Where can buy Pseudo-noun incorporation and differential object marking imke driemel ebook with chea by Education Libraries

Pseudo-Noun Incorporation and Differential Object Marking Imke Driemel

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/pseudo-noun-incorporation-and-differential-object-ma rking-imke-driemel/

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...

Pseudo-Noun Incorporation and Differential Object

Marking Imke Driemel

https://ebookmass.com/product/pseudo-noun-incorporation-anddifferential-object-marking-imke-driemel-2/

Beyond pseudo-rotations in pseudo-Euclidean spaces

Ungar

https://ebookmass.com/product/beyond-pseudo-rotations-in-pseudoeuclidean-spaces-ungar/

Gender and Noun Classification Éric Mathieu (Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/gender-and-noun-classificationeric-mathieu-editor/

Pseudo-Manetho, Apotelesmatica: Books Four, One, and Five J. L. Lightfoot

https://ebookmass.com/product/pseudo-manetho-apotelesmaticabooks-four-one-and-five-j-l-lightfoot/

Destructive Storytelling: Disinformation and the Eurosceptic Myth that Shaped Brexit Imke Henkel

https://ebookmass.com/product/destructive-storytellingdisinformation-and-the-eurosceptic-myth-that-shaped-brexit-imkehenkel/

Landscape, Materiality and Heritage: An Object Biography Tim Edensor

https://ebookmass.com/product/landscape-materiality-and-heritagean-object-biography-tim-edensor/

Object Oriented Programming_hard_man_v1.pdf Amany Fawzy Elgamal

https://ebookmass.com/product/object-orientedprogramming_hard_man_v1-pdf-amany-fawzy-elgamal/

Vessels: The Object as Container Claudia Brittenham

https://ebookmass.com/product/vessels-the-object-as-containerclaudia-brittenham/

Transforms and Partial Differential Equations T. Veerarajan

https://ebookmass.com/product/transforms-and-partialdifferential-equations-t-veerarajan/

Pseudo-NounIncorporation andDifferentialObjectMarking

GeneralEditors

DavidAdgerandHagitBorer,QueenMaryUniversityofLondon

AdvisoryEditors

StephenAnderson,YaleUniversity;DanielBu¨ring,UniversityofVienna;NomiErteschik-Shir, Ben-GurionUniversity;DonkaFarkas,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz;AngelikaKratzer, UniversityofMassachusetts,Amherst;AndrewNevins,UniversityCollegeLondon;Christopher Potts,StanfordUniversity;BarrySchein,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia;PeterSvenonius, UniversityofTromsø;MoiraYip,UniversityCollegeLondon

RECENTTITLES

68 TheStructureofWordsattheInterfaces editedby HeatherNewell,MáireNoonan,GlynePiggott,andLisadeMenaTravis

69 PragmaticAspectsofScalarModifiers TheSemantics-PragmaticsInterface by OsamuSawada

70 EncodingEvents FunctionalStructureandVariation by XuhuiHu

71 GenderandNounClassification editedby ÉricMathieu,MyriamDali,andGitaZareikar

72 TheGrammarofExpressivity by DanielGutzmann

73 TheGrammarofCopulasAcrossLanguage editedby Marı´aJ.Arche,AntonioFábregas,andRafaelMarı´n

74 TheRootsofVerbalMeaning by JohnBeaversandAndrewKoontz-Garboden

75 ContrastandRepresentationsinSyntax editedby BronwynM.BjorkmanandDanielCurrieHall

76 Nominalization

50YearsonfromChomsky’s Remarks editedby ArtemisAlexiadouandHagitBorer

77 MajorityQuantificationandQuantitySuperlatives ACrosslinguisticAnalysisof Most by CarmenDobrovie-SorinandIonGiurgea

78 TheGrammaroftheUtterance HowtoDoThingswithIbero-Romance by AliceCorr

79 TheDerivationalTimingofEllipsis editedby Gu¨lizGu¨nes¸andAnikóLipták

80 NegationandNegativeDependencies by HeddeZeijlstra

81 AnglesofObjectAgreement editedby AndrewNevins,AnitaPeti-Stantic´,MarkdeVos,andJanaWiller-Gold

82 Pseudo-NounIncorporationandDifferentialObjectMarking by ImkeDriemel

Foracompletelistoftitlespublishedandinpreparationfortheseries,seepp.349–351.

Pseudo-Noun Incorporationand DifferentialObject Marking

IMKEDRIEMEL

GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom

OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries ©ImkeDriemel2023

Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove

Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer

PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica

BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable

LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2023930766

ISBN978–0–19–286640–0

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780192866400.001.0001

Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY

LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.

3.Pseudo-incorporationasacategorychangephenomenon

4.Pseudo-incorporationvsdifferentialobjectmarking

5.PNI-propertyI:Restrictiontolowscope

5.4.4Korean

5.4.5German

6.PNI-propertyII:Lackofbindingandcontrol

7.PNI-propertyIII:Movementpatterns

8.Differentialobjectmarking

9.Previousapproaches

Generalpreface

Thetheoreticalfocusofthisseriesisontheinterfacesbetweensubcomponents ofthehumangrammaticalsystemandthecloselyrelatedareaoftheinterfaces betweenthedifferentsubdisciplinesoflinguistics.Thenotionof‘interface’has becomecentralingrammaticaltheory(forinstance,inChomsky’sMinimalist Program)andinlinguisticpractice:workontheinterfacesbetweensyntaxand semantics,syntaxandmorphology,phonologyandphonetics,etc.hasledtoa deeperunderstandingofparticularlinguisticphenomenaandofthearchitecture ofthelinguisticcomponentofthemind/brain.

Theseriescoversinterfacesbetweencorecomponentsofgrammar,including syntax/morphology,syntax/semantics,syntax/phonology,syntax/pragmatics, morphology/phonology,phonology/phonetics,phonetics/speechprocessing, semantics/pragmatics,andintonation/discoursestructure,aswellasissuesin thewaythatthesystemsofgrammarinvolvingtheseinterfaceareasareacquired anddeployedinuse(includinglanguageacquisition,languagedysfunction,and languageprocessing).Itdemonstrates,wehope,thatproperunderstandingsof particularlinguisticphenomena,languages,languagegroups,orinter-language variationsallrequirereferencetointerfaces.

Theseriesisopentoworkbylinguistsofalltheoreticalpersuasionsandschools ofthought.Amainrequirementisthatauthorsshouldwritesoastobeunderstoodbycolleaguesinrelatedsubfieldsoflinguisticsandbyscholarsincognate disciplines.

