural imposter DPs in Romanian
a.
Autorii
vor
aduce alte argumente.
Authors.the will.3.PL bring other arguments
‘The authors will bring other arguments.’
b. * Autorii
vom
aduce alte argumente.
Authors.the will.1.PL bring other arguments
‘The authors will bring other arguments.’
2
Unavailability of the ultimate antecedent AUTHOR (which is plural) as a potential source
for verbal agreement
(8)
Plural DP imposter condition
The phi-features of the ultimate antecedent of a plural imposter are inaccessible for verbal (or
pronominal) agreement.
However, 1PL verbal agreement is possible with a plural imposter if modified by the indexical
adjective here present:
(9)
4.
? Autorii
aici prezenţi am găsit cele mai bune soluţii.
Authors.the here present.M.PL have.1PL found the best
solutions
‘The authors here present have found the best solutions.’
Plural imposters in French
(10) a.
Les auteurs vont amener d’autres arguments.
The authors Aux.FUT.3PL bring other
arguments
‘The authors will bring other arguments.’
b. * Les auteurs allons
amener d’autres arguments.
The authors Aux.FUT.1PL bring other arguments
‘The authors will bring other arguments.’
Notice the same ameliorating effect with the indexical here present:
(11)
? Les auteurs ci-présents allons amener d’autres arguments.
The authors here present.M.PL Aux.1PL bring other
arguments
‘The authors here present will bring other arguments.’
The ameliorating effect is due to the more complex structure of the imposter autorii aici presenţi/ les auteurs ci-présents ‘the authors here present’. In particular, it contains a predicative small
clause (or relator phrase in the sense of den Dikken 2006) where the adjective aici prezenti/ciprésents serves as the predicate and the subject is the 1st person pronoun nous/noi ‘we’.
The structure of les auteurs ci-présents is provided below:
(12) a.
b.
Nous, les auteurs ci-présents, …
Les auteurs < qui nous sommes > ci-présents …
3
c.
DP4
3
DP3
D’
3
D
DP1
3
DP2
CP
<noi>
…
<nous>
DP3
3
autorii
D’
3
D
NP
3
N
CP/ForceP
3
care
TP
qui 3
DP
T’
<care>
3
<qui>
T
RP
<suntem> 3
<sommes> DP
R’
<noi>
3
<nous> R
AdjP
<suntem> aici-prezenti
<sommes> ci-présents
French:
(13) a.
Les auteurs qui sommes ci-présents
allons répondre aux questions.
The authors who are.1PL here present.MPL will.1PL answer at questions
‘The authors who are here present will answer the questions.’
b. * Les auteurs qui sommes ci-présents
vont
répondre aux questions.
The authors who are.1PL here present.MPL will.3PL answer at questions
‘The authors who are here present will answer the questions.’
c.
Les auteurs qui sont
ci-présents
vont
répondre aux questions.
The authors who are.3PL here present.MPL will.3PL answer at questions
‘The authors who are here present will answer the questions.’
d. * Les auteurs qui sont
ci-présents
allons répondre aux questions.
The authors who are.3PL here present.MPL will.3PL answer at questions
4
‘The authors who are here present will answer the questions.’
Romanian:
(14) a.
Autorii care suntem aici prezenţi vom răspunde la întrebări.
Authors.the who are.1PL here present.MPL will.1PL answer at questions
‘The authors who are here present will answer the questions.’
b. * Autorii care suntem aici prezenţi vor răspunde la întrebări.
Authors.the who are.1PL here present.MPL will.3PL answer at questions
‘The authors who are here present will answer the questions.’
c.
Autorii care sunt aici prezenţi vor răspunde la întrebări.
Authors.the who are.3PL here present.MPL will.3PL answer at questions
‘The authors who are here present will answer the questions.’
d. * Autorii care sunt aici prezenţi vom raspunde la întrebări.
Authors.the who are.3PL here present.MPL will.1PL answer at questions
‘The authors who are here present will answer the questions.’
(15) Matching Effect
If the subject is the antecedent of a pronoun, then the subject-verb agreement and pronominal
agreement must match.
5.
Coordinate structures with an imposter in Romanian
Consider clause (b) of the definition of (primary) sources in (6):
(6)
(16)
A is a primary source for B if and only if
b. A is a key conjunct of B.
