Luigi Rizzi Ealing 2012 – Blaise Pascal Lectures, Sept 11-13, 2012University of Siena, University of Geneva

Cartography, criteria, and labeling.

I. Aspects of the cartography of syntactic structuresII. “Further explanations” of structural maps.III. Labeling and criteria

I. Aspects of the cartography of syntactic structures.

1. Background and motivations.

(1) [CP ... C ... [IP ... I ... [VP ... V ... ] ] ] (Chomsky 1986)

(2) Some initial motivations for cartographic studies:

a. The descriptive and explanatory success of Pollock’s (1989) Split Infl approach led to a quick proliferation of the functional elements constituting the spine of the clause, AgrS and T, then Agr0 and AgrPastPart, then Asp, Mood, Modality, Voice,...

b. Each addition gave rise to more adequate analyses in terms of descriptive and explanatory adequacy; at the same time the trend raised the question of where the splitting process would stop: where and when would one get to the elements of syntactic computations?

c. One initial motivation of cartographic projects was the attempt to address this question by changing the perspective. Rather than postulating functional elements as an ancillary assumption in the context of the analysis of other properties (locality, case, binding, etc.,), one could directly focus on the functional structure of different zones of the clause in a top-down perspective, study its properties and draw maps as accurate as possible of the maximal expansion of such zones. So, one could acknowledge that syntactic representations are rich and complex objects, and the study of this complexity could be an object of inquiry worth pursuing on its own. What functional elements can occur in a given zone? What are the co-occurrence and ordering restrictions? How can they be explained?

d. The hope was that such detailed maps would on the one hand lead to the discovery of the ultimate constituents of syntax, thus grounding the “splitting” approach on a solid bedrock, and on the other hand such maps would enter into deeper explanations of linguistic phenomena, and possibly be useful in applicative domains, as reliable maps often are. So, one could imagine that detailed structural maps would be useful for first and second language acquisition research, the study of pathologies, and the like.

(3) Cross-linguistic scope: The projects of drawing detailed structural maps started with certain zones of the Romance and Germanic tree (Rizzi 1997, 2000, 2004, Cinque 1999, 2002, Belletti, 2001, 2004, 2009, Poletto 2000, Grewendorf 2002, Laenzlinger (2002), etc.) but quickly extended to other languages and language families: Finno-Ugric (Puskas 2000), Celtic (Roberts 2004), Semitic (Shlonsky 1998), Slavic (Krapova & Cinque 2004), West African (Aboh 2004, Torrence 2012), Bantu (Biloa 2012, Bassong), Creole (Durrleman 2008), East-Asian (Tsai 2007, Paul 2005, Endo 2008, Saito

1

2010), Austronesian (Pearce 1999), in addition to much work in Romance and Germanic dialectology (e.g. Cruschina 2012), and on Classical languages (Salvi 2000), etc. See Cinque & Rizzi 2010, Shlonsky 2010 for general overviews.

(4) Some guiding simplicity assumptions:

- simple heads: one (morpho-syntactically relevant) property, one feature, one head;

- simple projections: no adjunction, no multiple Spec’s (as in antisymmetry, Kayne 1994), no multiple complements (binary branching, Kayne 1983, as a consequence of the simplest formulation of Merge);

NB: complex heads (e.g., inflected verbs) may arise syntactically, as a consequence of head movement.

(5) The emerging picture:

- each layer in (1) is an abbreviation for a much richer structural zone;

- the building block is always the same: a head projects a phrase by taking complements and specifiers through recursive applications of Merge; so cartographic structures fractally reproduce macroscopic structures at the microscopic level, like crystals;

- natural languages seem to privilege local simplicity of configurations and relations, accepting to pay the price of an increased global complexity through the accumulation of simple atomic structures;

- cross-linguistically stable functional sequences emerge (most notably in Cinque 1999, and in Nanosyntax, Starke 2011);

(6) “Syntacticisation” of domains of linguistic research which at first sight are not properly syntactic. The program of generative grammar has underscored the centrality of syntax as the computational heart of language. Cartographic projects tend to push this trend through the “syntacticisation” of

- inflectional morphology: the trend from Chomsky (1957), Emonds (1978), Pollock (1989), Belletti (1991) is fully developed in cartographic work such as Cinque 1999, by also making crucial use of Baker’s (1986) Mirror Principle;

- lexical decomposition: here one source is the generative semantics program of doing lexical decomposition of verbs through syntactic computations; much work on the interface between syntax and the lexicon is relevant here, particularly attempts to reduce the special behaviour of different verb classes to a sequence of v’s (or other functional elements of the lower functional structure of the clause) with different “flavours” (Ramchand 2008, Harley 2010);

- scope-discourse semantics: here the source is any approach which sees syntax on the one hand as the generative heart of the computational system for language, and on the other hand, a system subserving the needs of interface systems, in particular the expression of meaning. The idea is that core syntactic computations

2

i. create fully transparent interface representations “wearing on their sleeves” scope-discourse properties (scope of operators, articulations such as topic – comment and focus – presupposition), thus drastically simplifying the interpretive computation after the interface;ii. fully mediate between representations of sound and meaning, thus avoiding any extra-syntactic connection between PF and LF, post-syntactic prosodically driven movement, etc.

2. A structural approach to scope-discourse semantics: The Criteria

(7) A’-chains are a way to associate two kinds of interpretive properties to elements: properties of argumental semantics (theta roles or, more generally, s-selectional properties), and properties of scope-discourse semantics (Chomsky 2004)

(8) The criterial approach to scope-discourse semantics: scope-discourse properties are expressed by dedicated functional heads, which assign to their dependents interpretive roles such as topicality, focus, etc. (much as thematic properties are assigned by lexical elements to their dependents).

(9)a Which book Q should you read <which book> ? b This book TOP you should read <this book> c THIS BOOK FOC you should read <this book> (, not that one) d The book REL that you should read <the book> (is here)

(10)a Ik weet niet [ wie of [ Jan ___ gezien heeft ]](Dutch varieties, Haegeman 1996) ‘I know not who Q Jan seen has’ b Un sè [ do [ dan lo yà [ Kofi hu ì ]]] (Gungbe, Aboh 2004) ‘I heard that snake the TOP Kofi killed it’ c Un sè [ do [ dan lo wè [ Kofi hu ___ ]]] (Gungbe, Aboh 2004) ‘I heard that snake the FOC Kofi killed ’ d Der Mantl [ den wo [ dea Hons ___ gfundn hot ]] (Bavarian, Bayer 1984) ‘The coat which REL the Hans found has’

(11)a XCritF attracts to its Spec (Search + internal merge) XPCritF, for CritF = Q, R, Top, Foc, Excl,…. b X CritF carries explicit instructions for the interface systems concerning how its dependents (Spec and complement) must be interpreted at PF and LF (Rizzi 1991/96, 1997, Aboh 2007)

i. Interpretation at LF:

(12) [ ] Top [ ] (13) [ ] Foc [ ] “Topic” “Comment” “Focus” “Presupposition”

3

ii. Interpretation at PF:

(14) Pitch contour of Topic – Comment (from Bocci 2009, 2012) A Michelangelo (Top), Germanico vorrebbe presentare Pierangela ‘To Michelangelo (Top), Germanico would want to introduce Pierangela’

(15) Pitch contour of Focus – Presupposition (from Bocci 2009, 2012) A MICHELANGELO (Foc) Germanico vorrebbe presentare Pierangela ‘TO MICHELANGELO (Foc) Germanico would want to introduce Pierangela’

(16) Phonological rules read cartographic representations and assign prosodic contours on the basis of the information provided by syntax. PF and LF are fully mediated by syntax (there is no syntax independent connection between the two interface levels)

(17) PF Syntax LF

4

L+ +H* L- L* L* L* L-L%

a mi he lan deloderma nihovorbbeprezen ta repje ran dela

A MICHELANGELOGermanicovorrebbepresentare Pierangela

100

550

200300400500

Time (s)0 3.61823

H+ +L* L-L% H+ +L* H+ +L* H+ +L* H+ +L* L-L%

a mi he lan deloder ma ni ho vo r beprezen ta re pje ran dela

A Michelangelo Germanico vorrebbe presentare Pierangela

100

450

200

300

400

Time (s)0 3.7942

3. Alternatives: “pragmaticize” an impoverished syntax?

(18) In the criterial conception, Top, Foc, Q markers, etc. are functional heads which populate the left periphery of the clause, much as the IP space is populated by auxiliaries and particles expressing modality, tense, mood, aspect, voice, etc.. Such heads guide computations in syntax and interpretation.