Inrecentyears,investigationsoftherelationshipbetweenaverbanditsobject havebeguntouncoverrichpatternsofcomplexity.Whilesomeobjectsmaintainafairamountofindependencewithrespecttotheselectingverb,othersare morphologicallyandsemanticallybondedtoit.Theclosestsuchbondingisfull nounincorporation,wheretheverbandobjectformasingleword,butthereare looserdependenciesandoneofthese,pseudo-nounincorporation,isthefocus ofthisvolume.Inacareful,cross-linguisticexplorationoftheconstruction,Imke Driemelshowsthatitisdistinctfromfullincorporation,andfromthesuperficiallysimilarDirectObjectMarkingphenomenon,andarguesthatitinvolvesa categorialchangeintheobjectfromanominaltoaverbalcategory.Thiscategorialchangeexplainspatternsofmovement,control,andbindinginthesyntax,but inadditionfeedsintothesystemsthatinterfacewithsyntaxtocapturetheparticularsemanticandmorphologicalpatternsthatcollocatecross-linguisticallywith pseudonounincorporation.Overall,thebooknotonlymakesastrongargument

foramorecomplextypologyofverbobjectdependenciesinthesyntaxthanis usuallyassumed,butalsoshowshowtounderstandthatcomplexityintermsof establishedsyntacticpossibilities.

DavidAdger HagitBorer

Preface

Thisbookisarevisedversionofmydissertation,filedinApril2020atLeipzigUniversity.Theworkwasmadepossibletoalargeextentbythepeoplewhoshared theirlanguagewithme.Ithankthespeakersofthelanguagesofthisstudy,who investedtimeandenergyintoansweringthemanyquestionsIhadviaskype,facebook,email,phone,onlinequestionnaires,andinperson—thankyouallsomuch foryourpatience!MyworkalsobenefitedfromconversationsIhadwithanumberoflinguists.Sincethereissignificantoverlapbetweenthesetwosets,Iwill listthemalltogether:ArtemisAlexiadou,SukhbatBaatar,RajeshBhatt,BronwynBjorkman,EmilyClem,RümeysaDijle,ErdenekhishigEldev-Ochir,Daniel Gleim,DolgorGuntsetseg,FabianHeck,JohannesHein,AnkeHimmelreich, AdiyasurenJamiyandagva,GregKobele,HyunjungLee,GereonMu¨ller,Andrew Murphy,JohannesMursell,JeganMurugesan,YiningNie,Bilal&Fatos¸Ozdemir, ManfredSailer,MartinSalzmann,GanzayaSengee,RajamathangiShanmugam, BarbaraStiebels,AravindhanSukumar,SandhyaSundaresan,SergejTatevosov, So¨renTebay,GombosurenTsermed,PhilippWeisser,JoannaZaleska,andMalte Zimmermann.

Ihavepresentedpartsofthisworkatanumberofconferencesanddepartments,whereIreceivedvaluablefeedback.Thanksgototheaudiencesofthe WorkshoponNominalsattheInterfaces(2018),NorthEastLinguisticSociety (2019),JahrestagungderDeutschenGesellschaftfürSprachwissenschaft(2019), GLOWinAsia(2022),aswellasthelinguisticsdepartmentsatLeipzigUniversity, Humboldt-UniversityBerlin,PotsdamUniversity,GoetheUniversityFrankfurt, andUniversityofPennsylvania.

Finally,Iwouldliketothankmyfamilyandfriends,includingJasper,Kati,Jette, Tabea,Theresa,Siri,Jelena,Luise,Anne,Elton,Paula,andMariaforbeingsupportiveandacceptingtheincreasinglyworkaholiclifestyleIhaveadoptedover thepastcoupleofyears,whilewritingthisbook.

Glosses

Listofsymbolsandabbreviations

1,2,3 1st,2nd,3rdperson

ABL ablative

ABS absolutive

ACC accusative

ADD additiveparticle

ADV adverbialsuffix

ADJ adjectivalsuffix

AG agent

AGR agreement

AOR aorist

ATTR attributive

AV agentvoice

CAUS causative

CL classifier

CLIT clitic

CMPD compound

COMP complementizer

CONJ conjunction

COP copula

CV converb

DAT dative

DECL declarative

DEF definite

DEM demonstrative

DET determiner

DOM differentialobjectmarking

DP discourseparticle

DUR durative

EMPH emphatic

ERG ergative

EXIST existential

F feminine

FACT factual

FAM familiar

FOC focus

FUT future

GEN genitive

HAB habitual

HON honorific

INF infinitive

IMP imperative

IMPF/IPFV imperfective

IND indicative

INST instrumental

INT intimate

INTR/INTRANS intransitive

JOIN epentheticvowel

L L-suffix

LNK linkingmorpheme

LOC locative

M masculine

MIR mirative

MOD modality

N neuter

NE nominalparticle

NEG negation

NMLZ nominalizer

NOM nominative

NPREF nominalprefix

NSF nounsuffix

NT neutral

OBJ object

OBL oblique

OV patientvoice

PAT patient

PERF/PFV perfective

PL plural

POSS possessive

PROG progressive

PST past

PRS present

PUNC punctual

REFL reflexive

REL relative

Abbreviations

RES resultative

S S-suffix

SBJ subject

SG singular

STAT stative

T tense

TR/TRANS transitive

Introduction

Pseudo-nounincorporation(PNI)describesaphenomenoninwhichanargumentformsa‘closerthanusual’relationwiththeverb.Thesyntacticconsequence mostoftendiagnosedislossofcasemarking,potentiallyalongwiththelackof otherfunctionalmaterialsuchasnumbermarkingandovertlyexpresseddeterminers.Acorrelatinginterpretiveconsequenceisexpressedbyscopeinertness. BothaspectsareexemplarilyshownforHindiin(1),where(1a)showsthatobjects canbeoptionallymarkedforcaseand(1b)illustratesthecorrelationofcaseloss andaobligatorynarrowscopereading.

(1) Dayal (2011:127,137) Hindi

a.Anu Anu bacca/bacce-ko child/child-ACC sambhaaltii look.after.IMPF hai be.PRS

‘Anulooksafter(oneormore)children/thechild.’

b. ¬∃,*∃¬ Anu Anu bacca child nahiiN not samhaalegii look.after.FUT

‘Anuwillnotlookafterchildren.’

Acommonintuitionmanyanalysesshareisthatpseudo-incorporatedarguments aresomehowreducedintheirsyntacticaswellastheirsemanticcapacity. Togetherwiththeobservationthatpseudo-incorporationseemstoberestricted tooccurwithbarenounsandindefinites,bothcaselossandscopeinertnessare oftentracedbacktothesizeoftheargument.Pseudo-incorporatedarguments areclaimedtobeNPs,denotingproperties ⟨e,t⟩,whichdonotrequirecaseand cannottakescope(Dayal 2011; Massam 2001; vanGeenhoven 1998).Withinthe recentliteratureondifferentialobjectmarking(Aissen 2003; Bossong 1991),this sizerestrictionhasalsobeenarguedtobethecauseforlackofspecificity/animacy interpretations(Kalin2014;Levin2019;López2012;vanUrk2019b),shownhere forSpanishin(2).Oneofthequestionsthisstudywilladdressiswhetherpseudoincorporationanddifferentialobjectmarkingcanbeconsideredastwosidesofthe samecoin.¹

¹ Iwillusetheterm‘differentialobjectmarking’(DOM)inthisbooktosubsumedifferentialobject markinganddifferentialsubjectmarking.

(2) López (2012:16)

a.Marı´a Marı´a busca seeks a DOM una a gestora. manager ‘Mariaislookingfora(certain)manager.’

b.Marı´a Marı´a busca seeks una a gestora. manager ‘Mariaislookingfora(*certain)manager.’

