Abstract
Chapter 5 develops the last-resort mechanism ℜ, through a cross-linguistic study of the repairs of person constraints by the emergence of otherwise unavailable ergatives, accusatives, PPs, and enriched DPs. They are unified as the minimal enrichments of a non-convergent syntactic structure by an Agree/Case dependency, that is, by an uninterpretable phi-feature (probe). ℜ thus extends the hypothesis that uninterpretable features create syntactic dependencies to meet Full Interpretation, from features that are lexically fixed, to those that are dynamically inserted for this reason. The point of departure is Chomsky's (1995 et seq.) proposal that syntactic content can be licensed by an 'effect on output', confined by a strong modular architecture that restricts its scope as an interface mechanism. ℜ can detect illegibility at the interfaces of syntax with PF and LF, but not problems that arise within these modules. In response, it can enrich the numeration interface between syntax and the lexicon with an uninterpretable feature, but cannot modify syntactic computation, nor search the lexicon for interpretable content. ℜ is extended to other Full Interpretation failures, notably the ergative and accusative 'dependent Case' of all transitives, construed as a response to Case licensing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Bricolage is B. Oyharçabal's (p.c.) apt term.
- 2.
This chapter develops the proposals in Rezac (2007), drawing on Postal (1990) and Reinhart (1995). Albizu (1997a) is the earliest syntactic proposal to bring together the various elements that form the view of the PCC in Section 5.2 and unite them with other person hierarchy interactions. Albizu (1997b), graciously provided by the author during the revisions of this book, is an extraordinarily unpublished work that anticipates the present one in a last-resort syntactic approach to the PCC / person hierarchy repairs, albeit quite a different one.
- 3.
- 4.
Spanish reflects the applicative-prepositional dative split through cliticization or clitic-doubling of all and only applicative datives (Cuervo 2003a, b). Among nonpronominal datives, in PCC contexts only undoubled indirect objects are possible, as prepositional datives (Albizu 1997b). Pronominal accusatives and datives must ordinarily cliticize or, if focussed, be clitic-doubled strong pronouns. Under the PCC repair uniquely unfocussed nondoubled pronouns emerge, as in French (Bonet 1994: 43), while other clitic problems cannot be repaired in this fashion (Bonet 1991: 201–4). A significant difference with French emerges in which pronoun is targeted by this repair: the dative pronoun ordinarily, and for some speakers always as in French (Albizu 1997b), but for others either dative or accusative if both are 1st/2nd person (Bonet 1991: 203) (cf. Simpson 1983: 193f. for Warlpiri). The reasons plausibly lie in another difference with French: 3rd person accusatives differ from datives in clitic and nonclitic form and in doubling conditions, but 1st/2nd person are identical in all respects to datives (Ormazabal and Romero 2010a). It remains to be explained why 1/2.ACC can be targeted by the repair only when the dative is itself 1/2.DAT, not 3.DAT; see Section 5.8 for related discussion of Georgian.
- 5.
The description is resumed from Rezac (2009), where further details are given.
- 6.
In French datives in the prepositional construction are still defective PPs, unable to host pronouns, in contrast to locative and PCC-repair dative ones in the same position that are full PPs. In Eastern Basque the matter remains to be investigated, but a dialectal difference in the binding of emphatic anaphora suggests that dialects may differ on this (Albizu 2001): full PPs in Rebuschi's (1995) variété restreinte, defective ones in his variété élargie.
- 7.
For prepositional datives in unaccusatives, Eastern Basque can omit agreement as in transitives; in Western Basque the facts are unclear and interact with a tendency to replace them by full PPs like allatives. For theories of agreeing prepositional datives, which are thereby automatically immune to the PCC like French locative clitics, see Baker (1996: 9.3.2), and Rezac (2008a, 2009, forthcoming) building on O'Herin (2000, 2001).
- 8.
I gloss over whether an A'-extracted dative passes through [Spec, TP] always, never, or only when the nominative stays in-situ, and about the precise target and mechanism of the raising of the nominative when the dative undergoes A'-extraction. Here it suffices that it bypass the trace of a dative, as the adverb þá shows. See further Rezac (2008c: 89–91) and references there.
- 9.
These difficult issues deserve a great deal more. Other solutions exist that presently seem more mechanical (Rezac 2007: Appendix). I add some remarks towards eventual further exploration.
In the role of overt agreement in the PCC, the present proposal accords with the conclusions drawn from the observation that absolutives in nonfinite nonagreeing clauses escape the PCC (Perlmutter 1971: 93 for Warlpiri, Bonet 1991: 190f. for Georgian, Laka 1993a: 27 for Basque). This assumes that the PCC should occur in nonfinite clauses, which is unclear (Rezac 2009, Boeckx 2008: 98 note 4), and faces ambivalent Icelandic evidence (Boeckx 2003, ex. 24, Sigurðsson 2004: 155 note 14, Bobaljik 2008: 319 note 27, Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008: 271, 276 note 29). The notion overt must include certain cases of zero exponence (Bonet 1991: 190, Albizu 1997a: note 8).
Probes that do not need to be valued are close to pure Case-assigning probes (Albizu 1997b), but keep to Chomsky's (2000a) hypothesis that phi-probes drive the Agree/Case system. Parameterization might be in phi-specification: nonagreeing probes might be a minimal [phi] only (cf. Rezac 2004b); see Anagnostopoulou's (2003: 5.6) for a not unrelated parameter). A key issue that needs better understanding is 3SG nonagreement with low 3PL.NOM, perhaps always attribuable to intervention: in English and French (Schütze 1997: 4.1.6, 1999; Sobin 1997, Chomsky 2000a: 149 note 90, Den Dikken 2001, Rezac 2004a: Chapter 5), Finnish (Section 5.6), Icelandic (Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008, Kučerová 2007), Basque (Rezac 2006: 3.6), and Warlpiri (Perlmutter 1971: 91ff.).
The following sketches one possibility for the interaction of the internal Agree/Case system of a PCC-immune pronoun and that of the clause. As in Déchaine and Wiltschko (2002), the pronoun is built from a core N and a higher head Φ with interpretable phi-features. DP-internal Agree/Case licenses at least the [+person] of Φ. Options from this point depend on whether the DP-internal Agree/Case licenses all of Φ or only [+person], whether partial or full Agree turns the DP into a phase (Section 5.4), and if so, how (some of) their phi-features are transmitted to the edge, by Move to [Spec, TP] or Agree with D (cf. Rezac 2008a on PPs). The outcome must be such that the clausal Agree/Case system see some phi-features on the DP, which will be a goal for Case assignment, even if already licensed in the DP and incapable of valuing the clausal probe (cf. multiple Case assignment, McCreight 1988, Yoon 1996, Béjar and Massam 1998, Rezac 2003; cf. notes 21, 29, 49). The result would look like his GEN /him ACC -self ACC , the possessor with DP-internal genitive and clausal accusative, resolved in English according to dialect. For pronouns invisible to clausal Agree/Case, see Rezac (2008c: Appendix); cf. Baker (2008: 109).
- 10.
The opacity of datives to agreement varies across closely related varieties of Basque (Rezac 2008ab), perhaps Romance (D'Alessandro and Roberts 2010: note 1, Haiman and Benincà 1992: 139f.), along with unclear ‘facilitation’ effects of a nonagreeing dative on agreement across it (for Icelandic, see Holmberg and Hróarsdóttir 2003: 1001, Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008, for Basque, Etxepare 2005, Preminger 2009, for Greek, Anagnostopoulou 2003: 202).
- 11.
The evaluation of Baker's proposal must include various inversion constructions with low subjects. In English, locative inversion seems to place the fronted PP in an A-position (Bresnan 1994, Collins 1997, Culicover and Levine 2001) and resists all nominative pronouns (Bresnan 1994: 86). Some inversions do show the absence of person agreement specifically (on French, see Bonami and Godard 2001, Rezac 2004a: Chapter 5, 2010b; cf. Chomsky 2000a: 149 note 90, Schütze 1997: 4.1.6). Others do not, as Icelandic (19) or postverbal subjects in Czech, not to be simply set aside by assuming that the 1st/2nd person is really in [Spec, TP] (Baker 2008: 89 note 17), unless it can be shown that it licenses elements like floating quantifiers (Rezac 2010b).
- 12.
Among the evidence for the [+person] of applicative arguments (dative or not) is:
(i) Morpheme overtness, ordering, and coocurrence restrictions (Anagnostopoulou 2003: 270–2; Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2002, Rezac 2008 a,b,c; Section 4.2).
(ii) The syntax of clitic doubling: in Spanish all datives pattern with 1st/2nd person accusatives in doubling without specificity restrictions (Ormazabal and Romero 2010a).
(iii) Interpretation: the possession restriction, We sent them /? the conference our abstracts (Adger and Harbour 2007: 4.2, 4.3.1), the absence of inanimate applicatives in Mohawk (Baker 1996: 238 note 2); the subtler facts of French (Section 4.2) that suggest [+person] is not related to animacy but rather Burston's (1983) Individuation or Boeckx's (2000: 3.4.3, 3.4.4, and 3.4.5) Point-of-View.