(19)i. An alternative could be to go the opposite way: “pragmaticize syntax”. I.e., assume a radically more impoverished and less informative syntax of the left periphery), say assuming that syntax simply permits free multiple adjunction to IP under a single C node, and shift much of the burden (for interpretation, distributional constraints and connected parametrisation) to the other side of the interface through rich interpretive mechanisms.

CP 3(19)ii. C IP 3 XP IP 6

(20) Immediate problems for such an alternative approach are:i. the triggering of movement, which the criterial approach reduces to cases of the familiar probe-goal configuration;ii. the status of overt left-peripheral particles in cases like (10);iii. the expression of cooccurrence and exclusion patterns, with special reference to parametrized properties ;iv. the analysis of C-particles clearly occurring in different positions (e.g., before or after topics) and sometimes co-occurring in fixed orders, which straightforwardly require more room in the C-space than (19)ii allows for.

4. Could criterial heads be reanalyzed as DP internal particles?

(21) An immediate problem for an “impoverished syntax” analysis would be how to treat overt focus, topic, Q markers, etc. in cases like (10). One option which comes to mind would be to reanalyze them as DP-internal, i.e. case-like elements (or postpositions attached to DP’s) expressing certain scope-discourse properties, whose distribution is determined in the interpretive component.

While for some specific cases this may well be the correct analysis (Durrleman 2008), it does not hold in general, particularly not for the cases in (10).

There is straightforward evidence that such particles are confined to the left periphery. Gungbe does not allow for multiple wh questions or bona fide in situ questions, but it does allow wh in situ echo questions like (22)b. In this case, the wh phrase, while undoubtedly focal, cannot bear the focus marker. This would not be expected if wè was a DP-internal marker, while it follows from the view that wè is a DP-external left peripheral head: (22)a fíté wè é  yì? Where Foc he went?’

5

b é yì fíté (*wé)? ‘he went where (foc)?’

Analogously, such particles as of in Dutch varieties typically occur adjacent to left-peripheral wh elements, but not on wh in situ (as in (22) and they are inconsistent with V-2, hence presumably compete with the moved verb (as in (23)b); these properties would not be expected if the particles were DP-internal (or post-position-like), whereas they follow from the hypothesis that they are independent heads in the left periphery:

(23) Ik vraag me af [ wie of ___ wat (*of) gezegd heft ] ‘I ask myself off who of what (*of) said has’(24)a Ik weet niet [ wie of [ Jan ___ gezien heeft ]] ‘I know not who of Jan seen has’ b Wie (*of) heeft Jan ___ gezien? ‘Who has Jan seen?’

5. Different C-elements occupying distinct positions.

(25)a * Penso, a Gianni, che gli dovrei parlare 'I think, to Gianni, that I should speak to him' b Penso che, a Gianni, gli dovrei parlare 'I think that, to Gianni, I should speak to him'

(26)a Penso, a Gianni, di dovergli parlare I think, to Gianni, 'of' to have to speak to him' b * Penso di, a Gianni, dovergli parlare 'I think 'of', to Gianni, to have to speak to him'

(27)a ... Che Top ... b ... Top ... di ... c ... Force ...Top ... Fin ... (Rizzi 1997) (28)a Is doíche [ faoi cheann cúpla lá [go bhféadfaí imeacht]] ‘Is probable at-the-end-of couple day that could leave’ (Irish: McCloskey 1996) b Dywedais i [mai ‘r dynion fel arfer a [werthith y ci ]] ‘Said I C the men as usual C will-sell the dog’ (Welsh: Roberts 2004)

(29)a Non so, a Gianni, se gli potremo parlare ‘I don’t know, to Gianni, if we could speak to him b Non so se, a Gianni, gli potremo parlare ‘I don’t know if, to Gianni, we could speak’

(30)a Non so se proprio QUESTO volessero dire (e non qualcos’altro) ‘I don’t know if exactly THIS they wanted to say (and not something else)’ b * Non so proprio QUESTO se volessero dire (e non qualcos’altro) ‘I don’t know exactly THIS if they wanted to say (and not something else)’

6

(31) These facts are hard to accommodate in a single C approach, as the C-element sometimes precedes Top (che) sometimes follows it (di) sometimes can both precede and follow it (se). The facts are immediately captured by a cartographic analysis of the type

(32) … che … (TopP) … se … (TopP) … di …

Which, through other considerations, gives rise to the following map, with unique positions in bold (just a first approximation, as a finer typology of topics is needed: Benincà & Poletto 2004, Frascarelli & Hinterhoelzl 2007, Bianchi & Frascarelli 2010, and the discussion below):

(33) [ Force [ Top* [ Int [ Top* [ Foc [ Top* [ Mod* [ Top* [ Fin [ IP ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

6. Cooccurrence of distinct C-elements.

(34) Me preguntaron que si tus amigos ya te visitaron en Granada ‘They asked me that if your friends had already visited you in Granada’ Plann (1982), Suñer (1994)

With the interpretation of a “reported question”: somebody asked me the question “Did your friends already visit you in Granada”, and I report this speech event in (34). Si marks its status as a yes/no question, and que marks the reported character of it. Verbs taking indirect questions which are not also verbs of saying (forget, remember, etc.) do not enter into this construction. (35) The opposite order if that is also found in some languages, e.g. Dutch varieties in which the sequence wie of dat alternates with wie of in cases like (4)a, and also with wie dat, a familiar case of “doubly filled Comp”, in traditional terminology:

(36) Ik weet niet [ wie of dat [ Jan ___ gezien heeft ]] ‘I know not who Q that Jan seen has’ (Dutch varieties, Haegeman 1996)

How can what looks like “the same element” occur in distinct positions? Clearly, (the equivalent of) that is an unmarked, versatile complementizer form, capable of occurring in the highest C position, and also, in cross-linguistically variable manners, in lower positions, e.g. with wh exclamatives in Italian, as in (37):

(37) Che bel libro che ho letto! ‘What a nice book that I have read!’

Distinct occurrences of that can also co-occur in a higher and lower position, as with preposed adverbial clause in English varieties admitting (38)a (McCloskey 1992, Rizzi 2010b, Radford 2011), with certain topics in the old southern Italian dialects discussed by Ledgeway (2003), or the northern dialects in Paoli (2003), as in (38)b-c; with embedded focus in Brazilian Portuguese (Mioto 1999), as in (38)d,

(38)a. I thank that, if they arrive on time, that they will be greeted (McCloskey 1992, Radford 2011) b. Le mandò a dire che tutte quille dinare che le voleva dare re de Franza per l’armata

7

‘He sent (someone) to tell him that all this money that the king of France wanted to give him for the army’ (Old Southern Italian varieties, Ledgeway 2003, 131) c. A chërdo che, col lìber, ch’ a l’ abia già lesulo ‘They believe that s/he has already read that book’ (Turinese, Paoli 2003, cit. in van Craenenbroeck 2006) d. A Joana acha que A MARIA (que) o João encontrou no cinema ‘Joana thinks that MARIA João met in the cinema’ (Brazilian Portuguese, Mioto 1999)

So, that-like elements are able to lexicalize distinct positions in the C-space. Once this is recognized, potential “transitivity paradoxes” (van Craenenbroeck 2006) disappear.