Spanish

Thisbookpursuestheideathattheeffectsofpseudo-nounincorporationarenot relatedto size butto category.Pseudo-incorporatedargumentstransformfrom nounsintoverbsduringthecourseofthederivation.Theverbalnatureisresponsibleforthecasedropandtheinabilitytotakewidescope:verbsarecommonly takentobeincapableofinducingscopeshift(Chomsky2001;Harley2004)andare cross-linguisticallyobservedtoconstituteunsuitablehostsforcasemorphology (Moravcsik 2012; Nichols 1986).

Twoadditionaleffectscanbemadetofollowfromtheverbalcharacterof pseudo-incorporatedarguments.AshasbeenobservedforTurkish(Öztürk 2009),Hindi(Bhatt 2007),andSpanish(Leonetti 2004; López 2012),pseudoincorporationisnotlicensedincontextsthatrequiretheargumenttoactasa binderorcontroller.Thesepropertiesareillustratedin(3)forTurkish.

(3) Öztürk (2009:343–344)

a.Ali Ali [c¸erc¸eve-sin-e1∕2] frame-POSS.3SG-DAT resm-ı1/*resim1 picture-ACC/picture koy-du. put-PST ‘Alipicture-putinhisframe.’

b.*Ali-yi

Turkish

Ali-ACC [PRO1 sorgula-mak interrogate-INF ic¸in] for kasıtlıolarak intentionally polis1 police tutukla-dı. arrest-PST

‘Police-arrestinghappenedtoAlitointerrogatehim.’

Theincompatibilityofbindingandcontrolwithpseudo-nounincorporationhas beenattributedtotheneedtoraiseintoorbemergedinadedicatedposition wherecaseisassignedandfromwhichcontrolandbindingtakesplace(Bhatt 2007;López2012;Öztürk2009).Theaccountputforwardinthisbookarguesthat pseudo-incorporatedargumentsareincapableofbindingapronounsincebinding,i.e.theabilitytointroduceanindex,isapropertyessentiallytiedtonominal categories(Baker 2004; Büring 2005).Furthermore,controlrelationscannotbe establishedsincecontrolisdependentonbinding(Chomsky1981;Manzini1983).

Thecategorialapproachpursuedinthisbookmakesanadditionalprediction aboutthemovementbehaviourofpseudo-incorporatedarguments,aproperty thathassofarnotreceivedmuchattention,asitisknowntovaryacrosspseudonounincorporationlanguages.Sincepseudo-incorporatedargumentsturnfrom

nounsintoverbs,theirmovementpatternswillmimickthemovementpatternof VPs,predictingpotentialcross-linguisticvariationacrosslanguageswhichexhibit pseudo-nounincorporation.Theaccountpresentedhereis,thus,wellequippedto explainwhylanguageslikeTamilandSakhadonotpermitmovementofpseudoincorporatedarguments(Baker 2014b),incontrasttoTurkish(Gračanin-Yüksek andİşsever2011;JoandPalaz2019)andHindi(Dayal2011),shownin(4)and(5).

(4) Dayal (2011:137) Hindi Kitaabi book anu Anu zaroor definitely i becegii. sell-FUT ‘Anuwilldefinitelysellbooks.’

(5) JoandPalaz (2019:23) Turkish Kitapi book ben I [Ali-nin Ali-GEN i oku-dug˘-un]-u read-NMLZ-POSS.3SG-ACC du¨s¸u¨n-mu¨-yor-um. think-NEG-PRS-1SG ‘Idon’tthinkthatAlidoesbook-reading.’

TheempiricalbasisofthisbookisformedbyelicitationwithspeakersofTamil, Mongolian,Korean,Turkish,andGerman.Fivediagnosticsareappliedacross elevennountypesineachofthelanguagesunderconsideration,includingbare nouns,numerals,weakandstrongquantifiers,weakandstrongdefinites,demonstratives,propernames,andpronouns.Whatemergesisacoherenteffecton pseudo-incorporatedargumentsthatmapslossofcasemarkingtoobligatory narrowscope,lackofbindingandcontrolrelations,aswellascross-varying restrictionsonmovement.Whilecasepropertiesareregularlytiedtoscopeand mobilityrestrictionsbyDP/NPaccountsofpseudo-incorporation(Dayal 2011; Dobrovie-Sorinetal. 2006; Massam 2001),bindingandcontrolpropertiesare oftenmadeuseofbyraisingapproaches(BhattandAnagnostopoulou 1996; Kelepir 2001; López 2012).Thestudyprovidesaunifyingtheorythatisable tocaptureallpropertieswithasingleassumption:pseudo-incorporationeffects resultfromnounphrasesthataremadeupofanominalandaverbalcategory feature.Implementedinaminimalistderivationalframework(Chomsky 1995, 2000),thenominalfeatureisactiveearlyinthederivationandinthatresponsibleforc-selectionandnominalmodification,whiletheverbalfeatureisactivelate andcruciallyderivestheeffectswehavecometorecognizeaspseudo-nounincorporation.Incontrasttopreviousaccounts,thecurrenttheoryisabletoexplain cross-linguisticvariationconsideringtheextenttowhichpseudo-incorporated nounsarerestrictedintheirmovementcapacitiesbydemonstratingparallelsto VPmovementineachofthelanguagesunderconsideration.

Beyondidentifyingthecorepropertiesofthephenomenon,thebookcontributesanumberofadditionalempiricalobservations,themostimportantbeing thatoptionalcasemarkingisnotnecessarilycausedbypseudo-incorporation. TamilandKoreanprovideevidencethatonlyasubsetofoptionallycase-marked

nountypesshowacorrelationwithscope,binding,control,andmovementconstraints.Thisinsightenforcestheconclusionthatoneandthesamelanguage canmakeuseofbothpseudo-nounincorporationanddifferentialobjectmarking.Moreover,thebroadrangeofnountypesinvestigatedinthisstudyallowsfor importantinsightsintothenominaldomaingenerally,withaparticularfocuson bareargumentlanguages.ThestudyshowsthatMongolianpatternswithTurkish, whichhaspreviouslybeenreportedtoallowoptionalcasemarkingforweakquantifiersandnumeralsbutnotforstrongquantifiers(Enc˛ 1991).Tamil,however, patternswithHindiinthatonlybarenounsarepermittedtoundergopseudonounincorporation.Thecross-linguisticdifferencessupportanalysesthatmake useofthepotentialadjectivalstatusofweakquantifiers,numerals,andindefinite articles(IoninandMatushansky 2006; Milsark 1977; Partee 1988).Furthervaluableinsightsarealsogainedwithrespecttoweakandstrongdefiniteness(Schwarz 2009, 2019),inthatcasemarkingisessentialtofamiliarity-baseddefinites,in contrasttouniqueness-baseddefinites.Byshiftingthescopetomorpho-syntactic properties,thestudyprovidesanewdirectionforaresearchareathathassofar primarilyfocusedontheovertspelloutofdeterminersinbareargumentlanguages (Ahn 2017; Hanink 2018; Jenks 2015, 2018).