(iv) Subject-object person-hierarchy interactions, where an applicative dative behaves like 3rd person proximate and not obviative direct object (Rosen 1990: 2.3; see Section 3.4).
- 13.
A straightforward alternative is that datives block all higher phi-Agree, not only [+person], and there is an extra number probe below them, say on the applicative head Appl, whose valuation percolates up to T, perhaps by T-(v-)Appl Agree; see Section 5.6.3 languages with such a probe, and cf. Sigurðsson (2006), Sigurðson and Holmberg (2008) for Icelandic. Various works are close to the [+person] intervention view sketched here, with differences on how to achieve selective visibility of the dative to phi-Agree, the mechanics of intervention, or the problem to which Agree with the dative gives rise for the other [+person] argument: Adger and Harbour (2007); Ormazabal and Romero (1998, 2002); Den Dikken (2004); Richards (2004: 4.3.2.1); Nevins (2007), Boeckx (2000), Schütze (2003), Sigurðsson and Holmberg (2008). Recent work extends the set of interveners beyond datives to possessors and ergatives in ways compatible with the Agree/Case approach, Rezac (2008a: 119), Baker (2008: 92), Shklovsky (2009), Artiagoitia (2009), Karimi (2010), and to other contexts, Richards (2005).
- 14.
The PCC also applies to arguments of distinct predicates in Romance clitic climbing, both of the limited French type in causatives (Section 4.5) and the more general Spanish type (García 2001, cf. Rivas 1977, Contreras 1979, Luján 1980, Bok Bennema 1981), and analogues in Basque (Etxepare 2003, Rezac 2008c) and Czech (Rezac 2005, Dotlačil 2004: 80f.). PCC in the Spanish constructions and potential PCC repairs in them remain to be properly explored.
- 15.
The formulation of the condition sets aside possible interarboreal (sideways) relations (Nunes 2001). Successive-cyclic movement does not obey the condition, because it can only occur if it can be continued up to a terminal position, Bošković (2002: Section 4, 2007). On Bošković's (2002) proposal, landing at intermediate sites is a reflex of movement to the final site. On Chomsky's (2000a, 2001) alternative that Bošković also discusses, successive-cyclic movement would fall under the mechanism ℜ developed for PCC repairs, as discussed in Section 5.9. The inverse issue would arise in Multiple Agree of a probe with several goals (cf. notes 21, 29, 49), if Agree with a closer goal needed to crucially refer to the outcome of Agree with a farther goal. Presently, such reference seems either illusory (for the T/v-(participle)-NOM/ACC-(participle) configurations of Chomsky 2001, 2008, see Frampton et al. 2000, Pesetsky and Torrego 2007), or advantageously formulable as the local outcome of the former Agree relation alone, e.g. whether valuation of the probe takes place, does not take place, or is impossible (cf. Anagnostopoulou 2003 for T/v-DAT-NOM/ACC, Bobaljik and Branigan 2006 on C-ERG-ABS).
- 16.
Minimize Structure derives from Minimize α and assumptions about the lexicon and base-generation. In derivational terms, syntax base-generates for each lexical category in the syntactic lexicon its full extended projection, e.g. the CP of the verb, and to it Erase-α applies up to crash with respect to a given interpretation (prior to chain-formation, or equivalently at chain-feet).
- 17.
Distinct is the issue of how features legible only to a given external module are made invisible to other modules to meet Full Interpretation (Chomsky 1995: 4.1). They might be inserted ‘late’, after spell-out to their corresponding module, but only when not used in syntax; others must be replaced, for instance interpretable phi-features by their PF exponents, by a translation operation at the interface, Vocabulary Insertion (Halle and Marantz 1993, Bobaljik 2000, Fox 2000); see Section 6.3 on the LF analogue.
- 18.
For the force of the Case Filter, see Section 5.9.
- 19.
Section 5.9 returns briefly to Case Filter effects; for the phenomena that fall under the (Inverse) Case Filter, see Pesetsky (1982: 2.5), Chomsky (1986b), Baker (1988), Chomsky and Lasnik (1995), Bošković (1997, 2002), Lasnik (2008). For the Inverse Case Filter constraining impersonal passives like (40)b, see Rezac (2004a: Chapter 5), but cf. also Pesetsky (1982: 2.5).
- 20.
Phi/Case valuation may go together intrinsically (Frampton and Gutmann 1999), or because Agree maximizes valuations as soon as it relates two lexical items (Rezac 2004b). The [Case:] feature of DPs might be able to probe as well, depending on how the relationship of phi and Case is understood. However, [Case:] might never be in a position where it could find a goal. If a head can probe only within its maximal projection, neither N nor D can ever see into the clause, save for a bare D, cf. Chomsky (2000a: 125, 2001: 16). N might probe its CP/IP complement, but this fails if CPs are phases and Ns do not take IP (raising, ECM) complements because they cannot assign Case, *John's appearance to leave (Chomsky 1986b: 3.5.2.5; cf. Abney 1987, Sichel 2007). On a proper understanding of the phi-Case link depends the possibility that other probes than phi establish the Agree needed for Case assignment (Rezac 2004b).
- 21.
To understand matters better, partial agreement with case-agreement mismatches seem a promising domain (Rezac 2003, 2004a: Chapter 5). If datives that intervene in the PCC need Case licensing, the same probe values [Case:] both to the dative and to a lower DP. The [Case] of the probe is interpretable and can be given multiple times (cf. notes 48, 29, 9). Agree with the dative occurs for [person], with the lower DP for [number], and to both Case is assigned. Cf. Chomsky (2001: 17f., 2008: 142) for the configuration v [Case:ACC] … participle [Case:] … DP [Case:] . An overt reflex might be multiple Case assignment stacking NOM/ACC on top of DAT, on which see Yoon (1996) (but cf. Schütze 2001).
- 22.
By affecting the numeration and creating a new derivational path, ℜ differs from a constraint on the numeration that makes sure that there is a probe for every item that needs it, Heck and Müller's (2003) Phase Balance for (46). However, the two concepts are related.
- 23.
In this terminology, numeration replaces the lexical array of Chomsky (2000a). It seems innocuous, since the global mechanisms of Chomsky (1995 et seq.) like Merge-over-Move hold over what Chomsky (2000a) calls lexical arrays; contrast Heck and Müller's (2003) Phase Balance that specifically depends on the entire numeration of a sentence, not a phase. Other work continuously accesses the lexicon with no numeration, and uses workspace for the structures progressively built from it (Collins 1997, 2002, Frampton and Gutmann 1999).
- 24.
The notion of the cycle for this purpose is to be distinguished from other uses of the term. For instance, the Earliness Principle might require a probe to Agree upon Merge, or as soon as possible in the derivation, or while it is the label, which will dynamically restrict its search-space to certain objects such as its sister or its maximal projection. This is does not say anything about the possibility of building up other structures or the Agree of other probes at the same time, so a probe on T can be restricted to the TP while contemporaneously (co-cyclically) C is Merged with the TP and its probe builds [Spec, CP]. For discussion of the search-space of a probe, cf. Chomsky (1995: e.g. 234f., 2000a: 132ff.), Richards (1999), Rezac (2003), Béjar and Rezac (2009).
- 25.
Other work seeks precisely the opposite reduction, of intervention to phasehood, Müller (2004). Reasons to think that feature-relativized intervention is ineliminable rest in Rizzi's (1990) separation of locality condition on A- and A'-movement, as in (i). For the phi/Case/A-movement system, an applicative object is an intervener in (i-a), but A'-extraction does not see it in (i-b). Abandonment of impenetrability would be required here if phases were downsized, to the XP in Müller (2004), or to every operation in Epstein and Seely (2002). A failed Transfer must then be tolerated if some Transfer later converges, which again seems compatible with what follows.
(i)
a. Hervori was given t i Tyrving.
b. Whatj was Hervori given t i t j?
- 26.
The purpose of this discussion is to highlight the distinctive character of structural Case. It does not preclude various possibilities for inherent Case, including unification with structural Case. Consider movement to the nonthematic object of a preposition known from Irish (McCloskey 1984) and English (i) (Postal 2003: Chapter 2). It seems implementable through P-DP Agree and Move, the same mechanisms as for structural Case (Runner 2006: 206f., Rezac 2006: Chapter 3). Yet the outcome is a DP in phrase-structurally local relationship to P and embedded in a PP that plausibly prevents further structural Case assignment. If the P is a prepositional complementizer, we get the oblique case often assigned to the subjects of nonfinite or modal structures, under a local but nonthematic relationship to a high functional head such as C, analogous to a prepositional complementizer in terms of its relationship to (i) (Moore and Perlmutter 2000, Sigurðsson 2002, Franks and Lavine 2006, but see McCloskey 2005 for its assignment at a distance). If instead of P we take v or a head selected by it, the outcome is the dative of Icelandic direct objects, dependent on v to which it bears no thematic relation, unlike the dative of indirect objects (Svenonius forthcoming; Sigurðsson 2010). True inherent Case might differ only in P selecting its DP and Merging with it without Move.
(i)
Don't count on there to be that many supporters in the organization.