[Mommy & 3rd person DP]
(The mother addressing her child)
a.
Mami şi bunica Sofia ţi-au cumpărat un iPad.
Mommy and grand-mother Sofia you-have.3PL bought an iPad.
Mommy and Grandmother Sofia bought you an iPad.’
b.
??
Mami şi bunica Sofia ţi-am cumpărat un iPad.
Mommy and grand-mother Sofia you-have.1PL bought an iPad.
Mommy and Grandmother Sofia bought you an IPad.’
5
In Collins & Postal 2012:112, the Key Conjunct is defined as the conjunct that determines the
phi-features of the whole coordinate structure.
The Key Conjunct in (16) is the imposter mami ‘mommy’ → the coordinate structure is 3rd
person (the feature value of mami) and cannot be 1st person (i.e. it cannot have the person feature
value of the ultimate antecedent AUTHOR). This is expected given Condition (7) above.
Topicalisation of the subject DP containing an imposter improves the structure (see also Kiss
2012 on differing number agreement patterns with coordinate phrases induced by topicalisation
and focalisation in Hungarian):
(17) a. (?) Mami şi bunica Sofia, foare curând, o să îţi cumpăram un iPad.
Mommy and grand-mother Sofia very soon
are.1PL going to buy you an iPad
‘Very soon Mommy and grandmother Sofia are going to buy you an iPad.’
b. (?) Mami şi bunica
Sofia, un iPad, o să îţi cumpăram foarte curând.
Mommy and grandmother Sofia, an iPad are.1PL going to buy you very soon
‘Mommy and granmother Sofia, an iPad, are going to buy you very soon.’
Proposal: The improving effect of Topicalisation of the coordinate DP containing an imposter
may be related to the Clitic doubling property of Romanian in the sense that the imposters starts
out of a “big DP” but the pronominal double is pro (the “big DP” approach – Uriagereka 1995,
Cecchetto 2000, Belletti 2005, Cornilescu 2006, a.o.):
(18) [DP mami şi bunica Sofia [NP pro]]
(19) AUTHOR [Top [DP mami şi bunica Sofia] [Top … [TP pro
6.
(20)
T…
Coordinate structures with an imposter in French
a.
b.
[Mommy & 3rd person DP]
(The mother addressing her child)
Maman et grand-maman t’ont acheté un iPad.
Mommy and grand-mother you have.3PL bought an iPad
‘Mommy and Grandmother Sofia bought you un iPad.’
?Maman et grand-maman t’avons acheté un iPad.
Mommy and grand-mother you have.1PL bought an iPad
‘Mommy and Grandmother Sofia bought you an iPad.’
6
French also exhibits a slight improvement effect with movement of the coordinate DP starts from
a lower, non-criterial subject position to the criterial Subj(ect) position (Rizzi & Shlonsky 2007;
see also Cardinaletti 2004):
(21)
Maman et grand-maman, très bientôt, allons
t’acheter an iPad.
Mommy and grandma
very soon are.going.to.1PL you buy an iPad
‘Very soon Mommy and grandma are going to buy you an iPad.’
(22) AUTHOR …[SubjP maman et grand-maman [ModP très bientôt [TP < maman et grand-maman > …
Proposal: The imposter DP starts in a “big DP”, with a covert nous ‘we’ pronoun. French has
nous-drop.
(23) [DP maman et grand-maman [NP nous]] → nous-drop
(24) ?(?)Maman et grand-maman, un iPad, (nous) allons te l’acheter très bientôt. Mommy and grandma
an iPad
are.going.to.1PL you it buy
very soon
‘An iPad, Mommy and grandma are going to buy you very soon.’
In diary style, French exhibits subject drop (Haegeman 1997, 2007, 2013, Haegeman & Ihsane
1999; Stark 2013 CIL conference on text messages):
(25) Ce soir, [ec] m’accompagne au bistro.
Tonight, me accompanies to the pub
7.
Potential sources for verbal agreement
7.1
The status of the subject of predicate nominal
(Haegeman 2007 (22a))
Consider clause (c) of the definition in (6):
A is a primary source for B if and only if
c. A shares a lexical basis with B.
Though Romanian and French verbal agreement in general runs on the phi-feature value of the
subject DP, it can in certain circumstances also run on values of (secondary) sources of that
subject.
(26) a.