Thebookisstructuredasfollows.Chapter 2 justifiesthediagnosticsusedin thisstudyanddiscussestheelicitationmethods,whilealsosummarizingthemain results.InChapter 3,basictheoreticalassumptionsarelaidoutandappliedto themainideaofthisthesis,followedbyabriefdiscussionoftheliteratureon categorychange.Chapter 4 isdedicatedtothemostprominentsyntacticdiagnosticofpseudo-incorporation,thatislossofcasemarkingincorrelationwith semanticeffects.Foreachlanguage,Iwillproposetwowaystomodelcaseloss post-syntactically.Chapter5presentsthescopefactsinmoredetailandtheimplementationofthecategorialapproachintermsofthewidelyobservedlowscope restriction.InChapter 6,Iextendtheproposaltocontrolandbindingfacts,while Chapter 7 willpresentthecross-linguisticvariationinthemovementrestrictions ofpseudo-incorporatedarguments.Thetwolanguagesofthisstudythatdisplay optionalcasemarkingfornountypeswithoutcorrelatingscopalbehaviourwill begivenadetailedlookinChapter 8.Finally,Chapter 9 comparestheresults ofthisstudytoexistingaccountsofpseudo-nounincorporationandDOMand Chapter 10 concludes.

Methodologyandmainresults

Thischapterpresentsthemainresultsofthestudy,describesindetailthe elicitationmethodswhichwereused,andjustifiesthediagnosticschosento identifypseudo-nounincorporation.

2.1 Diagnostics

Pseudo-nounincorporationisnotoriouslydifficulttodiagnose.Sincethereisno clearovertmorpho-syntacticprocessofformingacomplexnoun–verbpredicate,asisthecasewithnounincorporation,aninterplayoffactorsisoftentaken intoconsiderationwhendiagnosingPNI.Acorrelationwhichhasfrequently beenarguedtobeindicativeofpseudo-nounincorporationisthesimultaneous restrictiontolowscopewiththeabsenceofcasemarking(Baker 2014b; Dayal 2011; KwonandZribi-Hertz 2006; López 2012; Massam 2001; Öztürk 2005).An examplefromHindiwasalreadyprovidedintheintroduction,wherescopalpropertiesweretestedwithrespecttonegation.In(1),weseeanotherexamplefrom Spanish,includingauniversalquantifier.Case-markedobjectsoftenshowflexible scope.Ifcasemarkingisdropped,theexistentialscannottakescopeovernegation(1)oraquantifiedsubject(1).Forsimilarscopeinteractions,see Kwonand Zribi-Hertz(2006:118)forKorean,Kelepir(2001:59)forTurkish,Lyutikovaand Pereltsvaig (2013:129)forTatar, Lidz (2006:14)forKannada,and Testeletsand Arkadiev (2014:7)forAdyghe.

(1) López (2012:13,14) Spanish

Todo every hombre man amo´ loved a DOM una a mujer. woman ‘Everymanlovedawoman.’

, *∃∀ Todo every hombre man amo´ loved una a mujer. woman ‘Everymanlovedawoman.’

Whilethelinkbetweenlowscopeandcasedropwillbeusedasaprimarydiagnostictoidentifypseudo-nounincorporationwithinmydataset,wecanfurthermore observethatPNI-edargumentslosetheabilitytoactasbindersorcontrollers. TheseinteractionshavebeennoticedpreviouslyforSpanish(Leonetti2004;López

Pseudo-NounIncorporationandDifferentialObjectMarking.ImkeDriemel,OxfordUniversityPress. ©ImkeDriemel(2023).DOI:10.1093/oso/9780192866400.003.0002

2012),Turkish(Öztürk 2005, 2009),Tatar(LyutikovaandPereltsvaig 2013),and Hindi(Bhatt 2007),see(2)and(3)forillustration.

(2) LyutikovaandPereltsvaig (2013:130) Tatar

a.Marat Marat [balar-lar-nı]1 child-PL-ACC dzˇiba¨r-de send-PST [PRO1 uk-ırga]. study-INF ‘Maratsentchildrentostudy.’

b.*Marat Marat [balar-lar]1 child-PL dzˇiba¨r-de send-PST [PRO1 uk-ırga]. study-INF ‘Maratsentchildrentostudy.’

(3) Öztürk (2009:343) Turkish

a.Ali Ali c¸erc¸eve-sin-e1∕2 frame-POSS.3PS-DAT resm-i1 picture-ACC koy-du. put-PST ‘Aliputthepictureinits/hisframe.’

b.Ali Ali c¸erc¸eve-sin-e*1∕2 frame-POSS.3PS-DAT resim1 picture koy-du. put-PST ‘Alipicture-putinhisframe.’

Thecorrelationbetweenlossofcasemarkingontheonehandandrestrictionto lowscopeaswellaslackofbindingandcontrolontheotherhandprovidesarobust packagediagnostictotrackdownthetypesofargumentswhichcanundergoPNI withinthelanguagesinvestigatedinthisstudy.Furthersupportisprovidedif theclassofnounsalignswiththecross-linguisticrestrictiontobarenounsand indefinites.

AnadditionalpropertyPNI-edargumentsdisplayisapeculiarmovementpattern,onethatisdifferentfromthecase-markedcounterparts.Thisdiagnostic, however,shouldbeconsideredwithcaution.Movementpropertiesarecertainly nothomogeneousacrosslanguages.YetthereisageneraltendencythatPNI-ed argumentsaremorerestrictedintheirmovementcapabilitiesthanproperarguments.ConsiderSpanishagain:whilecaselessargumentscannotbeleft-dislocated (Leonetti2004;Melis1995;Pensado1995),see(4b),theycanstillprecedethesubject,shownin(5).Case-markedarguments,however,canadditionallyundergo left-dislocation.

(4) Leonetti (2004:86) Spanish

a.Ya already conocı´a knew.1SG (a) DOM muchos many estudiantes. students ‘Ialreadyknewmanystudents.’

b.*(A) DOM muchos many estudiantes students ya already los them conocı´a. knew.1SG ‘ManystudentsIalreadyknew.’

(5) Leonetti (2004:97) Spanish Bueno, well este this verano, summer libros, books han have.3PL leı´do. read ‘Well,thissummer,bookstheyhaveread.’

TherearePNIaccountsthatsolelyrelyonanadjacencyrequirementwiththeverb, eitherbecausecaseisnotmarkedmorphologicallyonarguments(Coon 2010; Levin 2015)orbecausecasemarkingisnotinfluencedbyPNI(Frey 2015; Farkas anddeSwart 2003).Iwillaimforatheoryofpseudo-nounincorporationthat canprovideaglobalexplanationfortheabsenceofcase,widescope,binding,and controlwhilealsobeingabletoaccountforcross-linguisticvariationwithrespect tomovementrestrictions.