(Postal 2003: 92)
- 27.
For more on Basque raising, see Rezac (2008a), Albizu (2009), and for Basque generally, Section 5.6. There is idiolectal variation in Basque on the availability of copy-raising (Argiatoigita 2001a, b) and more so for remote agreement, as in English (Potsdam and Runner 2001). The structural character of the ergative does not bar relating it to prepositional cases through a high clausal head akin to a prepositional complementizer, cf. note 26 and Rezac (2006). For evidence from dative interference that the ergative is higher than the dative, see Rezac (2008a: 4.4).
- 28.
Other instances of the emergence of dependent Case without selectional relationships will be seen in Section 5.6. See Harley (1995: 4.2) for discussion of the other original justification of dependent Case: the insensitivity of nominative to structural positions, so that it falls to the highest Caseless DP in the domain of T while the next lower one gets accusative (cf. Yip et al. 1987, Maling 1993). It loses its force with the replacement of spec-head checking by Agree. Distinct from dependent Case is default Case, accusative in English, nominative in Icelandic, absolutive in Basque, assigned at realization in configurations independently licensed for the Case Filter (Schütze 2001, Quinn 2005, cf. Bitter and Hale's 1996 structural oblique).
- 29.
Quite different is the proposal of Levin and Massam (1984) and Laka (2000) to enrich probe types so as to distinguish those that need (obligatory) and need not (dependent) find a goal. The proposal refers to a Case competitor only indirectly, like the one to be developed here. Discussion of it is deferred to Section 5.9.
A property that differentiates Marantz's morphological algorithm from all other dependent Case approaches is that it does not rely on available Agree/Case loci, and so it can assign dependent Case to multiple DPs, while the obligatory Case should be unique (cf. Katzir 2007, Legate 2008 for discussion). The empirical domain is complex. Agree might allow multiple Case assignment under certain circumstances, perhaps up to the DP that values the probe, visible as case concord, stacking, or spreading (Maling 1993, Maling and Sprouse 1995, Yoon 1996, Schütze 2001, cf. notes 48, 29, 21, 9); see note 49 for an instance. Here both the obligatory and the dependent Cases behave alike. A wholly distinct domain is applicative constructions. Some are asymmetric like English, but in others the applicative object and S/O are simultaneously symmetric for case, agreement, and A-movement (Bresnan and Mochi 1990, MacKay and Trechsel 2008). Such recursion seems to be of object Case, not dependent Case, and best stated as the availability of Appl/P as an extra Agree/Case locus, with parametric variation in its probe: see Section 5.6.
- 30.
Similar comments apply if cyclicity is implemented as the Earliness Principle that a probe seek to Agree as soon as possible. Modification of already constructed structure is not prohibited, even though lexically-specified probes will never be embedded prior to Agreeing (Rezac 2003).
- 31.
If the prepositional complementizer of infinitives is a potential Agree/Case locus activable by ℜ, it could subsume the causee dative, under Kayne’s (2004) analysis where the dative is due to the complementizer. Nevertheless, the causee dative of Romance seems an unlikely candidate for dependent Case, given its interpretive correlates and failure to alternate (Section 4.5).
- 32.
The dependent Case approach is sometimes held to be predicated on the absence of raising to ergative/accusative, as in Marantz’s (2000) original proposal, but that only demands a silent competitor. More complex, in any approach, is cross-clausal agreement with a goal agreeing and Case-licensed in another clause, (55)c (cf. Section 3.2). One possibility is that a CP transparent to external Agree gets the Case that goes with that Agree, obligatory or dependent, perhaps as a condition on its transparency in the first place, and then counts as the Case competitor.
- 33.
Among useful references are: case and agreement: Laka (1993ab), Oyharçabal (1992, 1999), Albizu (2002), Rezac (2003), Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003), EA/O/S positions: Ortiz de Urbina (1989), Oyharçabal (1992, 1999); applicative and prepositional datives: Elordieta (2001); Etxepare and Oyharçabal (2008a,b), Etxepare (2010); PCC in applicative but not prepositional constructions, Albizu (1997a,b, 2009), Rezac (2008c, 2009, forthcoming); absolutive displacement, Rezac (2008c, 2009, forthcoming), Agirre (2004), Arregi (2004), Arregi and Nevins (2008).
- 34.
See Rezac (2008c) for details: dialectal distribution; vacillation in the case of overt S (always ergative in agreement) due to the spellout of the multiple Case and agreement that S gets through v ABS for number and TERG; the details of the raising construction; and the interaction with other phenomena such as ‘dative displacement’, which tend to favour the form nauzu for didazu in some varieties. See also Arregi and Nevins (2008) on many of these points.
- 35.
There are several alternatives for both Basque and Icelandic for the exact configuration in which T Agrees with the derived S: Spec-Head as in (75), or under T raising, or T is really Fin, or S lands below T as adopted in (77) below. See further Rezac (2008c: 82f.).
- 36.
If it were desirable that S stay in-situ in the vP, it would have to be assumed that a crashed Transfer at v permits the derivation to continue (as seems plausible, Section 5.4), or that Transfer of the v-complement is delayed until C (Chomsky 2001). However, there is evidence that S raises to the edge of the unaccusative vP in Basque (Rezac 2008c: 4.4). Also discussed in Rezac (2008c) is evidence that partial v-S number Agree results in absolutive assignment to S and licensing of the number of S, leaving person unlicensed. Such relativization of Case to phi-features and multiple Case are compatible with the present approach to the PCC (Section 5.2).
- 37.
Typically gustuko(a) zaitut/ditut lit. ‘I have you/them pleasing’, independent of the PCC.
- 38.
The Chinook analogue of absolutive displacement was pointed out to me by D. Harbour, p.c.
- 39.
Usually the ergative series = absolutive series + k, but there are opaque forms like 3SGM.E č. The O-S-IO identity holds across all phi-features, including allomorphies (1SG n → Ø and 2DU/2PL nš/nt → impersonal q in the context of 2nd person O/IO, both contiguous, and noncontiguous in EA1-O-IO2). The exception is 3DU and 3PL, where S agreement has an extra suffix compared with O/IO agreement. For a similar exception in Itelmen, Bobaljik (2000 note 10) suggests that the realization of the O agreement marker is sensitive to the presence of EA. It is unclear whether S under thematization below uses S or O affixes in 3DU/PL.
- 40.
The PCC and thematization extend (partly?) to 3SGM animate S: ‘for third person animate nominative and third person indirect object, there is a tendency among speakers’ for the PCC and thematization to occur (Silverstein 1986: 193). Thus *š-i-l- √ Ĥa 3du-3sm-Appl-√stink → č-š-l- √ Ĥ a 3smE-3du. For animacy as a locus of [+person] variation, see Chapter 6 and Finnish below.
- 41.
Some Basque varieties mix this and the foregoing applicative patterns: a dative controls absolutive agreement, and an extra number-only probe appears for the remaining S/O, with the PCC: see Rezac (2006, 2008a,b) for Basque and cross-linguistically. S still raises to satisfy the EPP and ergativizes, (Rezac 2008c: 80 note 13, 85 note 14, forthcoming). This continues to follow from whatever property renders specifically datives unavailable to satisfy the EPP in Basque.
- 42.
The three systems discussed here belong to the group that treats the internal arguments of an applicative construction asymmetrically. In symmetric languages, multiple accusative and absolutive relations are available (Bresnan and Kanerva 1990 on Kichaga; MacKay and Trechsel 2008 on Misantla Totonac). One approach to them is through a full probe on the head Appl of applicatives or its P source (see note 7).
- 43.
The accusative is morphologically distinctive only for [+person] pronouns, suffix –t, otherwise it is syncretic with the genitive -n in the singular, and with the nominative -t in the plural, as well as for (morphologically singular) numerals from three up. The syncretism counts for ellipsis (Kiparsky 2001), as expected for case syncretisms (McCreight 1988), but it should not be viewed as the absence of a syntactic accusative relation (Brattico and Vainikka 2009, cf. Maling 1993). The nominative-accusative syncretism is ancient or aboriginal, the accusative-genitive one comes from a more recent merger of acc. –m and gen. –n (Hakulinen 1961: 67f.).
- 44.
This is a common locus of variation in [+person], discussed in Chapter 6. It is suggested there that [+person] specification is cued by the morphology. Finnish 1st/2nd and 3rd human pronouns have distinctive morphological parallelisms: cf. 1st person – 3rd human – 3rd nonhuman NOM.SG minä – hän – se, ACC.SG min- ut – hän- et – se-n, NOM/ACC.PL me- idät – he- idät – ne. (Kuka ‘who’ behaves as a [+person] pronoun if bare but as noun/adjective if modified.) The 3rd person default pronouns are used for nonhumans, as well as for humans in various contexts.
- 45.
It is possible to A'-front a PP over an agreeing nominative subject to give the informationally marked Huoneessa olet sinä ‘In.the.room are.2SG you.NOM’; thus from (87)b of accompaniment or temporary possession Minulla olet sinä ‘I have you (with me)’, in contrast to plain possession Minulla on sinut ‘I have you’. See Hakulinen and Karlsson (1975: 4.2), Itkonen (1974: 385f.), Toivainen (1993: 121), Sands and Campbell (2001: 293).
