Reinhart and Siloni’s (2005) unergative analysis

Under the unergative analysis (Chierchia 2004, R&S 2004, 2005), the subject of a reflexive verb is the external argument rather than internal argument. Reflexive verbs, argued

3 Grimshaw (1990) does not propose a strucutre of se-verbs; the tree in (8) is based on her theory.

7

by R&S (2005), are crosslinguistically unergative verbs as in (9) and (10),⁴ including French se-verbs. Under R&S’s framework, se is not an argument but a reflexive morpheme that triggers lexical operations and manipulates lexical properties of a verb.

(9) Jean se lave.⁵ Jean SE washes

‘Jean washes.’

(R&S 2005: 404) (10)

With regard to operations on theta-roles, different from the traditional view that valence-changing operations occur in the lexicon, R&S (2005) develop a parameter theory in (11),

4 R&S (2005) have shown many diagnostics against the unaccusative derivation of reflexive verbs. Readers can consider R&S (2004, 2005) for more details.

5 R&S (2005) do not make it explicit what is the syntactic structure of se-verbs in (9). Thus, the tree in (10) is what we take to be the structure based on their discussion.

8

arguing that cross-linguistically UG allows valence-changing operations to take place in the lexicon or the syntax in accordance to the parametric setting of a certain language as in (12).

(11) The lex-syn parameter

Universal Grammar allows thematic arity operations to apply in the lexicon or syntax.

(12) Lexicon setting: Hebrew, Dutch, English, Russian, Hungarian

Syntax setting: Romance (e.g. French), German, Serbo-Croatian, Czech, Greek

(R&S 2005: 408)

Reflexivization, also a type of valance-changing operation in a sense defined by R&S (2005), can occur in the lexicon or the syntax. The effect of reflexivization is that two theta-roles of a verb bundle together as a complex theta-role and it is assigned to the external argument as in (13).

(13) Reflexivization bundling

[θi] [θj]  [θi – θj], where θi is an external role.

(R&S 2005: 400)

As can be seen in (11), the parameter of French is set to the syntax; that is to say, the operation in (13) occurs in the syntax. Before we get into the derivation of French reflexive se-verbs, let us demonstrate how reflexive verbs in lexicon languages are derived under R&S’s parameter theory.

9

When a language is set to the lexicon parameter, the bundling operation in (13) applies directly to the verb’s grid, bundling a θ-role with external θ-role. Reflexivization in the lexicon is summarized in (14) by R&S (2005). As for the Case, R&S assume that accusative case assigning ability is also removed in the lexicon.⁶

(14) Reflexivization in the lexicon

a. Bundling: Operation in (3) applies on the verb’s grid.

b. Case: The accusative Case feature of the verb is reduced.

(R&S 2005: 401)

Let’s see how reflexivization works in a lexicon language such as English. Applying (14) to English transitive verb wash in (15a), the reflexive counterpart is derived in (15b). The new entry has only one complex (bundled) θ-role and it will be assigned upon merging with an

external argument, as in (15c).

(15) a. Verb entry: washacc [Agent] [Theme]

b. Reflexivization output: wash [Agent-Theme]

c. Syntactic output: Max [Agent-Theme] washed.

(R&S 2005: 401)

Now turn back to French whose parameter is set to the syntax. The reflexivization of a

6 R&S (2005) assume that the accusative case feature is associated with the base transitive verb in the lexicon.

10

syntax languages is summarized as in (16). Different from lexicon languages, syntax languages do not apply the bundling operation directly to the verb’s grid; instead, it applies to unassigned θ-roles, which, according to R&S (2005), are retained on the verbal projection, until an external θ-role is merged.

(16) Reflexivization in the syntax

a. Case: Case is reduced by the appropriate morphology (such as the clitic se).

b. Bundling: Operation in (13) applies to unassigned theta-roles, upon merger of the external theta-role.

(R&S 2005: 404)

Let us demonstrate reflexivization of French se-verbs in (17) by R&S (2005). The derivation includes a two-place verb laver ‘wash’ (with Agent and Theme roles), the clitic se, and the DP Jean. First, the affixation of French se gives rise to the reduction of the verb’s ability to check accusative case as in (17a). Since the bundling does not apply to the verb’s grid, the theta roles of the verb will not be assigned and retained in VP as in (17b). The derivation proceeds. Upon merger of the external argument Jean, the bundling operation applies to two unassigned roles and the bundled role is then assigned to the external argument as in (17c). The interpretation is shown in (17d).

11

(17) a. Jean se lave.

Jean SE washes ‘Jean washes.’

b. VP: [se lave θi-Agent, θk-Theme]

c. IP:⁷ [Jean <θi, θk> [se lave j [VP t j]]]

d. ∃[wash (e) & Agent (e, Jean) & Theme (e, Jean)]

(R&S 2005: 404)

At this stage, one may wonder what distinguishes the syntax languages and the lexicon languages. One crucial distinction is that syntax languages allow ECM reflexives, but lexicon languages do not. Consider the ECM (Exceptional Case-Marking) construction in (18a) and its reflexive counterpart in (18b). Traditionally, reflexivization involves linking two arguments and identifying them and the operation only applies to θ-roles of the same predicate in the lexicon. If the traditional concept of lexical operations were on the right track, the construction in (18b) would be unacceptable, which is contrary to the fact. Therefore, the reflexive ECM construction in French is a piece of evidence for R&S’s parameter theory that lexical operations can take place in the syntax.

7 Here IP, according to R&S(2005) is a defective (EPP-deficient) TP.

12

(18) a. Jean considère Pierre intelligent.

Jean considers Pierre intelligent b. Jean se considère intelligent.

Jean SE considers intelligent

‘Jean considers himself intelligent.’

(R&S 2005: 394)

Now consider the derivation of the ECM reflexives in French in (19).

(19) a. Jean se voit [ laver Marie ].

Jean SE sees wash Marie ‘Jean sees himself wash Marie.’

b. Embedded IP: [IP [laver <θi> Marie θg]]

c. Next VP: [ VP se voit <θk> [IP [laver <θi> Marie θg]] θf] d. Top IP: [IP Jean θk + θi [ VP se voit [IP [laver Marie θg]] θf]]

(R&S 2005: 405)

As seen in (19b), the theme role is assigned to Marie, while the external θ-role of the embedded verb laver ‘wash’ is not assigned;⁸ rather, it is retained on the verb and can be

carried along according to R&S (2005). The derivation goes on to the next VP in (19c). The

8 Unassigned roles appear in angle brackets.

13

higher verb se voit ‘see oneself’ has no ability to assign accusative case because of the affixation of se. At this stage, the verb has to assign its theme role to the IP clause (θf) but retain its Agent role (θk) as in (19c). Upon merger of the external argument Jean, the bundling operation applies to θk and θi, and bundles them into a single complex role. Finally, it is assigned to the subject

Jean.

In shrot, under R&S’s framework, French se-verbs are syntactically derived and the reflexivization of se-verbs can occur in the syntax.