Inthisstudy,wewilltakeadetailedlookatfivelanguageswhichhavebeen arguedtoshoweffectsofpseudo-nounincorporation:Mongolian(Guntsetseg 2009, 2010, 2016),Tamil(Baker 2014b),Turkish(Enc˛ 1991; Öztürk 2005; vonHeusingerandKornfilt 2005),Korean(Ha.Lee 2006; KwonandZribi-Hertz 2006),andGerman(Frey 2015).Incontrasttopreviouswork,wewilltakea ratherlargenumberofdifferentargumenttypesintoconsiderationandruneachof themthroughthediagnosticsdiscussedinthissection.Twopropertiesarealways paired,forthemostpartwewillinvestigatecaselossonargumentsandeachofits correlationswithscope,binding,control,andmovementcapabilities.Germanis theonlylanguageinthesamplesetwhichdoesnotexhibitcasedrop.Nevertheless, itisarguedtopseudo-incorporatebarenounsaswellasindefinites,dependingon thepositionintheclause.ForGerman,therefore,wewilltakesentenceposition insteadofcasedropasaprimarydiagnosticandpairitwiththeotherthree.Besides barenounsandindefinites,thisstudyconsiderspronouns,propernames,demonstrativeandpossessorphrases,numerals,andquantifiers.Sincethemajorityof thelanguagesinthesetqualifyasbareargumentlanguages,contextsweresetup toprobefordefiniteness,therebypayingattentiontotheweak–strongdistinction (Roberts 2003; Schwarz 2009).

Theupshotofthisprocedureistwo-fold:(i)wecaninspectthesizerestriction proposedforPNIlanguagesacrosslanguagesandthereby—ifuniform—makea valuablecontributiontothesetofPNIdiagnosticsand(ii)wecanteaseapartcase dropasaresultofPNIfromcasedropbeingunrelatedtoPNI.Thelatteroften fallsintothecategoryofdifferentialobjectmarking,aphenomenonwhichsimilarlycentresaroundloss/additionofcasemarkingbutistraditionallylinkedto animacy,specificity,anddefinitenessconstraints(Aissen 2003; Bossong 1991). Chapter 8 providesadetailedcomparisonanddiscussionforKoreanandTamil,

thetwolanguagesformthecoredatasetwhichexhibitDOMaswellasPNIeffects dependingontheargumenttype.

Datafromthefivelanguagesisprimarlybasedonquestionnairesandinterviews runwithnativespeakersoftherespectivelanguages.Twomorelanguages,Spanish andHindi,enterthepictureforcomparison’ssake.Datafromthoselanguagesare takenexclusivelyfromtheliterature.TheresultsfromSpanishandHindiappear intheoverviewtablesbutarevisuallyseparatedfromthecoredatasetandmay containgaps.

2.2 Elicitationmethods,consultants

TheMongoliandatawereelicitedwiththehelpofaquestionnaire,puttogether viaskypeinterviewswithDolgorGuntsetseg,anativespeakerofMongoliananda linguistwhohasdoneextensiveworkonthecasesystemofMongolian.Thequestionnairewaspassedontofivenativespeakersviaanonlinestudy.Theconsultants arespeakersofKhalkaMongolian,betweentheagesof28–49,andliveandworkin Ulaanbaatar,thecapitalofMongolia.AllspeakershavelivedandstudiedinGermanyforatleastthreeyearsandarenowemployedinanenvironmentwherethe workplacelanguageisGermanandthereforethecontactlanguagewasGerman. Thesurveyaskedgrammaticalityjudgementsonascalefrom1to5.Scopeand definitenessdatawereelicitedwiththehelpofwrittencontextsaswellasaseries ofpictures.Mongoliansentenceswerepresentedinphonemictranscriptionusing Romanbasicletters,adheringto Janhunen (2012)and Guntsetseg (2016).¹

TheTamilquestionnairewasputtogetherwiththehelpofJeganMurugesan, nativespeakerandlinguist.Threeadditionalnativespeakersservedasconsultants(twolinguistsandonenon-linguist),rangingbetweentheagesof26–40. Elicitationwasconductedthroughone-on-oneinterviews,eitherinpersonorvia skype.TamilsentenceswereprovidedinRomanscript,largelyfollowingLehmann (1993),whichisbasedonthe MadrasUniversityTamilLexicon.Again,scope anddefinitenessdatawereelicitedwiththehelpofwrittencontexts.Thecontact languagewasEnglish.

SincetheworkonKoreanisbasedonacollaborationwithHyunjungLee,linguistandnativespeakerofKorean,thenumberofconsultantsvarytoalarge degree.Themajorityofthedatawasdouble-checkedwithahandfulofKorean speakers(5–12).FortheeffectsofsubjectPNIwithrespecttoscopeanddefiniteness,anonlinestudywasconductedwith54participants,rangingfromages 16–65.Speakerswereaskedtojudgethefelicityofsentencesonascalefrom1to 5,givenspecificcontexts.ThecontactlanguagewasKorean,using Hangul,the ¹ Romanizationisincreasinglyusedinelectroniccommunication,whiletheorthographyofCyrillic KhalkaoftendoesnotcorrespondtothephonemicrealityofspokenKhalka(Janhunen 2012:23).

Koreanalphabet.Datarepresentationinthisbook,however,willmakeuseof thestandardizedYaleromanizationsystem.AsubsetoftheKoreandataisalso discussedin DriemelandLee (2022).

Turkishisalreadyawell-studiedlanguagewhenitcomestocasedropandits semanticeffects(Aydemir 2004; Enc˛ 1991; Kelepir 2001; Kornfilt 1997, 2008; Öztürk2005,2009).Nevertheless,Iconsulted2–3nativespeakers,alllinguists,for scope,control,binding,andmovementeffectsofnon-casemarkedsubjectsand objects.ThecontactlanguagewasEnglish.Finally,Iusedmyownnativespeaker judgementsforGerman,whilealsoconsultingwithahandfulofadditionalnative speakers.

2.3 Mainresults

AsummaryofthestudyresultsisshowninTable 2.1.Onequestionthatthisbook attemptstoansweriswhetheroptionalcasemarkingofcertainargumenttypes alwaysboilsdowntothesametrigger.Thereseemstobesignificantoverlapby nowbetweenthephenomenathathavebeenclassifiedasDOMandthecluster ofpropertieswhichareoftenassociatedwithpseudo-nounincorporation.DOMaccountsoftentiecasemarkingtospecificity/definiteness,whereasPNI-accounts

BA =bareargument; IND =indefinite; # =numeral; WQ =weakquantifier; DEMP =demonstrative phrase; WD =weakdefinite; PRO =pronoun; PN =propernoun; POSSP =possessorphrase; SQ =strongquantifier; SD =strongdefinite

Table2.1 Casedropdueto PNI or DOM

trytoaccountforthecorrelationbetweenabsenceofcasemarkingandlowscope. TakeHindiforexample:whereastheDOMstrategyhasbeenpursuedby Butt (1993),BhattandAnagnostopoulou(1996),andAissen(2003),aPNIaccountwas givenby Dayal (2003, 2011).ForSpanish, López (2012)buildsupasystemwhich enableshimtoaccountforboth,thepseudoincorporationofbarepluralsandthe differentialobjectmarkingofindefinites.