- 46.
On Finnish pro arb, cf. Holmberg (forthcoming), Holmberg et al. (1993: 189f.); on its interaction with the binding properties of the object, Kiparsky (2001: 353f.), Manninen and Nelson (2004). There are reasons to think that when the object of the passive is preverbal, it is not in [Spec, TP] but in an A'-position (cf. Hakulinen and Karlsson 1975: 345, but contrast Manninen and Nelson 2004). This assumption is not necessary to exclude a derivation like Icelandic (20)b. Pro arb not only intervenes in [+person] Agree, but also appears to raise or attach to T, where it is reflected as the special invariant agreement morphology of the Finnish passive and in the Italian T-clitic si, and where it is always the closest goal for T (cf. Rezac 2008c: 93f.). Mechanically similar to the Finnish passive is the Finnish imperative with the addressee as intervener (Rezac 2007). (D’Alessandro proposes that Italian si reflects the syntactically projected impersonal agent in both agreeing and nonagreeing si constructions, but is Merged at a different height in two; I simplify.)
- 47.
The oblique argument seems attributable in some cases to the matrix predicate (Kiparsky 2001: 334, followed in Rezac 2007), in others it is clearly the genitive or other oblique subject of the infinitive (Laitinen and Vilkuna 1993: 3.1; Maling 1993: 54 note 8; Koskinen 1998, 2000; Vainikka 1989: 303f.; Brattico and Vainikka 2009: ex. 30). The oblique can be silent but syntactically active pro generic, distinct from pro arb (Rezac 2007: 132 note 20; Holmberg forthcoming). It is detectable by preventing 3PL nominative from agreeing even when fronted, Lehmät pitää tuoda kotiin ‘The cows(NOM) must.3SG bring (=be brought) home’ (Laitinen and Vilkuna 1993, in their dialectal Lehmät (for Lehmien) pitää tulla ‘cows.NOM (for cows.GEN) must.3SG come’, cf. Kiparsky 2001: 359, there might be an expletive pro). There is no satisfactory theory of which infinitives are transparent, although it often goes with genitive/possessive subject (Kiparsky 2001: 356f.; but Vainikka 1989: 303f.; Brattico and Vainikka 2009). Also to be addressed are independent subjectless infinitives in subject, adjunct, and noun complement positions that allow or require nominative objects (Hakulinen and Karlsson 1975: 343f.; Taraldsen 1986, Sakuma 1998, 1999, Hakulinen et al. 2004: §937–§940; Brattico and Vainikka 2009, cf. Maling 1993: 70 note 19). The logic would suggest that they have TNOM and an oblique subject PROarb (q.v. Moore and Perlmutter 2000). This seems confirmed by North Russian and Lithuanian parallels (Lavine 2000: 265).
- 48.
Finnish nonagreeing nominative/accusative may recurse across multiple DPs through transparent infinitives: Maija pyysi Jukan lukemaan kirja n ‘Maija-NOM asked Jukka-ACC to.read book-ACC’ vs. Pyydä Jukka lukemaan kirj a ‘Ask Jukka-NOM to.read book-NOM’ (Vainikka 1989: 267f., Kiparsky 2001: 356, Hakulinen et al. 2004: §936, Reime 1993: 102 note 9, and esp. Brattico 2009: 90, but perhaps distinct from the partitive recursion discussed there, which occurs over greater distances and has alternatives analyses). It suggests that a locus may Agree with multiple DPs until valued, so the nonagreeing low nominative is a Case assigned without valuation. If so, Section 5.2 (note 9) requires more to be said about why the PCC occurs with such a nominative.
- 49.
The Finnish nominative object patterns have close areal analogues in North Russian and Lithuanian, bringing confirming or converging evidence, including for the low position of the nonagreeing nominative; see Lavine (2000: Chapter 4). Most analyses of Finnish cited in the introduction to this section share the present basis of nominative assignment to the highest DP, agreeing if sufficiently high, nonagreeing otherwise (cf. Kiparsky 2001, Maling 1993, Timberlake 1975). Relating the alternation of the nonagreeing nominative and [+person] accusative to the PCC is based on Rezac (2007), drawing on Icelandic and Italian as well as the ergative and accusative repairs in Table 5.1. The usual alternative is that the accusative realizes the low, nonagreeing nominative on [+person] pronouns (sometimes related to hierarchies, Kiparsky 2001: Section 5.3; cf. Maling 1993: 52 note 2). Under Baker’s (2008) approach to the PCC (Section 5.2), the matter is empirically moot: the PCC is due to staying low, whether because of an intervener or for some other reason. The present analysis may then proceed in the same manner to provide repair. An alternative view is that the nonagreeing nominative is a realization of the accusative; see Brattico and Vainikka (2009) on Finnish, Lavine (2000: 4.4), Franks and Lavine (2006: 5.3, for objects of infinitives only) on North Russian and Lithuanian.
- 50.
Strong and clitic pronouns have a different syntax (Section 4.4), but that is orthogonal to their realization: it arises from being inside a full PP or not, outside or inside the VP, or having extra structure around the pronominal core, all of which is independent of how the pronominal core is realized, in clitic form within the CP, in or as part of the strong form in the PP.
- 51.
It may be that modification and coordination structures are created at Transfer by adjunction of independently convergent phases (Chomsky 2004). The attempt to adjoin the two convergent phases Elle vous parle ‘I you.A see’ and belle et souriante ‘beautiful and smiling’ then cannot attach the modifier to the clitic vous; perhaps the result of the attempt is apposition, Elle vous parle, belle et souriante. (The modifier autres is not a good candidate for this since it needs a D; its structure may rather be [this/youD othersN], which continues to make the point in the text.)
- 52.
The causative may illustrate an independent point about ℜ. Suppose that the infinitive InfP of this type of causative is a phase (Bobaljik and Branigan 2006). Cliticization out of it must then proceed through the edge of InfP in (102). Once the edge is built, InfP transfers, and it along with its edge is embedded in the matrix phase. At this point the clitic proceeds into the matrix clause, but in (102) it is trapped below the accusative causee. ℜ can now do nothing, even if the problem with the clitic were repairable by strengthening the dative to a full PP. The resulting PP cannot be put back inside the already transferred InfP phase, and it cannot remain in its intermediate position, as Bošković (2002: 136–8) shows for successive-cyclic movement generally (cf. Who has said (*what) Mary ate (what)?) This entails that even if the ban (99)c on mediopassive se + dative clitic were to fall under PCC in (i), where pro arb blocks T-DAT Agree necessary for DAT licensing (Sections 4.6 and 4.7), the DAT is irreparable if the v is a phase.
(i)
TNOM [edge pro arb (*DATclitic) NOM v mediopassive [… t DAT [V t NOM]]]
- 53.
The PCC repairs of Georgian are compared with Basque and French in Rezac (2009).
- 54.
1st/2nd person O and IO are thus particularly close because they do not overtly mark case and control the same person prefix. They remain differentiated as structural vs. inherent Case in detransitivizations, where IO retains IO/O-type agreement, while O comes to control S-type agreement (the EA/S prefix series and subject suffixes). 3rd person IO uses a prefix that combines in principle with 1st/2nd person EA/S, e.g. 1st person EA v- + 3rd person IO s/h-, but not with 1st/2nd person O by the PCC. For the most part however, only one of the 1/2.EA/S and 3.IO agreement prefixes surfaces (Rezac 2008b: 721 note 21 and references there, adding Boeder 2005: 28f.; Tuite 1998: 89; cf. 74f. for S-IO, 2008: 157). The combination of IO and S occurs in unaccusatives and detransitivizations. The PCC does not occur in such structures, which indicates that S has access to person agreement. In Georgian S does raise higher than O for the purposes of agreement because it aligns with EA not O (Rezac 2008c: 92 note 21), but 1st/2nd IO beats 1st/2nd S for the control of the agreement prefix and some c-command purposes (Harris 1981, McGinnis 1997). The relevant person agreement that permits S to avoid the PCC might rather be seen in the subject agreement suffixes, which S (like EA) and not IO (like O) controls; they exhibit person distinctions (Aronson 1989: 42f., 470; Hewitt 1995: 226ff.; Boeder 2005: 27 (e)).
- 55.
French has focused 1st/2nd person pronouns that may not need Agree, but several properties bar them as repairs: their δ may be lexically specified as focussed, they may not be 3SG, and they require clitic-doubling if 1st/2nd person which is unavailable in a PCC context (Kayne 2000: Chapter 9 shows the pronouns are unavailable when clitic doubling is impossible). Arabic might have a repair on the direct object in ditransitives by a special strong pronoun (Bonet's 1991: 206f.; citing Fassi-Fehri 1988). However, Fassi-Fehri's (1993: 3.1.2) discussion indicates that the strong pronouns in question are available for a number of other uses, leaving it unclear if and when they are repairs. Rosen (1990: 692–7) extends tavization to an apparent PCC repair in Southern Tiwa. The reflexive of a plain transitive looks like an intransitive. When an applicative object is added, the PCC would block reflexives for 1st/2nd person, as for intransitives generally in that language. An otherwise unavailable reflexivization steps in, which Rosen analyzes a regular transitive with O coded as the 3rd person noun ‘self’. This might fit if the language has self/head-type reflexives like Basque and Georgian, but their δ is not an active Agree/Case locus so they do not surface ordinarily; the PCC repair activates it and lets them emerge.