I am a teacher who takes care of himself/myself.
7
b.
DP1
3
D
NP1
a
3
NP2
Clause
teacher
DP2 takes care of [DP3 myself]
6
who <NP2>
“Standard” 3rd person pronominal agreement:
(a)
DP2 (who <NP2>) is the immediate antecedent of the reflexive pronoun and thus its
primary source
(b)
Since DP1 (a teacher…), which is 3rd person singular, is a primary source for DP2
(who <NP2>) via the shared lexical basis in (6c), DP1 is a source for DP3.
The 1st person pronominal agreement:
(a) above
(b) above
(c) Since the predicate nominal DP1 is source for DP3, the subject of the predicate
nominal, I, is also a source for DP3, myself.
Romanian:
(27) a.
Sânt un profesor care a avut mereu grijă de el (însuşi).
Am a professor who has had always care of him (self)
‘I am a professor who has always taken care of himself.’
b. * Sânt un profesor care a avut mereu grijă de mine (însumi).
Am a professor who has had always care of me (self)
d.
Sânt un professor care am avut mereu grijă de mine (însumi).
Am a professor who have.1SG had always care of me (self)
‘I am a professor who has always taken care of myself.’
e. * Sânt un professor care am
avut mereu grijă de el (însuşi).
Am a professor who have.1SG had always care of him (self)
French:
(28) a.
Je suis un prof
qui a toujours bien pris soin de lui-même.
I am a professor who has always well taken care of himself
‘I am a professor who has always taken good care of himself.’
8
b.
?(?)
c.
d.
Je suis un prof
qui a toujours bien pris soin de moi-même.
I am a professor who has always well taken care of myself
Je suis un prof
qui ai
toujours bien pris soin de moi-même.
I am a professor who have.1SG always well taken care of myself
‘I am a professor who has always taken care of myself.’
?(?)
Je suis un prof
qui ai
toujours bien pris soin de lui-même.
I am a professor who have.1SG always well taken care of himself
Romanian (27a) and French (28a) pattern with English (26) in showing 3rd person pronominal
agreement (and 3rd person verbal agreement).
Romanian (27c) and French (28c) have one further option, 1st person verbal agreement.
The Rel DP care in Romanian and qui in French are underspecified for [Person].
Without fleshing out the details of the antisymmetric analysis of relative clauses (Kayne 1994,
Kayne 2008; see also Bianchi 1999), the Rel DP care/qui can agree either with the predicate
nominal (DP2 un professeur/un profesor ‘a professor’) or with the subject of the predicate
nominal (pro/je ‘I’) and thus it gets specified for 1st person or for 3rd person → 1st or 3rd person
agreement on the verb.
7.2
Partitive structures
(29)
[DP1 Quantifier + [NP Noun (=one(s)) + (of) DP2]
(30)
Everyone of us thinks he is/we are intelligent.
The set DP us counts as a source of phi-feature values for the embedded pronoun.
(31) a. (?) Fiecare dintre noi crede că suntem inteligenţi.
Everyone among us believes that are.1PL intelligent.M.PL
‘Everyone of us thinks we are intelligent.’
b.
(32) a.
Fiecare dintre noi crede că este inteligent.
Everyone among us believes that is intelligent
‘Everyone of us believes he is intelligent.’
?(?)
Fiecare dintre noi credem
că suntem inteligenţi.
Everyone among us believe.1PL that are.1PL intelligent
‘Everyone of us believes we are intelligent.’
9
b. * Fiecare dintre noi credem că este inteligent.
Everyone among us believe.1PL that is intelligent
‘Everyone of us believes he is intelligent.’
(33) a. ? Chacun de nous pense que nous sommes intelligents.
Everyone of us
believes that we are.1PL intelligent.M.PL
‘Everyone of us thinks we are intelligent.’
b.
Chacun de nous pense qu’il est intelligent.
Everyone of us
believes that he is intelligent
‘Everyone of us believes he is intelligent.’
(34) a. ? Chacun de nous pensons que nous sommes intelligents.
Everyone of us believe.1PL that we are.1P intelligent.M.PL
‘Everyone of us believes we are intelligent.’
b. ?? Chacun de nous pensons qu’il est intelligent.
Everyone of us believe.1PL that he is intelligent
‘Everyone of us believes he is intelligent.’