WiththediagnosticssetupinSection 2.1 weareabletodrawadistinction betweenDOMandPNI.Onlythelatterwillshowaninteractionbetweencase dropontheonehandandscope,binding,control,andmovementontheother. DiagnosingPNIforonetypeofargument,however,doesnotexcludethepossibilitythatothertypesofargumentscanbeleftcaselessforotherreasons.Itseems reasonabletoassumethatanothertriggerforcaselossisDOM,detectablee.g.via theabsenceofepistemicallyspecificreadings.Hence,thisbookactivelypursues theideathatalanguagecanmakeuseofPNIaswellasDOM,eachcorrelating withdifferentsemanticproperties.² Table 2.1 markseverynountypewith iflack ofcasemarkingisgenerallyanoption,whilecellswhicharemarkedas indicate acorrelationofcasedropwithscope,binding,control,andmovement,inother wordsaPNIpattern.Ifcase-markingisoptional,butonlyinteractswithanimacy or(epistemic)specificity,thecellismarkedwith .Thecurrentstudyrevealsthat MongolianandTurkishdisplayPNIeffectsthroughout,whileKoreanandTamil makeuseofDOMaswellasPNI.

Anoteontheselectionofargumenttypesisinorder.Themajorityofthe PNI/DOMliteraturediscussesbarenouns,definiteandindefinitenounphrases, propernames,andpronouns.Iadditionallyincludenumerals,quantifiers,and demonstrativephrasesinthestudy.ExceptforGerman,alllanguagesfromthecore datasetclassifyasbareargumentlanguages,i.e.theydonothaveanovertdefinite determiner.Contextsthatestablishfamiliaritymentionthereferentinthepreviousdiscourseandtestforstrongdefiniteness.Incontrast,weakdefinitenesscan beestablishedbyanumberoffactorssuchasvisualco-presenceorglobaluniquenessintheculturalcontext(Heim 1982).Thecontrastbetweenstrongandweak definitenessreceivedsomeattentionwithinthelastyears,followingtheworksby Roberts (2003)and Schwarz (2009). Jenks (2015, 2018)concludes,basedonhis workonThaiandMandarinChinese,thatbareargumentlanguagestendtouse barenounsforweakdefinitecontexts,whereasdemonstrativesorovertpronouns takeoverthefunctionofstrongfamiliardefinites.Tomyknowledge,nointeractionhasbeenreportedsofarbetweencasemarkinganddefinitenessinbare argumentlanguages.AsTable2.1shows,stronganaphoriccontextsalwaysrequire casemarkingoftheargument,whileweakdefinitenesscanalsobelicensedwithoutcasemarking,e.g.inKoreanandTamil.WhiletheoptionalcasedropinTamil

² Hence,thisbookalignsinspiritwiththeproposalby López (2012).

isareflectionofaDOMeffect,Koreaninfactpseudo-incorporatesweakdefinites,nextto1/2personpronounsaswellaspropernames,therebyprovidingan exceptionalPNIpattern,withinthesamplesetaswellasinamoregeneralcontext.

Aweak–strongdistinctionhasalsobeenobservedforquantifiers(Kampand Reyle 1993; Milsark 1977; Partee 1988; Zimmermann 2008),wherethestrong typereferstogeneralizedquantifiers,whereastheweaktypeinstantiatespredicate modifierswhichinherittheirquantificationalforcefromacovertc-commanding existentialquantifier.Thisadjectivaltreatmenthasalsofrequentlybeenproposed fornumerals(Link 1987; Krifka 1999; IoninandMatushansky 2006).Twolanguagesoutofthecoredatasetaresensitivetotheweak–strongdistinction.For Turkish,thepossibilitytopseudo-incorporateweakquantifiers,includingnumerals,hasnotgoneunnoticedintheliterature(Enc˛ 1991; Kelepir 2001; Özyıldız 2017).ThecurrentstudyshowsthatMongolianpatternswithTurkishinthis respect.

Finally,itshouldbenotedthatthecategoryindefinite(IND)canconflatewith thecategorynumeral(#),asindefinitedeterminersareoftenhomophonewith numeral one inmanylanguages. Dayal (1999, 2004, 2017)classifiesHindi ek as anumeral,denyingitanyfunctionasanindefinitedeterminer.Itcanbeshown thatTamilandMongolianbehavelikeHindiinthisrespect.AsforKorean, BA and IND collapseintoonecategory,whereasnumeralsclearlyconstitutetheirone category.

Aspertainstothesizerestriction,onlybareargumentscanbeshowntorobustly pseudo-incorporateacrosslanguages.WhereasTurkishandMongolianextendthe PNIclasstoindefinites,numerals,andweakquantifiers,Germanseemstoinclude onlyindefinitesadditionally.Itisreasonabletotiethepossibilityofnumerals andweakquantifiersundergoingPNItotheadjectivalnatureoftheseelements. Languagesthenvarywithrespecttowhethertheydrawacategorialdistinction betweenweakandstrongquantifiers.Korean,perhapsmostsurprisingly,pseudoincorporatesweakdefinites,1/2personpronouns,andpropernames—aselection which,seeminglyrandomatfirstsight,willreceiveauniformtreatmentinChapter 4.TheconclusionsIdrawforHindiandSpanisharepreliminary,basedonthedata availableintheliterature,hencethedashedlinewhichseparatesthetwolanguages fromthecoredataset.

AlthoughtheDOMcellsinTable 2.1 donotshowaparticularsizerestriction, theydorevealgeneralhierarchyeffectswhicharetraditionallyassociatedwith expecteddiscourseprominencebasedongrammaticalfunction(objectsaretypicallylowinanimacy/definiteness,whereassubjectsprovidetheoppositepicture). TheorderofcolumnsinTable 2.1 canbedirectlymappedontoanelaborateversionofAissen’sdefinitenessscale(2003:437),wherestrongdefinitesareranked highestandmostlikelyrequiretobecasemarked,whilebareargumentsconstitute thelowendofthescale.Atthispoint,itshouldbenotedthatthetablesubsumes thePNI/DOMbehaviourofdifferentargumenttypesindependentofgrammatical

function.TurkishandKoreanmakeitpossibletodiagnosesubjectincorporation,revealingthatsubjectsandobjectsshowanidenticalrestrictioninterms ofnountypes.Thisbehaviourservesasacounterargumentagainstfunctional approachestodifferentialargumentmarking(Aissen 2003; Bossong 1991; Croft 1988;Silverstein1976)whichoperateontheassumptionthatonlyargumentswith definiteness/animacypropertiesprototypicalfortheirgrammaticalfunctioncan beleftunmarked,thuspredictingdifferentialsubjectmarkingtomirrortheeffects ofdifferentialobjectmarking.Thisinsight,however,isnotparticularlysurprising, consideringthatsimilarpointshavebeenmadeforTurkish(Kornfilt 2008)and Hindi(deHoopandNarasimhan 2008)inthepast.³

³ ThisviewdoesnotexcludethepossibilitythatPNI/DOMlanguagesshowasymmetrictendencies intermsofhowfrequentcaseisdroppedonprototypicalarguments.Corpusstudiesby Ha.Lee (2006, 2008)showthatwhileKoreandoesnotdifferentiatecategoriallybetweensubjectsandobjects,itdoes sowithrespecttothelikelihoodofcasemarkersbeingpresentandthedefiniteness/animacystatusof theargument.