- 56.
Related to these issues appears to be the crosslinguistic tendency for 1st/2nd person to require agreement or clitic doubling where that of 3rd person can be suspended, including in PCC contexts (see Simpson 1983: 193f. for Warlpiri). However, this is absolute, not relative to another argument. Moreover, in French this 1st/2nd–3rd asymmetry exists (Morin 1982, Kayne 2000: Chapter 9), but does not prevent the PCC repair from targeting 1st/2nd person datives.
- 57.
I adapt Laka's checking terminology to Agree. The [±active] distinction does not reduce to the [±strong] distinction of Chomsky (1995), now Agree vs. Move, or Move pre vs. post Transfer.
- 58.
It remains to be developed, since no attempt has been made here to examine the plausibility of blocking [–active] probes by the needs of [+active] ones whenever empirically undesirable.
- 59.
Table 5.5 also indicates the need of tools for parametrizing the person hierarchies, developed in Béjar and Rezac (2009). Analogous parametrization does not occur in the PCC because applied object always stops a higher probe (Béjar and Rezac 2009: 46 note 6, Section 3.4), save if the lower object belongs to the same point on the hierarchy. These apparently vary in being treated as non-PCC/direct or PCC/inverse contexts, giving the so-called weak vs. strong PCC (Nevins 2007, Anagnostopoulou 2005, but see Section 4.6 for qualms about its existence). Further EA-O interactions reveal much additional but here irrelevant complexity, for instance transitives with different loci for person and number, EA-O person interaction for v in a system with person probes on T and v, etc.; see Béjar (2003), Rezac (2003), Béjar and Rezac (2009).
- 60.
Comparably to the extension of the Stray Affix Filter from the morphological need of affixes to attach to stems to all overt and covert head movement in Chomsky (1995).
- 61.
The view of (117) as a (PF) legibility problem relates to Ormazabal and Romero (2002) proposal that feature mismatch cancels the derivation (cf. Chomsky 1995: 233–5, 262f., 281, 308f.). Sigurðsson and Holmberg’s (2008) analysis suggests rather that (117) is a PF-internal problem remediable by syncretisms, albeit not fully (Sigurðsson 1996: ex. 68–70) (cf. Boeckx 2000, Schütze 2003). However, empirically PCC repairs do not occur for PF-interal problems like agreement or clitic gaps (Sections 5.2 and 5.6). Other PF proposals are Albizu's (1997a) constraint on person prominence, and Bonami and Boyé's (2006: 304f.) condition on paradigm formation.
- 62.
For the latter point, cf. Heck and Müller's (2003) discussion of their Phase Balance.
- 63.
- 64.
It may seem that the difference between obligatory (lexically specified) and dependent (ℜ-created) Agree/Case relations would be lost if both reduced to ℜ. However, if Agree/Case reflected PF/LF requirement, obligatory Case loci could be supposed to have an interpretable requirement to relate to a DP, while the dependent Case loci to satisfy rather the requirement of a DP, paralleling the difference between interrogative and successive-cyclic C for wh-movement.
- 65.
References
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Adger, David. 1994. Functional heads and interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Adger, David. 1996. Economy and optionality. Probus 8: 117–135.
Adger, David. 2008. A minimalist theory of feature structures. Ms., Queen Mary, University of London.
Adger, David, and Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint. Syntax 10: 2–37.
Agirre, Julen Manterola. 2004. Datiboaren lekualdatzeaz. Ms., University of the Basque Country.
Albizu, Pablo. 1997a. Generalized person-case constraint: A case for a syntax-driven inflectional morphology. In Theoretical issues on the morphology-syntax interface, eds. Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Amaya Mendikoetxea, 1–33. Donostia: UPV/EHU.
Albizu, Pablo. 1997b. The syntax of person agreement. Ms., University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Albizu, Pablo. 2001. Datibo sintagmen izaera sintaktikoaren inguruan: eztabaidarako oinarrizko zenbait datu. In On Case and agreement, eds. Beatriz Fernández and Pablo Albizu, 49–69. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.
Albizu, Pablo. 2002. Basque verbal morphology: Redefining cases. In Erramu Boneta, eds. Xabier Artiagoitia, Patxi Goenaga, and Joseba A. Lakarra, 1–19. Bilbao: UPV/EHU
Albizu, Pablo. 2009. Construcciones inacusativas con dativos posesivos y dativos de interés en vasco. Handout of talks at LyCC, CSIC, May 11 2009, and UMR 5478, Bayonne, June 9 2009. On-line: http://www.ile.csic.es/linguistica/Albizu.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2010.
Albizu, Pablo, and Beatriz Fernández. 2006. Licit and illicit ERG-DAT pairings. In Andolin gogoan, eds. Beatriz Fernández and Itziar Laka, 69–96. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.
Albizu, Pablo, Ricardo Etxepare, and Milan Rezac. In preparation. The structural character of Basque ergative and the theory of Case. Ms., University of the Basque Country, IKER-UMR 5478/Bayonne, and CNRS UMR 7023/Université de Paris 8.
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional structure in nominals. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Amiridze, Nino. 2006. Reflexivization strategies in Georgian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2001. Two classes of double object verbs. In Progress in Grammar, eds. Marc van Oostendorp and Elena Anagnostopoulou. On-line: //www.meertens.nl/books/progressingrammar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions. In Clitic and affix combinations, eds. Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez, 199–235. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2008. Notes on the person case constraint in Germanic. In Agreement restrictions, eds. Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 15–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anand, Pranav, and Andrew Nevins. 2006. The locus of ergative assignment: Evidence from scope. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, eds. Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 3–26. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1984. On representations in morphology: Case, agreement and inversion in Georgian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 157–218.
Andrews, Avery. 1982. The representation of case in Modern Icelandic. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 427–503. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Andrews, Avery D. 1990. Unification of morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 507–557.
Aronson, Howard I. 1989. Georgian: A reading grammar. Columbus, OH: Slavica.
Arregi, Karlos. 2004. The have/be alternation in Basque. Ms., University of Illinois.
Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2008. A principled order to postsyntactic operations. Ms., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Harvard University. On-line: ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000646
Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2001a. Seemingly ergative and ergatively seeming. In Features and interfaces in Romance, eds. Julia Herschensohn, Enrique Mallén, and Karen Zagona, 1–22. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2001b. Irudiak eta emaileak. Ms., University of the Basque Country.
Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2009. Multiple genitive case in Basque and multiple checking. Ms., University of the Basque Country.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, Mark. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, Mark. forthcoming. When agreement is for number and gender but not person. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.
Barnes, Michael P. 1986. Subject, nominative, and oblique case in Faroese. Scripta Islandica 7: 13–46.
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Béjar, Susana, and Diane Massam. 1998. Multiple case checking. Syntax 2: 65–79.
Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, eds. Anna-Teresa Pérez-Leroux and Yves Roberge, 49–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2007. Cyclic agree. Ms., University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, and Université de Nantes. On-line: ling.auf.net/lingBuzz
Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35–73.
Belletti, Adriana, and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and Theta Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.
Bever, Thomas G. 2009. Remarks on the individual basis for linguistic structures. In Of minds and language, eds. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Juan Uriagereka, and Pello Salaburu, 278–298. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bitter, Maria, and Kenneth Hale. 1996. The structural determination of Case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1–68.
Bianchi, Valentina. 2006. On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116: 2023–2067.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1993. Ergativity and ergative unergatives. In Papers on case and agreement 2, MIT working papers in linguistics, ed. Colin Phillips, vol. 19, 45–88. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In University of Maryland working papers in linguistics 10, eds. Kleanthes K. Grohmann and Caro Struijke 35–71. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s phi? In Phi theory, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Phillip Branigan. 2006. Eccentric agreement and multiple case checking. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, eds. Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 47–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Susi Wurmbrand. 2002. Notes on agreement in Itelmen. Linguistic Discovery 1.1. On-line: linguistic-discovery.dartmouth.edu/WebObjects/Linguistics. Accessed September 14, 2010.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54: 354–380.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Intricacies of Icelandic agreement. Ms., Harvard University.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. The person-case constraint and patterns of exclusivity. In Agreement restrictions, eds. Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 87–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boeder, Winfried. 1968. Über die Versionen des georgischen Verbs. Folia Linguistica 2: 82–152.
Boeder, Winfried. 2002. Syntax and morphology of polysynthesis in the Georgian verb. In Problems of polysynthesis, eds. Nicholas Evans and Hans-Jürgen Sasse, 87–111. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Boeder, Winfried. 2005. The South Caucasian languages. Lingua 115: 5–89.
Bok-Bennema, Reineke. 1981. Clitics and binding in Spanish. In Levels of syntactic representation, edd. Jan Koster and Robert May, 9–32. Dordrecht: Foris.