Radford (cit.) entertains the possibility that that-like elements may lexicalize just Force or Fin (or both). This would be consistent with the fact that che is not necessarily adjacent to the exclamative phrase (Beninca’ 1999):

(39) Che bel biglietto, ieri, che ho trovato sul tavolo! ‘What a nice note, yesterday, that I found on the table!’ If the exclamative phrase and che are not in a local Spec-head configuration in (39), and che is in Fin, this would imply that the shape of Fin is determined in part by the criterial layer that is activated above it: in Standard Italian Fin can be che in exclamatives, but not in questions. Same issues arises for (38)d in BP, in which the lower que is consistent with Foc, but not with Top.

How can this (not strictly local) dependency be expressed? Perhaps, If the criterial phrase moves through Spec-Fin, it can determine Fin’s shape while passing through the Fin layer. A partly analogous but distinct problem of not strictly local dependency in the C-system is raised by the dependency between Force and the criterial layer involved in clause typing, which often do not coincide (e.g. in (29)a, in which the embedded clause is characterized as a question at the Int layer, which is lower than the higher Force layer and separated from it by the TopP layer).

If selection is strictly local, the information “this is a declarative, a question, an exclamative, etc. must be available on the highest head of the CP system. So, there must be a Search-like dependency between the highest C head and the criterial head relevant for clause typing in cases like (29), etc., to ensure selection for the proper clause type from a higher verb:

(40) Force ….. Criterial Head …… Fin Search

Whatever technical solution is adopted for the cases in which the information is transmitted within the CP system, the cases of co-occurring multiple c-elements (28)b, (34), (36), (38) are not naturally amenable to approaches assuming a single C-node.

8

7. Multiple C-elements in Japanese. (41)a Taroo-wa Ziroo-ni [CP dare-ga kare-no ie-ni kuru ka to] tazuneta T.-TOP Z.-DAT who-NOM he-GEN house-to come ka to inquired ‘Taroo asked Ziroo that who is coming to his house’

b Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni ita (no) ka (to)] minna-ni tazuneta T.-TOP he-GEN sister-NOM there-in was no ka to all-DAT inquired ‘Taroo asked everyone if his sister was there’ (Saito 2010: (41)) NB: Saito shows that the double/triple C is possible with the same class of verbs that allow the double C in Spanish (34), i.e., ask, say, but not inquire, discover, remember.

(42) a. To is the complementizer for paraphrases of direct discourse in the sense of Plann (1982). b. Ka is the complementizer for CPs that represent questions. c. No is a complementizer for CPs that represent finite propositions. (Saito, op.cit.) (43) [ … [ … [ … [ … [TP … ] Fin] Int ] Force/Report] (adapted from Saito 2010)

Saito also shows that a wa phrase can be interpreted as a thematic topic (and not as a contrastive topic) in complements introduced by to and ka, but not in complements introduced solely by no. He concludes that thematic topics are situated in the area delimited by Force and Fin. 8. Principles and parameters

(44) Uniformity Principle: “In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, assume languages to be uniform, with variety restricted to easily detectable properties of utterances” (Chomsky 2001, 2)

Under uniformity, it is reasonable to assume that all languages function (syntactically and at the interfaces) like those in (10), except that the criterial heads may be null, a trivial parametric property (a spell-out parameter). As per the standard methodology in comparative syntax, the uniformity assumption must be weakened whenever it is confronted to compelling evidence to the contrary, which may lead us to postulate non-trivial parametrisation.

(45) One case of genuine parametrisation seems to be the distinction between languages allowing for a single topic position and languages permitting a proliferation of topics.

A language like Gungbe only permits a unique topic, possibly co-occurring with focus in a fixed order (no reiteration of yà is permitterd):

(46)a … dò Kòfí yà gànkpá mè wè kpònòn lé sú - ì dó ‘…that Kofi Top PRISON IN Foc policemen Pl shut him there’ (Gungbe: Aboh 2004)

b *… dò Kòfí yà gànkpá mè yà kpònòn lé sú - ì dó ‘…that Kofi Top in prison Top policemen Pl shut him there’ (Gungbe: Aboh 2004)

9

Italian, much as other Romance languages, permits a multiplicity of topics:

(47)a Gianni, in prigione, la polizia ce lo ha già messo ‘Gianni, in prison, the police already shut him there’

b Gianni, l’anno prossimo, a Milano, la residenza, da Parigi, la trasferirà sicuramente ‘Gianni, next year, to Milan, his residence, from Paris, will certainly transfer’

Uniformity guidelines would lead us to assume a minimal difference between the two cases, i.e., the same general system of criteria, uniform in syntax and at the interfaces, except that TopP may be recursive in some languages but not in others.

(48) Combining this parameter (Top recursive or not) with the spell-out parameter mentioned above (Top spelled out or not), we expect two more kinds of languages, in addition to Italian and Gungbe:1. Languages with an overt Top particle, and recursive Top;2. Languages with a null Top particle, and a single Top.

(49) A good candidate for the first type is Abidji, which provides a clear existence proof for Top recursion of the overt Top particle ε kε (Hager 2012, the source of our data here).

(50) a. kofi è pipjé okoko εKofi MA peel.RES banana Def.« Kofi peeled the banana. »

b. okoko ε i ε kε kofi è pipjé nɩibanana Def. Top° Kofi MA peel.RES p.a.i « The banana, Kofi peeled it. »

c. kofii εkε okokoj ε εkε ti è pipjé nɩjKofii Top° bananaj Def. Top° ti MA peel.RES p.a.j « Kofi, the banana, he peeled it. »

d. okokoi ε ε kε kofij εkε tj è pipjé nɩibananai Def. Top° Kofij Top° tj MA peel.RES p.a.i « The banana, Kofi, he peeled it. »

English could provide an example of type (48)2, as it has no overt topic particles and tends to exclude multiple topics (see infra for discussion):

(51)a John, I convinced ___ to buy your book b Your book, I convinced John to buy ___ c * John, your book, I convinced ___ to buy ___ (Rachel Nye, p.c.)

cfr. Italian:

(52) Gianni, il tuo libro, lo ho convinto a comprarlo ‘Gianni, your book, I convinced to buy’

Luigi Rizzi Ealing 2012 – Blaise Pascal Lectures, Sept 11-13, 2012

10

University of Siena, University of Geneva

Cartography, criteria, and labeling.

II. “Further explanations” of structural maps.

1. “Further explanation” of the properties of the sequence: the role of interface and locality principles.

(32) Why is it that we typically find certain orders in the functional sequences, rather than others? As pointed out in Cinque & Rizzi (2010) it is unlikely that the hierarchy may be an absolute syntactic primitive, unrelated to other requirements or constraints: why should natural language syntax express such a complex and apparently unmotivated primitive? It is more plausible that the functional hierarchy (to the extent to which it is universal) may be rooted elsewhere. External factors such as interpretive requirements may be relevant in some cases

(33)a A MARIA devi dare il tuo libro ___ (, non a Giulia) ‘TO MARIA you should give tour book, non to Giulia’ b IL TUO LIBRO devi dare ___ a Maria (non il disco) ‘YOUR BOOK you should give to Maria, not the record’ c * A MARIA (,) IL TUO LIBRO devi dare (non a Giulia, il disco) 'To Maria your book you should give, not to Giulia the record'

(34) Uniqueness of focus seems to hold generally for left-peripheral focus, which suggests that a principled explanation is in order.

(35) Rizzi (1997): Uniqueness of focus follows from the interpretive properties of the structure: if a FocP was recursively embedded as the complement of a higher Foc, we would have that the complement of a higher Foc, a presupposition according to (51), contains a focus position, an inconsistent interpretive property.