Embedded pronoun agreement with fiecare dintre noi/chacun de nous → proSG/il in (31b) and
(33b)
Embedded pronoun agreement with the set DP noi/nous → proPL/nous in (31a) and (33a)
Verbal agreement
8.
→
one further option in (31a) and (33a), i.e. the matrix V agrees with
the set DP.
Conclusions
In French and Romanian, imposter DPs are more constrained than English imposters are.
Plural imposters in French and Romanian determine 1st person agreement on the verb on
condition they get modified by the indexical here present.
However, under topicalization, plural imposters and coordinated DPs with imposter conjuncts
pattern alike in allowing 1st person (plural) agreement more easily. This has been related to the
properties of clitic doubling in Romanian and French. Pro-drop has been suggested for
Romanian and nous-drop for French.
10
The generalization is that agreement with a secondary source is not an instance of subjectverb agreement but of pronominal agreement. Pro/nous can agree with the secondary
source (AUTHOR/ADDRESSEE).
Copular structures with a restrictive relative clause and partitive constructions show that
secondary source verbal agreement is needed in both languages and, by the Matching
Effect, identity of person value is required on the anteceded pronominal.
This paper constitutes preliminary work on what elements function as secondary sources
for verbal (and pronominal) agreement in Romanian and French, and further research is
needed in order to pin down the limits on secondary source agreement in either language.
References
Bianchi, V. (1999). Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Bianchi, V. (2003). “On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. ” In Temps et Point de Vue/Tense and Point of
View, ed. by Jacqueline Guéron and Liliane Tasmovski, 213-246. Paris: Université Paris X
Nanterre.
Bianchi, V. (2010). “The person feature and the "cartographic" representation of the context. ” Ms.,
University of Siena. http://www.ciscl.unisi.it/persone/bianchi.htm
Cardinaletti, A. (2004). “Towards a cartography of subject positions. ” In Rizzi, L. (ed.). The structure of
CP and IP, 115-165. New York, Oxford University Press.
Cecchetto, C. 2000. “Doubling Structures and Reconstruction.” Probus 12:1, 1-34.
Collins, C., S., Moody & P. M. Postal (2008). “An AAE camouflage construction.” Language 84:29-68
Collins, C. & P. M. Postal (2012). Imposters: A Study of Pronominal Agreement. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Cornilescu, A. (2006). “On clitic doubling and parasitic gaps in Romanian.” Revue roumaine de
linguistique 1: 23-42.
Den Dikken, M. (2001). “Pluringulars, pronoun and quirky agreement.” The Linguistic Review 18:1941.
Den Dikken, M. (2006). Relators and Linkers. Cambridge, MIT Press, Mass.
Giorgi, A. (2010). About the Speaker: Towards a Syntax of Indexicality, OUP.
Haegeman, L. (1997). “Register variation, truncation, and subject omission in English and French.”
English Language and Linguistics 1: 233-270.
Haegeman, L. (2007). “Subject omission in present-day written English. On the theoretical relevance of
peripheral data.” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 32: 91-124.
Haegeman, L. (2013). “The syntax of registers: diary subject omission and the privilege of the root.”
Lingua 130: 88-110.
Haegeman, L. & T. Ihsane (1999). “Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English.” Journal of English
Language and Linguistics 3: 117-145.
Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kayne, R. (2008). “Why Isn’t This a Complementizer.” In P. Svenonius (ed.) Functional Structure from
Top to Toe: A Festschrift for Tarald Taraldsen, Oxford University Press, New York.
Kiss, E. K. (2012). “Patterns of agreement with coordinate noun phrases in Hungarian.” Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 30:1027-1060.
11
Rizzi, L. & U. Shlonsky (2007). “Strategies of subject Extraction.” In H.-M. Gartner & U. Sauerland
(eds.) Interfaces + recursion = Language? 115-160. Mouton de Gruyter.
Sigurdsson, H. A. (2004). “The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features.” Italian Journal of
Linguistics 16:219–251. [Special issue, edited by Valentina Bianchi and Ken Safir.]
Sigurdsson, H. A. (2011). “Conditions on argument drop.” Linguistic Inquiry 42:267–304.
Starke, E. (2013). “The Grammar of text messaging.” Talk given at 19th ICL, Geneva.
Uriagereka, J. (1995). Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry
26: 79-123.
12

Download Report