Bonami, Olivier, and Gilles Boyé. 2006. French pronominal clitics and the design of paradigm function morphology. In On-line Proceedings of the 5th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5). University of Bologna. On-line: mmm.lingue.unibo.it/
Bonami, Olivier, and Danièle Godard. 2001. Inversion du sujet, constituance et ordre des mots. In Cahier Jean-Claude Milner, ed. Jean-Marie Marandin, 117–174. Paris: Verdier.
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1994. The person-case constraint: A morphological approach. In MIT Workinng Papers in Linguistics 22: The morphology-syntax connection, eds. Heidi Harley and Collin Phillips, 33–52. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Bošković, Željko. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5: 167–218.
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of move and agree. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 589–644.
Bošković, Željko. forthcoming. Last resort with move and agree in derivations and representations. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic Minimalism, ed. Cedric Boeckx. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brandt, Patrick. 2003. Constructing cipient predication. Doctoral dissertation, LOT.
Brattico, Pauli. 2009. Long-distance case assignment in Finnish and the theory of phases. Biolinguistica Fennica Working Papers 1: 79–104.
Brattico, Pauli, and Anne Vainikka. 2009. The accusative puzzle: Long distance case assignment and the AgrP in Finnish. Ms., University of Jyväskylä.
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal grammar. Language 70, 71–131.
Bresnan, Joan, and Jonni M. Kanerva. 1990. Locative inversion in Chicheŵa. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 1–50.
Bresnan, Joan, and Lioba Moshi. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 147–185.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Burston, Jack L. 1983. Clitic object sequences and cooccurrence restrictions in French. Linguistic Analysis 11: 247–75.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A Government-Binding approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø/CASTL.
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michael Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Carstens, Vicky. 2005. Agree and EPP in bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 219–279.
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. Rules and representations. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Knowledge of language. New York, NY: Praeger.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000a. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000b. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond, ed. Adriana Belletti, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in the language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces = recursion + language?, eds. Hans M. Gärtner and Uli Sauerland, 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory, eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2009. Opening remarks. In Of minds and language, eds. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Juan Uriagereka, and Pello Salaburu, 278–298. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1995. The theory of principles and parameters. In The minimalist program, ed. Noam Chomsky, 13–128. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chung, Sandra. 1998. The design of agreement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Collins, Christopher. 1997. Local economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collins, Christopher. 2002. Eliminating labels. In Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, eds. Samuel David Epstein and T. Daniel Seely, 42–64. Oxford: Blackwell.
Contreras, Heles. 1979. Clause reduction, the Saturation Constraint, and clitic promotion. Linguistic Analysis 5: 161–182.
Couquaux, Daniel. 1975. Une règle de réanalyse en français. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 4: 32–72.
Cuervo, Christina. 2003a. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Cuervo, María Christina. 2003b. Structural asymmetries but same word order: The dative alternation in Spanish. In Asymmetry in grammar, vol. 1, ed. Anne Marie Di Sciullo, 117–144. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 543–571.
Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Culicover, Peter, and Robert D. Levine. 2001. Stylistic inversion in English: A reconsideration. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 283–310.
D’Alessandro, Roberta. 2004. Impersonal si constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stuttgart.
D’Alessandro, Roberta, and Ian Roberts. 2010. Past participle agreement in Abruzzese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 41–72.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 1995b. Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2001. ‘Pluringulars’, pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18: 19–41.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2004. Agreement and ‘clause union’. In Verb clusters, eds. Kalalin É. Kiss and Henk van Riemsdijk, 445–98. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. Ms., City University of New York.
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1986. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dotlačil, Jakub. 2004. The syntax of infinitives in Czech. MA thesis, University of Tromsø.
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62: 808–845.
Elordieta, Arantzazu. 2001. Verb movement and constituent permutation in Basque. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden.
Embick, David, and Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 1–53.
Epstein, Samuel David, Erich Groat, Ruriko Kawashima, and Hisatsugu Kitahara. 1998. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Epstein, Samuel David, and T. Daniel Seely. 2002. Rule applications as cycles in a level-free syntax. In Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, eds. Samuel David Epstein and T. Daniel Seely, 65–89. Oxford: Blackwell.
Etxepare, Ricardo. 2003. Urruneko komunztadura eta menpeko infinitiboak euskaraz. Lapurdum 8: 167–206.
Etxepare, Ricardo. 2006. Number long distance agreement in (substandard) Basque. In Studies in Basque and Historical Linguistics in Memory Pf. R.L. Trask, Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” XL: 1–2, eds. Joseba Lakarra and Jose Ignacio Hualde, 303–350. Donostia: Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa.
Etxepare,Ricardo. 2010. Contact and change in a restrictive theory of parameters. Paper presented at Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, January 14–15, 2010.
Etxepare,Ricardo, and Beñat Oyharçabal.2008a. Bi datibo egitura ifar-ekialdeko zenbait hizkeratan. Handout from Aldaketak, aldaerak, bariazioak euskaran eta euskal testugintzan, IKER-UMR 5478, Bayonne, December 2008.
Etxepare,Ricardo, and Beñat Oyharçabal.2008b. Locational datives and dative agreement in the eastern dialects of Basque. Handout from European Dialect Syntax III, Venice, September 2008.
Fassi-Fehri, Abdelkader. 1988. Agreement in Arabic, binding and coherence. In Agreement in natural language, eds. Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson, 107–158. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Fassi-Fehri, Abdelkader. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 197–238.
Fox, Danny. 1995. Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics 3: 283–341.
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96.
Fox, Danny, and Martin Hackl. 2006. The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537–586.
Frampton, John, and Sam Gutmann. 1999. Cyclic computation, a computationally efficient minimalist syntax. Syntax 2: 1–27.
Frampton, John, Sam Gutmann, Julie Legate, and Charles Yang. 2000. Remarks on derivation by phase. Ms., Northeastern University and MIT.
Franks, Steven, and James E. Lavine. 2006. Case and word order in Lithuanian. Journal of Linguistics 42: 239–288.
Freidin, Robert. 1999. Cyclicity and minimalism. In Working Minimalism, eds. Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Freidin, Robert and Rex A. Sprouse. 1991. Lexical case phenomena. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin, 392–416. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
García, Erica C. 2001. The cognitive implications of unlike grammars: Variable clitic-clustering in Spanish vs. Italian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 102: 389–417.
Georgi, Doreen. 2009. Local modelling of global Case splits. MA thesis, University of Leipzig.
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Ivan A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative investigations. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Grimshaw, Jane. 2001. Optimal clitic positions and the lexicon in romance clitic systems. In Optimality-theoretic syntax, eds. Geraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner, 205–240. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hagstrom, Paul. 2003. What questions mean. Glot International 7: 188–201
Haiman, John, and Paola Benincà. 1992. The Rhaeto-Romance languages. London: Routledge.
Hakulinen, Lauri. 1961. The structure and development of the Finnish language. Bloomingon, IN: Indiana University Press.
Hakulinen, Auli, and Fred Karlsson. 1975. Suomen akkusatiivi: funtionaalinen näkökulma. Virittäjä 1975: 339–363.
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, and Tarja Riitta Heinonen ja Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi (web version 2008). On-line: scripta.kotus.fi/visk/etusivu.php.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20, eds. Kenneth Hale and Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Harris, Alice. 1981. Georgian syntax: A study in Relational Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Explaining the ditransitive person case constraint: A usage-based approach. Constructions 2. On-line: www.constructions-online.de/articles/35
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Ditransitive alignment splits. Ms., Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Heck, Fabian and Gereon Müller. 2003. Derivational optimization of wh-movement. Linguistic Analysis 33: 97–148.
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hewitt, B.G. 1995. Georgian: A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2010. Scrambling to the edge. Syntax 13: 133–165.
Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 445–483.
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533–5634.
Holmberg, Anders. forthcoming. The null generic subject pronoun in Finnish. In Passives and impersonals in European languages, eds. Elsi Kaiser, Satu Mannien, Katri Hiietam, and Virve Vihman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmberg, Anders, and Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2003. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113: 997–1019.
Holmberg, Anders, Urpo Nikanne, Irmeli Oraviitta, Hannu Reime, and Trond Trosterud. 1993. The structure of INFL and the finite clause in Finnish. In Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax, eds. Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne, 177–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Holmberg, Anders, and Urpo Nikanne. 2002. Expletives, subjects, and topics in Finnish. In Subjects, expletives, and the EPP, ed. Peter Svenonius, 71–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmberg, Anders, and David Odden. 2004. Ergativity and role-marking in Hawrami. Handout from Syntax of the World's Languages 1, University of Leipzig, August 5–8 2004. On-line: www.eva.mpg.de/~cschmidt/SWL1/handouts/Holmberg-Odden.pdf
Holmberg, Anders, and Christer Platzack. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hornstein, Norbert, Ana Maria Martins, and Jairo Nunes. 2008. Perception and causative structures in English and European Portuguese. Syntax 11: 198–222.
Hrafnbjargarsson, Gunnar. 2004. Person meets Case. Ms., Institutt for lingvistiske fag/UiO.