(68) * [A MARIA] Foc1 [ [ IL TUO LIBRO ] Foc2 [ devi dare ] ] ]

(34) Other principles are certainly relevant for providing “further explanations” of aspects of the sequence. Abels (2010): (Almost) all the ordering effects observed in the Italian left periphery follow from the theory of locality (based on a version of RM inspired by Starke 2001, Rizzi 2004): if A is a stronger island-creating element than B, then B will not be extractable from the domain of A, neither long-distance, nor locally. So, the only possible left-peripheral order will be A B.

NB: Abels (op. cit.) compares a locality based approach with what he calls a “templatic” approach, stipulating the hierarchical order as a primitive. But in fact, as far as I can tell, no one ever proposed a templatic approach in this sense. All cartographic discoveries on the left-peripheral hierarchy explicitly or implicitly assumed the possibility of further explanations for the observed hierarchy, stemming either from interface considerations or independent grammatical principles.

11

(35) Along such lines, Haegeman (2012) ) accounts for the inapplicability of topicalisation in various kinds of adverbial and complement clauses in English (* When your book, he found ___, John was happy) as a consequence of the fact that such embedded constructions necessarily involve some kind of operator movement to the highest C slot (for clause typing purposes) which would be adversely affected by the intervention of other left-peripheral elements under RM. This kind of locality-based explanation is fully consistent with detailed cartographic representations, in fact it presupposes them.

(36) The possibility of a “further explanation” of the sequence is sometimes seen as an anti-cartographic result, but it is not. If the relative ordering of the elements can be derived from a natural theory of locality or from interface considerations, so much the better, but this does not make the sequence an artifact: the sequence is an “object of the world” and an accurate map of the sequence is the essential point of departure for further study, including the search for further explanation. Consider an analogy with the sequence of DNA: once we have a map of the sequence, particular subsequences of codons, or genes, may be amenable to “further explanations” in terms of fundamental physical/chemical laws, or evolutionary theory: but the ordering is a real, substantive component of organisms, not an ephemeral artifact.

7. On the possible relevance of locality: constraints in the English left periphery.

English contrasts with Italian in not allowing more than one DP topic:

(59) Gianni, il tuo libro, lo ho convinto a comprarlo ‘Gianni, your book, I convinced to buy’

(60)a John, I convinced ___ to buy your book b Your book, I convinced John to buy ___ c * John, your book, I convinced ___ to buy ___ (Rachel Nye, p.c.)

In English topicalisation uses a non quantificational null operator, a kind of functional equivalent of the clitic (Cinque 1990, based on Chomsky 1977):

(61)a * Questo libro, ho comprato ___ ieri (vs. ok Questo libro, lo ho comprato ieri) ‘This book, I bought ___ yesterday’

b This book Op I bought ___ yesterday . So perhaps a representation with a double topic is

(62) John Op, your book Op, I convinced ___ to buy ___

This representation is excluded by a minimality effect, with the higher null Op crossing over the lower one. A (non mutually exclusive) alternative “further explanation” could be that the kind of topic activated in English topicalisation belongs to a type (in Bianchi & Frascarelli’s typology) which is typically unique for interpretive reasons.

Notice that in English a topicalized and a focalized DP cannot naturally co-occur in the left periphery:

(63) ?? John, YOUR BOOK I convinced ___ to buy ___ (not Bill’s book)

12

(64) ??? JOHN, your book, I convinced ___ to buy ___ (not Peter)

Here locality alone is likely to be responsible for the incompatibility: Op and Foc belong to the operator class (in the natural adaptation of the featural typology of Rizzi 2004), hence a minimality effect is produced when one crosses over the other.

The incompatibility of two topics basically holds of DP’s: a DP can co-occur with a PP with topic-like interpretation in a fixed order:

(65) Words like that, in front of my mother, I would never say --- ---. (I. Roberts, p.c.)

Presumably, the PP does not need a null Op (consider also the fact that in Italian the clitic, obligatory with the DOP, becomes optional with the PP), and can target a Mod head in the low CP zone, which permits movement of Op across it

(66) Words like that Op, in front of my mother Mod, I would never say --- ---.

That such PP’s can target Mod is also shown by the contrast between such preposed elements and DP topics in anti-adjacency environments:

(67) This is a man who (I think that), in front of my mother, ___  would never say words like that

(68) * This is a man who (I think that), words like that, ___ would never say in front of my mother

In (65) the preposed PP is consistent with subject extraction, and in fact it alleviates the that-trace violation, while the topic DP does not in (66). This ultimately follows from the difference in position and status between Top and Mod (Rizzi 2011).

8. Constraints on lower Top in Italian.

In addition to the higher Top position, Italian permits a Top position lower than Foc:

(69)a Alla riunione, QUESTO, a Gianni, gli avresti dovuto dire, non quello che hai detto ‘At the meeting, THIS, to Gianni, you should have said to him, not what you said’

b A Gianni, QUESTO, alla riunione, gli avresti dovuto dire, non quello che hai detto ‘To Gianni, THIS, at the meeting, you should have said to him, not what you said’

In Rizzi (1997) this position is treated as identical to the higher Top position, and in fact in many cases the two topics surrounding Foc are interchangeable, as in (69).

Nevertheless, Frascarelli & Hinterhoelzl (2006), Bianchi & Frascarelli (2010) have observed that the two positions may somewhat differ in interpretive properties. One salient difference is that the higher Top field can host a contrastive topic (a topic explicitly contrasted with another topic), while the lower one cannot. This can be made clear if appropriate contexts are built:

13

(70)A: So che vorrebbero regalare un disco a Mario per il suo compleanno… ‘I know that they would want to give a record to Mario on his birthday…’ B: No, a Mario, UN LIBRO gli vorrebbero regalare, non un disco ‘No, to Mario, A BOOK they would want t ogive, not a record’

B’: No, UN LIBRO, a Mario, gli vorrebbero regalare, non un disco ‘No, A BOOK, to Mario, they would want t ogive, not a record’

(71)A: So che vorrebbero regalare un disco a Mario e un libro a Gianni… ‘I know that they would want t ogive a record to Mario and a book to Gianni…?

B: No, a Mario UN LIBRO gli vorrebbero regalare, e a Gianni UN DISCO ‘No, to Mario, A BOOK they would want t ogive, and to Gianni A RECORD’ B’:* No, UN LIBRO a Mario gli vorrebbero regalare, e UN DISCO a Gianni ‘No, A BOOK to Mario they would want t ogive, and A RECORD to Gianni’

In (70) the topic is not contrasted, and it can occur both before and after the focus, as in B and B’; in (71) the topic is contrasted, and it can only occur before the topic: (71)B’ is deviant. Remember that the left-peripheral focus is always contrastive in Italian.

Another case, with a dative focus and an accusative topic:

(72) A: Darò il libro di linguistica al professore, e quello di fantascienza allo studente… ‘I will give the book about linguistics to the professor, and the one about science fiction to the student…’

B: No, il libro di fantascienza, AL PROFESSORE lo dovresti dare, e quello di linguistica ALLO STUDENTE ‘No, the book about science fiction, TO THE PROFESSOR you should give, and the one about linguistics, TO THE STUDENT.

B’ * No, AL PROFESSORE, il libro di fantascienza, lo dovresti dare, e ALLO STUDENTE quello di linguistica ‘No, TO THE PROFESSOR, the book about science fiction, you should give, and TO THE STUDENT the one about linguistics’ So we have

(73) Top … Foc … Top … ([+contr]) [+contr] [-contr]

This state of affairs strongly invites an explanation in terms of locality.

14

(74) Starke’s (2001) Featural Relativized Minimality (revising Rizzi 1990, etc.; the revision is presented in the format adopted in Friedmann, Belletti, Rizzi 2009):

X Z Y I) +A ….. +A …. <+A> * (identity) II) +A,+B …. +A …. <+A,+B> OK (inclusion) III) +A ….. +B …. <+A> OK (disjunction)

(75) Rizzi (2004); +A and +B in (75) are superfeatures designating natural feature classes:

Argumental: Case, person, number, gender,…Operator: Q, Neg, Quant, Foc,… Modifier: Modality, Tense, Mood, Aspect, Voice,…Topic.