Pseudo-incorporationasacategory changephenomenon

Thischapterpresentsthemainideaofthisbook,itwillbearguedthatpseudoincorporationconstitutesacategorychangephenomenon.Inordertoimplement thisproposal,ImotivatethehypothesisinSection 3.1,layoutmymainassumptionsinSection 3.2,andprovideaconcreteimplementationinSection 3.3. Thefinalsectioncomparesmyproposaltomoretraditionalmixedprojections accounts.

3.1 Sequentialhybrids

Pseudo-incorporatedargumentsconstitutehybridcategories:theyarepart nominalpartverbal.Thetwocorepropertiesofpseudo-nounincorporation— lackofcasemarkingandrestrictiontolowscope—aswellastheadditionalthree diagnostics,inabilitytobindorcontrolandrestrictivemovementcapacities,can betracedbacktoitsverbalnature.ThepropertiesPNI-edargumentssharewith properargumentsreflectthenominalstatus,thatistheycheckac-selectional featureoftheverb,theyareassigneda θ-role,andtheycancomewithnumber morphologyaswellasadjectivalmodification.Whereasthenominalpropertiesareuncontroversial,theverbalpropertiesrequirefurtherexplanation.Inthe following,Iwilldiscusseachpropertyseparately.

Oneofthemainreasonswhythesyntacticstatusofheadmovementisso fiercelydebatedintherecentpastcomesfromtheobservationthatverbmovementneverseemstochangescopalrelations.Thishasledmanyscholars,most prominently Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001)withmanyfollowinghim(Boeckxand Stjepanović 2001; Harley 2004; Merchant 2002; SchoorlemmerandTemmerman 2012; Zwart 2017),toplaceheadmovementingeneralinthepost-syntacticcomponent.Othershavearguedforverbmovementspecificallytotakeplaceinsyntax butwithobligatorysemanticreconstruction(Goldberg 2005; KeineandBhatt 2016; Matushansky 2006).ThescopalpropertiesofPNI-edargumentsthusparallelthoseofverbs,inthattheycannottakescopeoveranotheroperatorinthe sentence.

Oftenimplicitlyassumedamongstmanyscholarsisthatcaseisuniformly expressedonnounsandnotonverbs;see,however, Blake (2004)and

Moravcsik (2012)forexplicitstatementsofsuchkind.Thisopinionfindsempiricalsupportintheworkby Nichols (1986)whoidentifiescaseasthepredominant morphologycategoryfordependentmarkingstrategies,whereasperson,number,andgendermorphologyaremostcommonlyexpressedinhead-marking patterns.Anearlyimplementationofthisdichotomycanbefoundinthe PrinciplesandParameters traditionofGenerativeGrammarwherethelexicalcategories weredistinguishedbytwobinarydistinctivefeatures[±N]and[±V],[ N]categoriesbeingcaseassignersand[+N]categoriestheoneswhichreceivecase (Chomsky 1981; Stowell 1981).Themostrecentinstalmentofcaserelations asexclusivelytiedtonominalsisthetheoryof DependentCase (Baker 2015; Marantz1991;Stiebels2006;Wunderlich1997)wherecasemarkingexpressesthe licensingofonenominalinthelocalpresenceofanothernominal.Thelackof casemarkingonPNI-edargumentsisthusadirectconsequenceoftheirverbal nature.

Inatraditionalframeworksuchas HeimandKratzer (1998)successfulbinding ofa(reflexive)pronounisconditionedbytheintroductionofabinderindex,createdbymovementofanominalphrasewhichisco-indexedwithapronoun.Thus, bindingessentiallyconstitutesarelationbetweennominalsinA-positions(Chomsky 1981). Büring (2005)providesamorerecentaccountofbindingphenomena avoidingthenecessarymovementstepviaaspecialkindofabstractionrule.Nevertheless,thebinderruleisrestrictedtoapplybetweennominals.Finally, Baker (2004)determinesthepropertytobearareferentialindexastheoneidentifying traitthatseparatesnounsfromverbs.Takentogether,theseassumptionsmadein theliteraturecanprovideanexplanationwhyPNI-edargumentsarenotcapable ofactingasbinders,asitseemstobeapropertyessentiallytiedtonominalcategories.Moreover,theinabilityofPNI-edargumentstoenteracontrolrelationis derivedonceitisassumedthatthecontrollerhastoenterabindingrelationwith PRO (Chomsky 1981; Koster 1984; Landau 2015, 2017; Manzini 1983).

WhileIhavesofarpointedoutthreepropertiesthatmakePNI-edarguments behaveunlikenominals(caseloss,lackofbinding,andcontrol)andoneproperty whichpositivelyidentifiestheirverbalcharacter(scope),themovementbehaviour isaswellofthelatterkind.Uponcloserinspection,thecross-linguisticvariation foundwithmovementcapabilitiesofargumentshavingundergonePNIparallel thoseofVPsintherespectivelanguages.

Thenominaltraitsseemtoberelevantearlyinthederivation—c-selectionand θ-roleassignmentaswellasnounphraseinternalmorphologyandmodification areoperationswhichapplybeforeoratthepointtheargumentisfirstmergedwith theverb.Theverbalproperties,however,impactoperationsthataredependent onotherargumentsandfunctionalheadsintheclause.Wewillimplementthis observationbyemployingaderivationalframeworkwhichiscapableofturninga nominalcategoryintoaverbalcategoryinthecourseofthederivation.Hencethe name sequentialhybrid.

3.2 Theoreticalassumptions

Theproposalisworkedoutinaminimalistframework,firstintroducedin Chomsky (1995).Minimalismisaderivationalmodelofgrammarinwhichthebasic operations Merge and Agree applyinsequentialorder.Syntacticstructuresare builtbottom-upbysequentialapplicationofMergeandAgreefromasetoflexical items,takenfromthe numeration.Syntacticoperationsaredrivenbytwotypes offeatures:(i)structure-buildingfeaturestriggeringMergeand(ii)probefeatures triggeringAgree.Theyarewrittenas[•F•]and[*F*],respectively.Anemptybox onaprobefeature[*F:□*]signalsthattheprobeislackingavalue.Thenotation istakenfrom HeckandMüller (2007)and Sternefeld (2006).WhileMergeforms complexstructuresbytakingtwolexicalitems(fromtheworkspaceorthenumeration)forminganewitem,Agreecopiesvaluesfromoneelementtoanother,where theformeriscalledthegoal,thelattertheprobe,andthelatterc-commandsthe former(cf. Chomsky 2000, 2001).MovementisdefinedasinternalMerge,where theitemwiththestructure-buildingfeaturecontainstheto-bemoveditem.Finally, [•F•]and[*F*]mustbetargetedanddischargedduringthederivation,thereby restrictingthepossibleoutcomeofsyntacticderivations.Theassumptionsare summarizedin(1)–(4).

(1) FeatureCondition

i.Probes([*F*])participateinAgree.

ii.Structure-buildingfeatures([•F•])participateinMerge.

iii.Afeature[•F•]or[*F*]mustbedischargedbytheendofthederivation. (adaptedfrom HeckandMüller (2007:2)and Müller (2011:123))

(2) Merge

α canbemergedwith β,yielding{α,{α, β}},if α bearsastructure-building feature[•F•]andFisthelabelof β.