Hualde, José Ignacio, and Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Itkonen, Terho. 1974–1975. Ergattiivisuutta suomessa. Virittäjä 1974: 379–398, 1975: 1–65.
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jacobson, Pauline. 1997. Where (if anywhere) is transderivationality located? In The limits of syntax, eds. Peter Culicover and Louise McNally, 303–336. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Johns, Alana. 1992. Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 57–87.
Johnson, David E. and Shalom Lappin. 1999. Local constraints vs. economy. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Jónsson, Jónhannes Gísli. 2009. Covert nominative and dative subjects in Faroese. In Nordlyd 36.2: NORMS Papers on Faroese, 142–164, eds. Peter Svenonius, Kristine Bentzen, Caroline Heycock, Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen, Janne Bondi Johannessen, Jeffrey K. Parrott, Tania E. Strahan, and Øystein Alexander Vangsnes. On-line: HYPERLINK http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/nordlyd. Accessed September 14, 2010.
Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2005. La syntaxe comparée du breton. Doctoral dissertation, Université de Nantes.
Karimi, Yadgar. 2010. Unaccusative transitives and the person-case constraint effects in Kurdish. Lingua 120: 693–716.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. The syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44.
Katzir, Roni. 2007. A note on Case and licensing. Ms., MIT.
Katzir, Roni. 2008. Structural competition in grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, Richard. 2004. Prepositions as probes. In Structures and beyond, vol. 3, ed. Adriana Belletti, 192–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kimball, John, and Judith Aissen. 1971. I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 241–246.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 111: 315–376.
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1997. Elementary operations and optimal derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Koskinen, Päivi. 1998. Features and categories: Nonfinite constructions in Finnish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Koskinen, Päivi. 2000. Subject-verb agreement and covert raising to the subject in Finnish. In Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 17, 213–226. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto.
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Scope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 75–112.
Kučerová, Ivona. 2007. Agreement in Icelandic: An argument for derivational theory of intervention effects. In Proceedings of WECOL 34, 272–284. Fresno, CA: California State University.
Laenzlinger, Christopher. 1993. A syntactic view of Romance pronominal sequences. Probus 5: 241–270.
Lafon, René. 1980 [1944]. Le system du verbe Basque au XVI e siècle. Baiona: Elkar.
Laitinen, Lea, and Maria Vilkuna. 1993. Case marking in necessive constructions and split intransitivity. In Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax, eds. Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne, 23–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Laka, Itziar. 1993a. The structure of inflection. In Generative studies in Basque linguistics, eds. José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 21–70. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Laka, Itziar. 1993b. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative. In Papers on case and agreement 1, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 18, 149–172. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Laka, Itziar. 2000. Thetablind Case: Burzio's Generalisation and its image in the mirror. In Arguments and case, ed. Eric Reuland, 103–129. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Langendoen, Terence D. 2002. Linguistics at the beginning of the 21st century. Journal of Linguistics 38: 627–643.
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–392.
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lasnik, Howard. 2008. On the development of Case theory: Triumphs and challenges. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory, eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 17–41. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lasnik, Howard. 2009. Island repair, non-repair, and the organization of grammar. In Interphases, ed. Kleanthes K. Grohmann, 339–353. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Launey, Michel. 1981. Introduction à la langue et à la littérature aztèques. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Lavine, James. 2000. Topics in the syntax of nonagreeing predicates in Slavic. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University.
Lavine, James, and Steven Franks 2008. On accusative first. In Formal approaches to slavic linguistics: The stony brook meeting, eds. John Bailyn, Andrei Antonenko, and Christina Bethin, 231–247. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Lavine, James and Robert Freidin. 2002. The subject of defective tense in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 9: 253–290.
Legate, Julie. 1999. The morphosyntax of Irish agreement. In Papers on morphology and syntax, cycle one, MIT working papers in linguistics, ed. Karlos Arregi, vol. 33, 219–240. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 505–516.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2006. Split absolutive. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, eds. Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 143–172. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Legate, Julie. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 55–101.
Levin, Juliette, and Diane Massam. 1984. Surface ergativity. In Proceedings of NELS 15, 286–301. Amherst: GLSA.
Lochbihler, Bethany. 2008. Person licensing: The Algonquian-Romance connection. In Proceedings of Canadian Linguistics Association 2008. On-line: www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2008/actes2008.html
Luján, Marta. 1980. Clitic promotion and mood in Spanish verbal complements. Linguistics 18: 381–484.
MacKay, Carolyn, and Frank R. Trechsel. 2008. Symmetrical objects in Misantla Totonac. International Journal of American Linguistics 74: 227–255.
Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1996. Universal grammar and the typology of ergative languages. In Universal grammar and typological variation, eds. Artemis Alexiadou and T. Alan Hall, 35–57. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Maling, Joan. 1993. Of nominative and accusative: The hierarchical assignment of grammatical cases in Finnish. In Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax, eds. Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne, 49–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Maling, Joan and Rex A. Sprouse. 1995. Structural case, specifier-head relations, and the case of predicate NPs. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, eds. Hubert Haider, Susanne Olsen, and Sten Vikner, 167–186. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
Manninen, Satu, and Diane Nelson. 2004. What is a passive? The case of Finnish. Studia Linguistica 58: 212–251.
Marantz, Alec. 2006. Phases and words. Ms., New York University.
Marantz, Alec. 2000. Case and licensing. In Arguments and Case, ed. Eric Reuland, 11–30. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Originally published as: Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In ESCOL ’91: proceedings of the eighth eastern states conference on linguistics, 234–253, eds. German Westphal, Benjamin Ao, and Hee-Rahk Chae. Cornell, Ithaca: Cornell Linguistics Club.
Massam, Diane. 2006. Neither absolutive nor ergative is nominative or accusative. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, eds. Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 47–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Masullo, Pascual. 1992. Two types of quirky subjects: Spanish versus Icelandic. In Proceedings of NELS 23, 303–317. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109.
McCloskey, James. 1984. Raising, subcategorization, and selection in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 441–485.
McCloskey, James. 2002. Resumption, successive cyclicicty, and the locality of operations. In Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, eds. Samuel Epstein and Daniel Seeley, 184–226. Oxford: Blackwell.
McCreight, Katherine. 1988. Multiple case assignment. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
McGinnis, Martha. 1997. Case and locality in l-syntax. In Proceedings of the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect, MIT working papers in linguistics 32, 139–158. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. In Linguistic variation yearbook 1: 101–142.
Medová, Lucie. 2009. Reflexive clitics in the Slavic and Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2005. EPP and semantically vacuous scrambling. In The free word order phenomenon, eds. Joachim Sabel and Mamoru Saito, 181–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2006. On the ‘undoing’ property of scrambling: A response to Bošković. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 607–624.
Moore, John, and David M. Perlmutter. 2000. What does it take to be a dative subject? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 373–416.
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1982. De quelques [l] non étymologiques dans le français du Québec: Notes sur les clitiques et la liaison. Revue québecoise de linguistique 11: 9–47.
Müller, Gereon. 2004. Phrase impenetrability and wh-intervention. In Minimality effects in syntax, eds. Arthur Stepanov, Gisbert Fanselow, and Ralf Vogel, 289–325. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nash, Léa. 1995. The internal ergative subject hypothesis. In Proceedings of NELS 26, 195–209. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Neeleman, Ad, and Fred Weerman. 1999. Flexible syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 273–313.
Nichols, Lynn. 2001. The syntactic basis of referential hierarchy phenomena. Lingua 111: 515–537.
Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 303–344.
O'Herin, Brian. 2000. Case and agreement in Abaza. Arlington, VA: SIL International and University of Texas at Arglinton.
O'Herin, Brian. 2001. Abaza applicatives. Language 77: 477–493.
Ormazabal, Javier. 2000. A conspiracy theory of case and agreement. In Step by Step, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 235–260. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 1998. On the syntactic nature of the me-lui and the person-case constraint. Anuario del Seminario “Julio de Urquijo” 32: 415–434.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2002. Agreement restrictions. Ms., University of the Basque Country and University of Alcalá de Henares.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2007. Object agreement restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 315–347.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2010a. Object clitics and agreement. Ms., University of the Basque Country and Universidad de Extremadura. On-line: ling.auf.net/lingBuzz. Accessed on September 14, 2010.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2010b. The derivation of dative alternations. In Argument structure and syntactic relations from a crosslinguistic perspective, eds. Maya Duguine, Susana Huidobro, and Nerea Madariaga, 203–232. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1989. Parameters in the grammar of Basque. Dordrecht: Foris.
Oyharçabal, Beñat. 1992. Structural Case and inherent case marking: Ergaccusativity in Basque. In Syntactic theory and Basque syntax, eds. Joseba A. Lakarra and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 309–342. Donostia: Gipuzkoako Diputazioa.
Oyharçabal, Beñat. 1999. A propos de l’ergativité: Le cas du basque. Cérès 120: 237–259.
Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface constraints in syntax. New York, NY: Rinehart & Winston.
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In The syntax of time, eds. Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme, 495–537. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture, eds. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy K. Wilkins, 262–294. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. forthcoming. Case. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic Minimalism, ed. Cedric Boeckx. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9: 171–192.