(76)a ? Which problem do you wonder how to solve ___ ? +Op, +Top +Op +Op, +Top

b * How do you wonder which problem to solve ___ ? +Op +Op, +Top +Op

NB: The permissible configuration is the one in which the specification of the intervener is properly included in the specification of the target, as in (76)a. If the inclusion relation goes the other way, and the specification of the target is properly included in the specification of the intervener, the structure is excluded, as in (76)b: RM rules out the cases in which the specification of the intervener fully matches the specification of the target (regardless of whether the intervener has additional featural specifications, as in (76)b, or not).

(77) Now, suppose that [+contrast], whose relevance for intervention has been highlighted by Neelemans & 2010) belongs to the +Op class; then, the following pattern is explained:

(78)a OK Top … Foc … (as in (71)B, (72)B) [+contr] [+contr]

b * Foc … Top … (as in (71)B’, (72)B’) [+contr] [+contr]

c OK Foc … Top … (as in (70)B’) [+contr] [-contr]

In (78)a, corresponding to (71)B, (72)B, a +Top, +Op element crosses over a pure +Op element (both +Foc and +Contr belong to the Op class), so we are in the proper inclusion case II of (74) and the structure is fine. In (78)b, corresponding to (71)B’, (72)B’, a +Op element (the contrastive focus), crosses over a contrastive topic, which is +Op in virtue of its contrastive character. The intervener thus fully marches the specification of the target in terms of our system of superfeatures (75), hence the structure is excluded (in fact the intervener is more richly specified than the target, as it is also +Top, but this does

15

not improve things: whenever the intervener fully matches the specification of the target the structure is doomed, regardless of whether the intervener has additional specifications: see (76)b).

In (78)c, corresponding to (70)B’, the contrastive focus (a +Op elements) crosses over the non-contrastive topic (a pure +Top) element; we are thus in the disjunction case III of (74), and the structure is fine.

16

Luigi Rizzi Ealing 2012 – Blaise Pascal Lectures, Sept 11-13, 2012University of Siena, University of Geneva

Cartography, criteria, and labeling.

I. Labeling and criteria.

1. The labeling algorithm in Chomsky (2012).

Chomsky (2012) “Problems of Projections” (to appear in Lingua): how do categories created by Merge get a label? (see also Chomsky 2008, Donati & Cecchetto 2011)

(1) Labeling algorithm: The category created by Merge inherits the label of the closest head.

(2) Nodes must have a label to be properly interpreted: the interpretive systems must know what kind of object they are interpreting.

NB: Labeling may be seen as a particular case of minimal search.NB: (2) is different from previous labeling assumptions, in which labeling was considered a prerequisite for further applications of Merge. With the new view, Merge can also apply to unlabeled structures, and the necessity of labeling only arises at the interface.

There are three cases to consider:

(3)i. H – H Merge ii. H – Phrase Merge iii. Phrase – Phrase Merge

Chomsky (op. cit.) : labeling is straightforward in i and ii, but potentially problematic in iii.

8. A possible implementation

“Closeness” may be computed in terms of c-command (NB: my definition; other definitions are imaginable):

(4) H1 is closer to α than H2 iff H1 c-commands H2 and H1 does not c-command α.

I. H – H Merge:

(5) α 2 H1 H2

(6) Chomsky, op. cit.: if (external) H – H Merge only involves merger of a root not specified for category with a functional head expressing a categorial property (v, n, a, etc.) à la Marantz, the only category which can project is the one of the functional head because the root has no categorial label to project: [n book + n]. So, “closest head” in (1) must be understood as “closest head with a label”.

17

II. H – Phrase Merge :

(7) α 2 H1 Phrase2 2 H2

Here things are straightforward : H1 is closer to α than H2 (or any other lower head) hence α gets the label of H1. So, for instance, in traditional X-bar notation, we have [VV DP], [T T VP], [C C TP], etc.

III. Phrase – Phrase Merge:

(8) α 3 Phrase1 Phrase2

3 3 H1 H2

In case of Phrase Phrase Merge, the situation is ambiguous, as neither H1 nor H2 qualifies as the closest head to the new node created by Merge, so α in (8) remains unlabeled. But this can only be a temporary state of affairs: under the assumption that nodes need labels for interpretation, α must receive a label before being passed on to the interpretive systems. So, something must happen here to make labeling possible.

9. A digressions: Head movement.

Suppose that Head movement (Head – Head internal Merge) exists, as distinct from phrasal movement. How can it be integrated in the labeling approach?

Let’s first sharpen the assumptions on Head – Head external merge. I will assume that items drawn from the lexicon bear a feature (which I will continue to notate as “º”, as in X-bar theory; but the current assumptions do not violate Inclusiveness). When the category undergoing merge with another category projects, this feature may disappear (in which case we get a phrasal projection) or remain (in which case we get a lexical projection, a category which still is a (complex) lexical item). So, external merge yields, for instance,

(9) [vº rootº vº ]

This is now a derived lexical item labeled v, a head (if we understand heads as elements bearing the “º” feature). It can undergo Head – Phrase merge with a complement, e.g. to yield

(10) [ [vº rootº vº ] DP]

18

This category will now be labeled v under (1), yielding a verbal projection. The label of the new category can only be v, not vº, because it contains a phrase, and a lexical item cannot contain a phrase in the normal case.

Consider now head movement. For instance, Tº (or, more plausibly, some lower inflectional head), attracts vº in (11)a, yielding (11)b:

(11)a Tº [ [vº rootº vº ] DP ] b [β [vº rootº vº ] Tº] [ <[vº rootº vº ]> DP ]

How is the complex head β, created by movement, labeled here? Perhaps, as both the simple head T and the complex head [root v] satisfy the definition of “closest head”, the system goes for the simple option, and labels the newly created head as T (alternatively, the new head could have a complex label). The complex head thus created can further be head-moved to C, and then the new complex head will be labeled as C, etc., with the familiar properties of head movement (Mirror Principle, etc.). 10. Two possible solutions for unlabeled structures.

10.1. Movement

Phrase1 moves further from [α Phrase1 Phrase2 ] in (8). At that point we get

(12) Phrase1 … [α <Phrase1> Phrase2 ]

“the intuitive idea is that the lower XP [ Phrase1] copy is invisible to LA [the labeling algorithm], since it is part of a discontinuous element, so therefore α will receive the label of YP [Phrase2” ( Chomsky, op. cit., p. 22)

One possible implementation would be to understand the labeling algorithm (1) as stating “α inherits the label of the closest head which has all of its occurrences internal to α”; so H1, head of Phrase1, is both internal and external to α (it has internal and external occurrences), hence it is disregarded, and α receives the label of H2, as desired.

So, for instance, the thematic subject of a transitive structure is merged with vP, which yields an [Phrase Phrase] structure:

(13) [α DP vP]

At this point the subject must vacate the position and raise, in order to allow proper labeling of the structure α as vP: DP (and D) are invisible (they are both internal and external to α), hence the closest head to the new node is v, unambiguously.

10.1.1. Digression 2: Labeling and locality.

The assumption that movement of one element in XP-YP makes it invisible for computation may seem ad hoc, and inconsistent with the copy theory of traces, in which traces have a full internal structure. But Chomsky manages to interestingly connect this assumption with the particular way of functioning

19

of RM in structures like multiple questions (and, possibly, many other cases of “ordering preservations” with multiple movements, such as multiple scrambling in WF: Haegeman 1993).

(14)a. Koj kakvo pravi? ( Bulgarian: Rudin 1988,481-2) who what does ‘Who is doing what?’ b. *Kakvo koj pravi? what who does ‘What is who doing?’

