Two Phases – Transitives & Non-finites

In transitives and non-finites there are two phases because the v is ϕ-complete, contrary to those constructions in the previous section. In these constructions (see (71) and (72)), I argue that the ϕ-defective Agree between the participle and the first conjunct applies first in the phase one. The &P then late adjoins to the first conjunct in the same

AgrP

phase right before the complement (VP) of the phase head v is sent to spellout. As a result, the &P would not participate in the ϕ-defective Agree because the adjunction occurs after the application of the ϕ-defective Agree. What’s more, if there is an Agr projection (i.e. the transitive construction), the ϕ-complete Agree between the verb raising to the Agr projection and the unpronounced subject does not happen until phase two.

For the transitive construction, in phase one ϕ-defective Agree between the participle colgada ‘hung’ and the first conjunct una lámpara ‘a lamp’ applies, say, in number (singular) and gender (feminine). In phase two, due to the existence of an unpronounced subject, i.e. nosotros, in the specifier of vP, the verb tener ‘to have’

raising to Agr has to agree with it. Therefore, it will not agree with the first conjunct of the coordinate structure in the complement of V. After the ϕ-defective Agree between the participle and the first conjunct takes place in phase one, the &P then late adjoins to the first conjunct in the same phase right before the complement of the phase head (VP) is sent to spellout. Therefore, FCA is possible in transitives. The ϕ-complete Agree between the verb moving to the Agr projection and the unpronounced subject happens in phase two. The derivation is shown in (71).

(71) Tenemos colgada una lámpara y un candelabro juntos en el techo.

‘We have a lamp and a chandelier hung together in the ceiling.’

In the non-finite example, the participle colgada, however, ϕ-defective Agrees with the first conjunct una lámpara in number (singular) and gender (feminine) in phase one. The non-finite verb estar ‘to be’ remains an infinitive verb, showing no agreement with any DPs in the structure. After the operation Agree occurs in phase one, the &P then late adjoins to the first conjunct in the same phase right before the complement of

AgrP

the phase head (VP) is sent to spellout. Therefore, non-finites in Spanish also allow FCA phenomenon, as suggested by (72).

(72) Al estar colgada una lámpara y un candelabro juntos en el techo, nos marchamos.

‘Because a lamp and a chandelier are hung together in the ceiling, we left.’

Summarizing, in this chapter I incorporate the proposal of this study on agreement (ϕ-complete Agree between the verb associated with the Agr projection and the first conjunct blocks FCA, while ϕ-defective Agree between the participle and the first conjunct, however, does display FCA), the late adjunction analysis in Soltan (2007) as

CP

well as the phase concept in Chomsky (1998) to show the derivation of the five constructions in this study. Through these three main elements, we can correctly predict the possibility of FCA and know the timing of the adjunction of the &P.

I predict that in Spanish if there is only one phase and there is ϕ-complete Agree, then FCA is not possible. If there is only one phase and there is only ϕ-defective Agree, FCA is possible. What’s more, if there are two phases and there is only ϕ-defective Agree in phase one, FCA is attainable.

Here, however, I would like to mention that I have no explanation on why ϕ-complete Agree between the verb associated with the Agr projection and the first conjunct in Spanish blocks FCA since in many other languages ϕ-complete Agree still allows FCA. More research in the future is needed to solve this puzzle.

Chapter Five Conclusion

This study investigates FCA phenomenon in Spanish and aims to provide a unified analysis to account for the different possibilities of FCA in five constructions, i.e.

existentials, transitives, non-finites, passives, and reflexive passives. In line with Johannessen (1996), Munn (1999), Harbert and Bahloul (2002), Soltan (2007), and Demonte and Pérez-Jiménez (2012), Aljović and Begović (2016), and many others, the data provided in this study supports the non-elliptical analysis of FCA.