Poser, William J. 1992. Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In Lexical matters, eds. Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, 111–130. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Postal, Paul M. 1990. French indirect object demotion. In Studies in relational grammar, vol. 3, eds. Paul M. Postal and Brian D. Joseph, 104–200. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Postal, Paul M. 1993. Some defective paradigms. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 347–364.
Postal, Paul M. 2003. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Potsdam, Eric, and Jeffrey T. Runner. 2001. Richard returns: Copy-raising and its implications. In Proceedings of the CLS 37, 206–222. Chicago, IL: CLS.
Potts, Christopher. 2002. Comparative economy conditions in natural language syntax. Paper presented at the North American Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information, Workshop on Model-Theoretic Syntax, Stanford University, June 28, 2002.
Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 619–666.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Pylyshyn, Zenon. 1999. Is vision continuous with cognition? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 341–365.
Quinn, Heidi. 2005. The distribution of pronoun case forms in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rebuschi, Georges. 1995. Weak and strong genitive pronouns in northern Basque. In Towards a history of the Basque language, eds. José Ignacio Hualde, Joseba A. Lakarra, and R. L. Trask, 313–356. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Reime, Hannu. 1993. Accusative marking in Finnish. In Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax, eds. Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne, 89–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface strategies. OTS working papers TL-95-002. Utrecht: Utrecht University/OTS.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rezac, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of cyclic Agree. Syntax 6: 156–182.
Rezac, Milan. 2004a. Elements of cyclic syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Rezac, Milan. 2004b. The EPP In Breton: An uninterpretable categorial feature. In Triggers, eds. Henk van Riemsdijk and Anne Breitbarth, 451–492. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rezac, Milan. 2005. The syntax of clitic climbing In Czech. In Clitic and affix combinations, eds. Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez, 103–140. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rezac, Milan. 2006. Agreement displacement in Basque. Ms., University of the Basque Country. On-line: www.umr7023.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article675
Rezac, Milan. 2007. Escaping the person case constraint: Referential computation in the phi-system. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 6: 97–138.
Rezac, Milan. 2008a. Phi-Agree and theta-related case. In Phi theory, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 83–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rezac, Milan. 2008b. The forms of dative displacement: From Basauri to Itelmen. In Gramatika jaietan, eds. Xabier Artiagoitia and Joseba A. Lakarra, 709–724. Zarautz: UPV/EHU.
Rezac, Milan. 2008c. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The person case constraint and absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 61–106.
Rezac, Milan. 2009. On the unifiability of repairs of the person case constraint. In Festschrift for Beñat Oyharçabal, Anuario del Seminario de Filologĺa Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” XLIII, eds. Ricardo Etxepare, Ricardo Gómez, and Joseba A. Lakarra, 769–790. Donostia: Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa.
Rezac, Milan. 2010a. Ineffability through modularity: Gaps in French clitic clusters. In Defective paradigms, eds. Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett, and Dunstan Brown, 151–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rezac, Milan. 2010b. Phi-Agree vs. movement: Evidence from floating quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 496–508.
Rezac, Milan. 2010c. Dative-locative syncretisms in Romance clitics and the relationship between syntax and morphology. Ms., CNRS UMR 7023/Université de Paris 8.
Rezac, Milan. forthcoming. Person restrictions in Basque intransitives. Lapurdum.
Richards, Norvin. 1999. Featural cyclicity and the ordering of multiple specifiers. In Working Minimalism, ed. Samuel D. Epstein and Howard Lasnik, 127–158. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Richards, Mark. 2004. Object shift and scrambling in North and West Germanic languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Richards, Norvin. 2005. Person-Case effect in Tagalog and the nature of long distance extraction. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, University of California at Los Angeles Working Papers in Linguistics 12, 383–394. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles.
Richards, Mark. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 563–572.
Richards, Mark. 2008. Quirky expletives. In Agreement restrictions, eds. Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 181–214. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rivas, Alberto. 1977. Clitics in Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on, eds. Lisa Cheng and Norbert Corver, 97–134. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rosen, Carol. 1990. Rethinking Southern Tiwa: The geometry of a triple-agreement language. Language 66: 669–713.
Rothstein, Susan. 1992. Case and NP licensing. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 119–139.
Rouveret, Alain and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1980. Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 97–202.
Runner, Jeffrey. 2006. Lingering challenges to the raising-to-object and object-control constructions. Syntax 9: 193–213.
Sakuma, Jun'ichi. 1998. The Case-marking of the object of the second infinitive instructive in the Finnish language. The Journal of the Faculty of Literature, Nagoya University 44: 1–14.
Sakuma, Jun’ichi. 1999. On the semantic conditions of the nominative marking of the object in the Finnish language. The Journal of the Faculty of Literature, Nagoya University 45: 61–74
Sands, Kristina and Lyle Campbell. 2001. Non-canonical subjects and objects in Finnish. In Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, eds. Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon, and Masayuki Onishi, 251–305. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Schäfer, Florian. 2007. On the nature of anticausative morphology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stuttgart.
Schütze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, Case, and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Schütze, Carson. 1999. English expletive constructions are not infected. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 467–484.
Schütze, Carson T. 2001. On the nature of default Case. Syntax 2: 205–238.
Schütze, Carson T. 2003. Syncretism and double agreement with Icelandic nominative objects. In Grammatik i fokus/Grammar in focuseds. Lars-Olof Delsing, Cecilia Falk, Gunlög Josefsson, and Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson, vol. II, 295–303. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages
Shklovsky, Kirill. 2009. Person-case effects in Tseltal. Ms., MIT.
Sichel, Ivy. 2007. Raising in DP revisited. In New horizons in the analysis of control and raising, eds. William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky, 15–34. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1991. Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–363.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1992. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics, University of Icelandic.
Sigurðsson, Halldor Ármann. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1–46.
Sigurðsson, Halldor Ármann. 2002. To be an oblique subject: Icelandic vs. Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 691–724.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004. Icelandic non-nominative subjects. In Non-nominative subjects, vol. 2, ed. Peri Bhaskararao and K.V. Subbarao, 137–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sigurðsson, Halldor Ármann. 2006. The nominative puzzle and the low nominative hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 289–308.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2010. Minimalist C/case. Ms., Lund University.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. forthcoming. On the new passive. Syntax.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann, and Anders Holmberg. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention: Person and number are separate probes. In Agreement restrictions, eds. Roberta D’'Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 251–281. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Silverstein, Michael. 1986. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Features and projections, eds. Peter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk, 163–232. Dordrecht: Foris. Originally published as: Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. R.M.W. Dixon, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Simpson, Jane Helen. 1983. Aspects of Warlpiri morphology and syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Sobin, Nicholas. 1997. Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 318–343.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sportiche, Dominique. 2005. Reconstruction, binding, and scope. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, vol. 4, case 54. Oxford: Blackwell.
Svenonius, Peter. forthcoming. Case alternations in the Icelandic passive and middle. In Passives and impersonals in European languages, eds. Satu Manninen, Katrin Hiietam, Elsi Kaiser, and Virve Vihman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Szucsich, Luka. 2007. Nothing wrong with finite T: Non-agreeing accusative impersonal sentences. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15, 401–419. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1986. On the distribution of nominative objects in Finnish. In Features and Projections, eds. Peter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk, 139–161. Dordrecht: Foris.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, eds. Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner, 307–237. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Timberlake, Alan. 1975. The nominative object in Finnish. Lingua 35: 201–230.
Toivainen, Jorma. 1993. The nature of the accusative in Finnish. In Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax, eds. Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne, 111–128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tuite, Kevin. 1998. Kartvelian morphosyntax. München: Lincom Europa.
Tuite, Kevin. 2008. Early Georgian. In The ancient languages of Asia Minor, ed. Roger D. Woodard, 145–165. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1996. Formal and substantive elegance in the Minimalist Program. In The role of economy principles in linguistic theory, eds. Chris Wilder, Hans-Martin Gärtner, and Manfred Bierwisch, 170–204. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999a. Multiple spell-out. In Working Minimalism, eds. Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999b. Minimal restrictions on Basque movements. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 403–444.
Vainikka, Anne Marjatta. 1989. Deriving syntactic representations in Finnish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Williams, Edwin. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 577–628.
Williams, Edwin. 2007. Dumping lexicalism. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 353–382. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, David. 1998. Syntactic change in Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wiltschko, Martina. 2003. On the interpretability of Tense on D and its consequences for Case theory. Lingua 113: 659–696.
Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 181–227.
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical Case, inherent Case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 111–130.
Yang, Charles. 1997. Minimal computation. MSc. thesis, MIT.
Yip, Moira, Joan Maling, and Ray Jackendoff. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63: 217–250.
Yoon, James. 1996. Ambiguity of government and the chain condition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 105–162.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne, and Lamine Diagne. 2002. Clitic placement after syntax: Evidence from Wolof person and locative markers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 823–884.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rezac, M. (2010). Repairs and Uninterpretable Features. In: Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of Language. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 81. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9698-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9698-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9697-5
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9698-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)