(15)a Cine ce a văzut? ‘Who what saw?’ b * Ce cine a văzut? ‘What who saw ?’ (Rumanian: Soare 2009)

(16) Krapova & Cinque (2006)’s interpretation of Relativized Minimality: in … X … Z … Y … , Z counts as an intervener between X and Y only if all the occurrences of Z intervene::

(17)a Cine ce a <cine> văzut <ce>? ‘Who what saw?’ b * Ce cine a <cine> văzut <ce>? ‘What who saw ?’

So, here too, movement makes a position “invisible” for the computation (of locality, in this case). 10.2. The creation of a criterial configuration.

At some point movement must stop. This happens when it reaches a criterial position (Rizzi 1996, 1997). Criteria are defined as configurations in which Spec and head share a major interpretable feature, e.g. Q in questions:

(18) [α [which Q book] [did Q you read ] ]

Chomsky’s idea is that the Criterial configuration permits labeling of the whole structure: Both heads in XP-YP share the most prominent feature relevant for labeling, Q in this case, so search of both XP and YP provides a non-ambiguous indication, Q, which can label the whole structure:

(19) [Q [whichQ book] [did Q you read ] ]

So, what characterizes a criterial configuration is that it receives the label of the criterial feature (and we get, in traditional X-bar notation, QP, TopP, FocP, RelP, etc.) In conclusion, in this system, the problem raised by XP-YP for labeling can be resolved either by moving one of the two elements, or by creating a criterial configuration.

11. The “Halting Problem” for wh movement.

Wh-movement proceeds stepwise. But in certain environments it cannot stop, while in other environments it can (and in fact must) stop:

20

(20)a You think [ C [Bill read [whichQ book]]] b * You think [α [whichQ book] [ C [Bill read ___] ] ] c [β [whichQ book] [ Q [you think [α ___ C [ Bill read ] ] ]

The system captures the fact that wh phrase cannot stop in the embedded C in (20)b: for selectional reasons C cannot be Q (think does not select an indirect question), hence after-wh movement there is no way to label the XP-YP structure α, and the structure is rejected as unlabeled.

In (20)c the XP-YP structure β can be labeled as Q (it’s a criterial configuration, so both XP and YP are headed by Q), and this is fine. And α can now be labeled as C (or whatever more refined category we have here, presumably Decl (or declarative Force, etc.) because the wh phrase has moved out, and there is only a trace (an occurrence of the wh phrase) in the Spec of C, which can be disregarded for labeling, according to the approach in 10.1.

Consider now the complement of a verb selecting Q:

(21)a John wonders [ Q [Bill read [whichQ book]]] b John wonders [α [whichQ book] [ Q [Bill read ___] ] ] c * [β [whichQ book] [ Q [ John wonders [α ___ C [ Bill read ] ] ]

The wh phrase moves to the embedded C-system where a criterial configuration is created, and α can be properly labeled as Q.

Why is (21)c excluded? This is a violation of Criterial Freezing (Rizzi 2006, Rizzi & Shlonsky 2007): movement cannot undo a criterial configuration.

(22) Criterial Freezing: A phrase meeting a Criterion is frozen in place

Can Criterial Freezing be related to Chomsky’s labeling algorithm? As the algorithm accounts in a natural manner for the cases in which movement must continue, the possibility is worth exploring that labeling may also account for the cases in which movement must stop, thus providing a comprehensive solution for the “halting problem”. The point is not addressed in Chomsky (2012), but there is a natural possibility to consider.

Movement can only involve minimal or maximal projections: minimal projections, heads, in head movement (if indeed this option is allowed by UG) and maximal projections in phrasal movement. I.e. given the traditional X-bar schema, X and XP can be moved, but the non-maximal, non-minimal projection X’ is inert for movement.

(23) Movement can only involve minimal and maximal projections.

Minimal projections are heads, LI’s extracted from the lexicon and complex heads formed by head movement (entities bearing the diacritic “º” according to the approach in 9).

Under bare phrase structure, being a “maximal projection” is not a rigid inherent property of a node, as XP nodes in standard X-bar notation, but is a dynamic notion in the following obvious sense:

(24) α is a maximal projection if the node immediately dominating it does not have the same label.

21

Then in the criterial configuration [XP YP], if the label is computed from both XP and YP, neither is maximal, in the sense just defined: only the whole category [XP YP] is maximal; so, further movement of either XP or YP alone is excluded by the ban on movement of a non-maximal (non-minimal) projection (23).

So, both the necessary continuation of movement in intermediate C-systems ((20)b), and the halting in the criterial configuration ((21)c) can be made to follow from Chomsky’s approach to labeling, under natural auxiliary assumptions. Here are configurations requiring continuation of movement (25) and determining freezing (26):

(25) think…. ? 3 Q Decl 3 3 Q n Decl I Which 2 that 6 book n Bill read ___

(26) wonder.... Q 3 Q Q 3 3 Q n Q I Which 2 6 book n Bill read ___

Notice that this approach accounts for simple cases of violation of Criterial freezing like (23)c, in which the same feature Q in which book is attracted twice (and for which alternative approaches in terms of “inactivation” could be considered), but it also accounts for the complex cases discussed in Rizzi (2006), in which two distinct criterial features are involved, i.e., Q on the determiner and Foc on the lexical restriction of a nominal expression:

(27) [qualeQ LIBROFoc] ‘which BOOK’

The lexical restriction can be focalized in situ in the embedded C system where the phrase satisfies the Q criterion, as in (28)a, but it cannot be Focus moved to the main C system, as in (28)b, as this would undo the criterial configuration. The whole indirect question can be marginally pied-piped through focus movement to the main C-system, as in (28)c:

(22)a Non sono riuscito a capire [ [qualeQ LIBROFoc] [ Q avesse letto ] ] … (non quale articolo) ‘I havent managed to under stand which BOOK he had read, not which article’

b * [qualeQ LIBROFoc] Foc non sono riuscito a capire [ ___ [Q avesse letto ]] ( non quale articolo) ‘Which BOOK I haven’t managed to understant he had read, not which article’

22

c ? [ [qualeQ LIBROFoc] Q [avesse letto] ] Foc [ non sono riuscito a capire ___ ] (non quale articolo) ‘Which BOOK he had read, I didn’t namage to under stand, not which article.’ In (28)b [qualeQ LIBROFoc] is extracted from the criterial configuration

(29) [α [qualeQ LIBROFoc] [ Q avesse letto ] ]

But, given the labeling algorithm, α is now labeled Q (we may assume that labeling takes place as soon as the conditions are met, as per Pesetsky’s Earliness Principle), hence [qualeQ LIBROFoc] is non maximal, and therefore it cannot be extracted from (29). In (28)c, the whole criterial configuration (29) is pied-piped, so the maximal phrase labeled Q is moved, and this is fine.

12. Digression: Successive cyclicity, “preposition dangling”, floating quantifiers.

Postal gave the following argument against Chomsky’s (1973) theory of successive cyclic wh movement: if wh movement goes through the intermediate C-system, why can’t it strand a preposition there? (the “dangling preposition” argument)

(30)a Who do you think [α t C [ we should talk [to t]]]? b * Who do you think [α [to t] C [ we should talk t ]]? c To whom do you think [α t C [ we should talk t ]]

The impossibility of (30)b can now be made to follow from labeling: to is visible here because it’s entirely internal to the embedded clause, it competes with C for labeling (neither one c-commands the other, so neither one qualifies as “closer” to α), hence the embedded clause α cannot be labeled, and the structure is ill-formed. When the preposition is not stranded in the C-system, as in (30)a or c, no problem arises, as the trace is not visible and C (presumably, Decl Force) wins the competition for labeling.

McCloskey (2000) argues that in certain varieties of Irish English a floating quantifier can be stranded by a wh element, apparently also in the intermediate C-system, thus providing straightforward evidence for successive cyclic wh movement: (31)a What all did he say (that) he wanted? b What did he say all (that) he wanted? c What did he say (that) he wanted all? (West Ulster English, McCloskey 2000)

This seems to be in direct contradiction with (our interpretation of) Postal’s argument. If all is stranded in Spec C in (31)b, the structure should incur the same labeling problem as (30)b, under Sportiche’s (1988) analysis of Q-float.