(3) Move

MoveisMerge,with β internalto α.

(4) Agree

(HeckandMüller 2007:2)

α canagreewith β withrespecttoafeaturebundle Δ iff(i)and(ii)hold.

i. α bearsaprobefeature[*F*]in Δ andmaytherebyprovidethe α-valuefor amatchinggoalfeature[F]of β in Δ.

ii. α c-commands β (adaptedfrom HeckandMüller 2007:2)

Ifaheadcomeswithmorethanonestructure-buildingorprobefeatureand foreachfeaturethecontexttoapplyismet,the EarlinessPrinciple (Pesetsky 1989)demandsthatthesyntacticoperationstheytriggereitherapplysimultaneouslyorinacertainorder.Recentanalyseshavemadeuseofdifferentorder

relations,derivingfeedingandbleedinginteractionsbetweenMergeandAgree, eitherimplicitly(AnandandNevins 2006; Asarina 2011; Halpert 2012; Kalinand vanUrk 2001)orexplicitlybymakingreferencetoa featurelist or featurestack (Assmannetal. 2015; Georgi 2014; HeckandHimmelreich 2017; Müller 2009, 2010,2011;MurphyandPuškar2018).IwillfollowMüller(2011)andassumethat thefeaturesofoneheadconstitutealistandwillbedischargedoneafteranother, beginningwiththefirstfeatureinthelist.Furthermore,therearenosyntactic operationswhicharenotfeature-triggered.Bothconditionsarestatedin(5).

(5) LastResort

i.Everysyntacticoperationmustdischargeeither[•F•]or[*F*].

ii.Onlyfeaturesonthetopofafeaturelistareaccessible.

(Müller 2011:168)

ThelastsyntacticconditionsIwanttointroduceareconcernedwiththetime window,inwhichasyntacticoperationisallowedtoapply.The StrictCycleCondition(Chomsky1973),see(6),requiresdischargetohappenshortlyafterfeatures enterthederivation,whilethe Phase-ImpenetrabilityCondition (Chomsky 2000) restrictsoperationstoapplybetweenelementswhicharesufficientlyclose,see(7). Itake vPandCPtobephases(Chomsky 2000, 2001).

(6) StrictCycleCondition(SCC)

WithinthecurrentXP α,asyntacticoperationmaynottargetapositionthat isincludedwithinanotherXP β thatisdominatedby α. Müller (2011:120),basedon Chomsky (1973:235)

(7) Phase-ImpenetrabilityCondition(PIC)

Inphase α withheadH,thedomainofHisnotaccessibletooperationsoutsideof α,onlyHanditsedgeareaccessibletosuchoperations.

(Chomsky 2000:108)

Everyprobeandstructure-buildingfeaturecanonlybetargetedonce(Heckand Müller 2007:2).Theygetdischarged,aftertheyhaveundergoneanoperation, inordertomakeroomforthenextfeatureonthestack.Thedischargehasbeen arguedtoresultindeletion,eitherimmediately(Müller 2011:123)oratthe interface(HeckandHimmelreich 2017:66).Thisassumption,however,creates problemsinarealizationalframeworklike DistributedMorphology (DM)(Halle andMarantz 1993, 1994)inwhichmorphologyinsertsexponentsintoabstract morpho-syntacticfeaturestructurespost-syntactically.Deletionofe.g.valuedcase andagreementfeatureswouldtakeawaythefeaturecontextsneededforlateinsertiontoapply,thusresultinginaseverelackofinflectionalmorphology.This issueextendstoLF-relatedfeatures.Ifco-indexationistheresultofanAgreerelationbetweenindexfeatures,asisthecasee.g.in HeckandHimmelreich (2017) betweenafloatingquantifieranda wh-phrase,featuredeletionshouldbeavoided

inordertocreateaninterpretableLF.Whileapre-syntacticapproachtoinflectionalmorphology,asproposedin Müller (2011:168,fn.8),isaviablesolution forPF-relevantfeatures,itisunclearhowitcanhandledeletedfeaturesneededfor LF.Wewillthusassumethatfeaturesarenotdeletedbutbecomeinactiveafterthey havetakenpartinastructure-buildingorAgreerelation;seealso Georgi (2014: 109); Müller (2009:288), Müller (2010:40).¹ Notethat(1iii)doesnotmakereferencetogoalfeatures,theydonothavetobedischargedforthederivationto converge.Theyare,however,neverthelessdischargedaftertheyhavetakenpart inanoperation.

Followingalongtradition,IassumethatstructuralcaseisassignedbythefunctionalheadsTand v (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001; Legate 2008; Pesetskyand Torrego 2001; Wurmbrand 2001).Sinceprobesarestandardlycharacterizedas beingunvalued(Chomsky 2001)andDPsarguablyenterthederivationwithan unvaluedcasefeature,eventuallybeingc-commandedbyTand v,caseassignmentdoesnotlenditselftobemodelledbydownwardAgree,asitisdefinedin(4). Hence,caseassignmentisoftenviewedasa‘by-product’of Φ-featureagreement betweenanunvaluedprobefeatureon v/Tandthevalued Φ-counterpartonDP (Chomsky 2001; Danon 2011; GeorgiandSalzmann 2011; HeckandRichards 2010).SinceDPsadditionallycomewithanunvaluedcasefeature,caseisvaluedalongthewaybythealreadyestablishedAgreerelationbetweentheheadand theDP.Thisviewofcaseassignmentcircumventstheproblemofunvaluedcase featuresbeingc-commandedbyvaluedprobes.AwaytoimplementcaseassignmentdirectlyviaAgreeisbysimplygivinguptheideathatprobehoodisdirectly linkedtounvaluedfeatures(Assmannetal. 2014, 2015; HeckandHimmelreich 2017; HeckandMüller 2007).Theunvaluedcasefeatureonanargumentcanthus serveasagoal,while v/Tactsasaprobewithavaluedcasefeature,necessitatinganadditionaldiacritic(*F*)tomarkitasaprobe.Yetanotherwaytoavoid thereversedirectionofprobingistogiveuponthenotionof valuation altogether andinsteadassumea checking accountofcaseassignment,inwhichbothprobe andgoalenterthederivationwithvaluedcasefeaturesbutAgreerequires matching offeatures(Müller 2009, 2011).Iadoptthesecondoption,adirectvaluation approach,althoughnothinginthepresentaccounthingesonthatdecision.

Asamplederivationfor(8)isgivenin(9)–(14),focusingonselectionandcase assignmentandignoring Φ-featureagreementforthesakeofsimplicity.

(8)EveryboykissedJohn.

Asafirststep,VundergoesMergewiththedirectobject(9),tocheckits[•D•] feature,resultingindeactivationofboththestructure-buildingfeature[•D•]and thegoalfeature[D]ontheobject(deactivated[•N•]istheresultofanearlierMerge

¹ Deactivatedfeaturesaremarkedingrey: [•F•], [*F*], [F].