But perhaps floated quantifiers never remain in the position in which they are stranded, and move further to an adverbial position in the vP space. So all could move to such a position in (31)b, thus vacating Spec C entirely, hence no labeling problem would arise.

The same conclusion holds for the classical case of Q-float from subjects:

23

(32) Les amis on tous (bien) mange ‘The friends have all (well) eaten’

Tous could not be stranded in Spec v in (32) because otherwise a competition would arise for labeling the vP, which would give rise to ill-formedness:

(33) [ tous t ] [ v VP ]

So tous presumably moves out to an adverbial position vacating the Spec v position completely, and permitting proper labeling of vP. This is independently shown by the fact that tous is higher than the manner adverbial bien in (32), which suggests that tous cannot remain in Spec vP, as the labeling approach would predict.

13. The status of subjects.

The canonical subject position is a fundamental halting point of movement, the final landing site of core cases of A-movement (unaccusatives, passive, raising, and in fact in any sentence under the vP-internal subject hypothesis). What does this imply for the labeling approach under consideration?

(34) There is a Subject Criterion.

Otherwise the subject position would not be a possible halting point for phrasal movement: in order to label [ Phrase1 Phrase1 ] in which Phrase1 is the subject, we must be in a criteria configuration, otherwise labeling would fail.

A subject criterion is made independently plausible by certain interpretive properties that go with the subject position (Rizzi 2006). The subject is the argument “about which” the event is presented. So, an active and a passive sentence (also in “all new” contexts) differ in “aboutness”: the “hitting event” is presented as being about the truck in (35)a, and about the bus in (35)b:

(35)a Un camion ha tamponato un autobus ‘A truck hit a bus’

b Un autobus è stato tamponato da un camion ‘A bus was hit by a truck’

This has clear consequences for the overall interpretation and discourse articulation: for instance, in a Null Subject Language, pro in the following sentence in discourse can only pick up the “aboutness” subject (as observed in Calabrese (1986)):

(36) Poi, pro è ripartito ‘Then, pro left’ (pro = truck after (35)a; pro = bus after (35)b)

In previus work (Rizzi 2006, Rizzi & Shlonsky 2007, building from Cardinaletti 2004), the criterial head (Subj) and the attracting feature (+N) were not fully identified. But perhaps this can be done, in the spirit of the overall criterial approach. Let us tentatively propose that the relevant attracting feature is Person, so SubjP is in fact PersonP. Then, a Person head in the high functional structure of the clause attracts a DP endowed with person features, thus creating a Criterial configuration which allows

24

movement to stop in that position. The “aboutness Subject – Predicate” interpretive routine is the triggered:

(37) [Un camion 3pers, sing] [ Person [ ha [ t tamponato un autobus] ] ] [ “aboutness” subject ] [ predicate ] ]

Movement can stop here because the whole clause can be labeled as “person”, the criterial feature in common between XP and YP. So we get a subtree like the following:

(38) 3Pers 3 DP, 3Pers 3Pers 3 3Pers ….. In fact, Subject movement must stop in (31): neither XP (DP, 3Pers) nor YP (3Pers) are maximal, in the intended sense, so the subject cannot move further. This gives a strong version of the “Fixed Subject Constraint” (Bresnan 1977), in fact derived from Criterial Freezing. That – trace effects are thus derived:

(39) * Who do you think [ that [ t Person [ will come ]]]

Who satisfies the Subject (Person) Criterion in the embedded clause, and then it is frozen there because neither XP nor YP are maximal in the criterial configuration thus created:

(40) … that [3Pers [who 3Pers ] [ 3Person [ will [ t come t ]]]]

Languages then may use “strategies of Subject extraction” (Rizzi & Shlonsky 2007) to circumvent the freezing effect and allow wh-extraction of a subject. For instance, Italian (and other Null Subject Languages) permit a “skipping strategy” consisting of the use of expletive pro to formally satisfy the Subject Criterion, which allows the thematic subject to skip the freezing position, so that it remains available for further movement (much as in the original ECP-based analysis in Rizzi (1982)).

(41) Chi credi [ che [3Pers [pro 3Pers] [3Pers [ t verrà t ]]]] ‘Who do you think that pro will come?’

Notice that not all positions of Spec of a head with matching phi features are stopping positions. For instance, movement can (and must) continue from the subject position of a small clause under a raising predicate:

(42)a [Gli amici] sembrano [ ___ Num, Gen simpatici ] ‘The friends seem nice NumPlur, GenMasc? b * Sembrano [ [gli amici] Num, Gen simpatici ]] ‘Seem the friends nice’

Or, with compound tenses, the object clitic triggers participial agreement (Kayne 1989), but then it must continue to move to the clitic position:

25

(43)a Gianni li ha [___ Num, Gen incontrati ___ ] ‘ Gianni them has met NumPlur, GenMasc’ b * Gianni ha [li Num, Gen incontrati ___ ] ‘Gianni has them met NumPlur, GenMasc’

In criterial terms this amounts to saying that number and gender features are not criterial, hence movement doesn’t stop there, and in fact it must continue. Consider the following possible implementation:

(44) Number and gender features do not define an independent head in the functional structure of the clause (possibly, a consequence of the fact that they are “uninterpretable”, in the sense of Chomsky 1995), but are merely attached to other interpretable heads to “register” the application of movement and other structural relations. So, what we have in fact is

(44)a …[α [gli amici] [aNumPlur, GendMasc simpatici ] ] b … [β [ li] [AspNumPlur, GendMasc incontrati ] ]

where ”a” in (44)a is the functional head defining the category adjective, and Asp in (44)b defines the aspectual interpretation expressed by the past participial construction.

Here the only possibility to label α and β arises if the Spec moves further, so that the label of YP can project.

The difference between Person and Number – Gender would then be that the former defines an autonomous head in the clausal spine, while the latter do not, a distinction possibly connected to the interpretable – uninterpretable divide. So we may assume that

(45) Features that project are categorial features, which can define an independent head (Q, Top, Foc, the features of the Cinque hierarchy, T, M, Asp, Voice…, n, v, a,…, but also Pers,….)

Possible independent morphological manifestations of the Person head could be the system of subject clitics in the Northern Italian dialects:

(46) Le ragazze le son venute (Brandi & Cordin 1989, Poletto 2000, Manzini & Savoia ‘The girls Scl have+3pl come’

The element in Spec cannot stop there in (42)b, (43)b because the features entering into the agreement process are not categorial here, hence they cannot define a criterial configuration which would permit the labeling of the phrases.

14. Halting, complements, and specifiers.

Can a phrase ever halt and be spelled out in a non-criterial position? On the basis of the labeling approach it can surface in a complement position (say, an object position), because there H – Phrase Merge, or X-YP Merge, straightforwardly permits labeling of the new category as XP.

Objects (and complements in general) can remain in situ (as far as labeling is concerned), or move if other properties require movement. Specifiers, on the other hand, are halting positions, or position from

26

which further movement is compulsory, depending on whether they give rise to criterial configurations or not.

A potential problem for this view of the halting problem is raised by the subject position of small clauses: in the complement of some verbs, the equivalent of (44)a is possible and further movement is not required (but possible, as shown in (48)a-b):

(47) Considero [α [i tuoi amici] [simpatici ] ] ‘I consider your friends nice’

(48)a I tuoi amici sono considerati [β ___ [ simpatici ] ] ‘Your friends are considered nice’

b Gli amici che considero [β ___ [ simpatici ] ] ‘The friends that I consider nice’

c Li considero [β ___ [ simpatici ] ] ‘I them consider nice’ One possibility is to assume that α = β, and modify the system so as to permit Spec positions which are consistent both with halting and continuation of movement. Another possibility is to assume that α ≠ β, and the subject of the small clause can be a criterial position (but it isn’t when further movement takes place).

A possible indication in favor of the second solution is that bare plurals in Italian are possible in object position, but not as subjects of small clauses (Belletti 1988); but the bare plural can apparently be moved and become the head of a relative:

(49) Gianni frequenta amici ‘Gianni sees friends’

(50)a * Gianni considera [ [ amici ] [ simpatici]] ‘Gianni considers friends nice’ b Gianni frequenta amici [ che considera [ ___ [ simpatici ]]] ‘Gianni sees friends that he considers nice’

So, it may be the case that the small clause optionally allows a criterial position, whose interpretive import is incompatible with bare plurals. So, α in (47) can be labeled, (50)a is excluded by the interpretive incompatibility, while (48) and (50)b do not involve the criterial position, hence no semantic incompatibility in (50)b, but movement must proceed to a higher criterial destination.

27

Degrees of violations of Criterial Freezing.

Chomsky (2012): If T inherits relevant morphosyntactic features from C, and in the following C = Q, T will also Bare Q and subject extraction

Suppose there is head movement. Then an attractable V has also +T (V, +T). So, we obtain

[T [V, +T] T ]

Here T projects, as it should

Now T

28

(69) Q: if the copy theory of traces is adopted, the focal element would occur both in Focus and in presupposition: wouldn’t an inconsistency arise in this case too?

(70) [IL TUO LIBRO] Foc [ le devi dare <il tuo libro>]

Notice that the case is different from (65)c, which involves two distinct elements explicitly marked as focal, one in the domain of the other.

A possible solution: the problem is analogous to the problem arising with wh movement:

(71) what did you read <what>?

Clearly for proper LF interpretation we want to have the operator occurring only in the left periphery, to obtain “For what x, you read x”. Chomsky 1993, Fox 2000 propose readjustment rules operating on the LF level which replace the trace with a variable. An analogous rule could apply on (70), yielding an Op-vbl structure like (presupposition italicized)

(72) [FocYOUR BOOK] (and not something else) is the x such that [Pres you should give her x]

The “variable conversion” operation would, correctly, not save (65)c from inconsistency.

(73) [FocMARIA] (and not somebody else) is the x such that [Pres [FocYOUR BOOK] (and not something else) is the y such that [Pres you should give y to x ]]

NB: implication: LF readjustment rules violate the No Tampering Condition.

29

v. A detour: verbal focalization with overt copies in African and Creole languages.

There is a well-described case in which the copy-trace of focus is actually pronounced: it’s the case of verbal focalization (or topicalkisation) in many languages

(74) a. Yu no tingk se im tiif, bot… 2nd sg [neg] think seh 3rd sg steal, but…“You don’t think that he steals, but…”

b. A tiif im tiif di manggo-dem!A steal 3rd sg steal the mango-pl“Steal the mangoes he did!”

(Jamaican Creole, Durrleman 2007)

(75) a. kofi è pipjé okoko εKofi MA éplucher.RES banane Déf.« Kofi a épluché la banane. »

b. épipjé bε kofi pipjè okoko ε le fait d’éplucher Foc° Kofi éplucher.AOR banane Déf. « C’est EPLUCHER que Kofi éplucha la banane. » (Abidji, Hager 2012)

(76) These authors observe that focalisation is inherently nominal, while the verb must have its verbal shape to fulfill its morphosyntactic functions within the IP. This categorical mismatch seems to be the source of the necessity of reduplicating the verb.

(77) A first approximation: as in Marantz’ work, the lexicon includes a categorically unspecified root. So the root incorporates into v and becomes a verb. Independently (much as in Chomsky’s 2007 analysis of wh movement of subjects) it also moves to the left peripheral Foc position:

(78) Foc __v [root]

But where does the nominal character of the focalized form come from? Normally (long distance) movement does not change the syntactic category (i.e., an adjective does not become a noun when wh moved).

(79) Following recent work by Kayne in the Hale & Keyser tradition we could assume that lexical verbs are derived from light verbs plus nominal components incorporating into them (so that “steal” actually is “make an act of stealing”). Perhaps it is this nominal component that gets focalized, while at the same time getting incorporated (à la Chomsky) into v and becoming verbal. So, we actually have the derivation in (80), yielding representation (81):

30

(80) Foc __v ___n [root]

(81) [[root]+n] Foc [[[root]+n]+v] <[[root]+n]> <[root]>

Under this analysis, [[root]+n] is both an A’-trace of [[root]+n] in Spec Foc, and an incorporation trace of the nominal part in [[root]+n]+v]. [[root]+n]+v] cannot be entirely deleted because the antecedent in Spec Foc does not include +v, which would be information unrecoverably lost. Just [[root]+n] cannot be deleted within [[root]+n]+v] because the resulting entity [___v] would not be a well-formed word, just an affix without anything pronounced to attach to. So [[root]+n]+v] must be pronounced entirely.

Other traces are normally not pronounced because no recoverability problem arises: the moved element contains all the information contained in the copy, which can thus be deleted (and must be deleted for economy considerations). The necessity of pronouncing the trace is ultimately traced back to the recoverability principle: the content of what is deleted must be fully recoverable from what is pronounced

(1) Background and motivations: a. The descriptive and explanatory success of Pollock’s (1989) Split Infl approach led to a quick proliferation of the functional elements constituting the spine of the clause, AgrS and T, then Agr0 and AgrPastPart, then Asp, Mood, Modality, Voice,... b. Each addition gave rise to more adequate analyses in terms of descriptive and explanatory adequacy; at the same time the trend raised the question of where the splitting process would stop: where and when would one get to the elements of syntactic computations? c. One initial motivation of cartographic projects was the attempt to address this question by changing the perspective. Rather than postulating functional elements as an ancillary assumption in the context of the analysis of other properties (locality, case-agreement, binding, etc.,), one could directly focus on the functional structure as an object of inquiry worth pursuing on its own, and draw maps as accurate as possible of the maximal expansion of the different zones of the clause. d. The hope was that such detailed maps would on the one hand lead to the discovery of the ultimate constituents of syntax, thus grounding the “splitting” approach on a solid bedrock, and on the other hand they would enter into deeper explanations of linguistic phenomena, and possibly be useful in applicative domains, as reliable maps often are.

(2) Cross-linguistic scope: The projects of drawing detailed structural maps started with certain zones of the Romance and Germanic tree (Rizzi 1997, 2000, 2004, Cinque 1999, 2002, Belletti, 2001, 2004,

31

2009, Poletto 2000, Grewendorf 2002, Laenzlinger (2002), etc.) but quickly extended to other languages and language families: Finno-Ugric (Puskas 2000), Celtic (Roberts 2004), Semitic (Shlonsky 1998), Slavic (Krapova & Cinque 2004), West African (Aboh 2004), Bantu (Biloa 2012), Creole (Durrleman 2008), Dravidian (Jayaseelan 2006), East-Asian (Tsai 2007, Endo 2008, Saito 2010), Austronesian (Pearce 1999), in addition to much work in Romance and Germanic dialectology (e.g. Cruschina 2012), and on Classical languages (Salvi 2000), etc. See Cinque & Rizzi 2010, Shlonsky 2010..

(14) The syntacticisation of scope-discourse semantics: Basic scope-discourse articulations such as Topic – comment, Focus – presupposition, Operator – scope domain are uniformly expressed by a tripartite structure Spec – Head – Complement. This uniform structure replaces the arbitrary collection of configurations assumed by other approaches such as

- Interpret the position adjacent to the verb as Focus; interpret the clause minus the focus position as the presupposition;

- Interpret a phrase adjoined to TP as the topic; interpret the rest of the clause as the comment, etc.

(69) 3 Focus1 Presupposition1 3 Focus2 Presupposition2

NB: one can assume that a node is labeled as soon as the algorithm can successfully apply (basically in accordance with Pesetsky’s Earliness Principle). So, the head which labels a category can be submitted to further movement without violating any requirement. THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE

32