In this study I propose that ϕ-complete Agree between the verb in the Agr projection and the first conjunct blocks FCA; ϕ-defective Agree between the participle and the first conjunct, however, displays FCA. Remember that this proposal rules out the possibility of FCA in passives and reflexive passives. Besides the proposal on agreement, I follow the coordination structure proposed by Munn (1993, 1999) and the late adjunction approach to FCA presented in Soltan (2007) and incorporate the phase concept in Chomsky (1998) to account for the FCA phenomenon in Spanish as well as the timing of adjunction. I argue that FCA occurs when ϕ-defective Agree between the participle and the first conjunct applies prior to the late adjunction of the &P. As for the timing of the adjunction, for the constructions with only one phase, i.e. existentials,

passives, and reflexive passives, the adjunction of &P happens after the operation Agree applies; for the constructions with two phases, after the ϕ-defective Agree applies, the

&P late adjoins to the first conjunct in phase one right before the complement of the

phase head is sent to spellout.

With the three main “ingredients”, i.e. the operation Agree, late adjunction and

phase, in this study, we can successfully explain the different possibilities of FCA arising in the five constructions and show the timing of the adjunction with the help of phase.

References

Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Alijović, Nadira, and Muamera Begović. 2016. Morphosyntactic aspects of adjectival and verbal first-conjunct agreement. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24(1): 7-39.

Aoun, Joseph, Elabbas Benmamoun, and Dominique Sportiche. 1994. Agreement, word order and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25:

195-220.

Aoun, Joseph, Elabbas Benmamoun, and Dominique Sportiche. 1999. Further remarks on first conjunct agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 669-681.

Aoun, Joseph, and Dominique Sportiche. 1981. On the formal theory of government.

The Linguistic Review 2: 211-236.

Baker, Mark. 1985. The mirror principle and morpho-syntactic explanation. Linguistic

Inquiry 16: 373-416.

Belletti, Adriana. 2001. Agreement projections. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.),

A Handbook of Syntactic Theory, 483-510. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Benmamoun, Elabbas, Archna Bhatia, and Maria Polinsky. 2010. Closest conjunct agreement in head-final languages. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.) Linguistic

Variation Yearbook 2009: 67-88.

Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bošković, Željko. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy

approach. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bošković, Željko. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 22: 681-742.

Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 27(3): 455–496.

Camacho, José. 2003. The structure of coordinate: conjunction and agreement

phenomena in Spanish and other languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.” The View from

Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger ed. by Kenneth Hale and

Samuel Jay Keyser, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1998. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework” MIT Occasional

Papers in Linguistics 15. Republished in 2000 in R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J.

Uriagereka (eds.). Step By Step: Essays In Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. 89–

155. MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by Phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, no.

18 (also published in M. Kenstowicz (ed.) (2001) Ken Hale: A Life in Language,

MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp.1-52.

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” Step by Step: Essays

on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik ed. by Roger Martin, David

Micheals, and Juan Uriagereka, 89-156. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in

Linguistics 20:1-28. MIT.

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On Phases.” in Foundational Issues in Linguistics Theory, ed.

by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166.

Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.

Cuza, Alejandro, Lori Czerwionka and Daniel Olson. 2016. Inquiries in Hispanic

Linguistics: From theory to empirical evidence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Demonte, Violeta, and Isabel Pérez-Jiménez. 2012. Closest conjunct agreement in Spanish DPs: Syntax and beyond. Folia Linguistica 46(1): 21–74.

Doron, Edit. 2000. VSO and left-conjunct agreement: Biblical Hebrew vs Modern Hebrew. In The syntax of verb initial languages, eds. Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle, 75-95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fernández-Salgueiro, Gerardo. 2008. Aspects of the syntax of (TP) coordination,

Across-the-Board extraction, and parasitic gaps. Doctoral Dissertation,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Fernández-Salgueiro, Gerardo. 2011a. PRO vs. pro (vs. DP) in Spanish and Galician (and English). Manuscript.

Fernández-Salgueiro, Gerardo. 2011b. Romance Null Subjects at the Sensory-Motor

Interface. Syntax 14(1): 1-28.

Fox, Danny, and Jon Nissenbaum. 1999. “Extraposition and Scope: A Case for Overt OR.” Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed.

by Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, and Peter Norquest, 132-144.

Harbert, Wayne, and Maher Bahloul. 2002. Postverbal subjects in Arabic and the theory of agreement. Themes in Arabic and Hebrew Syntax ed. By Jamal Ouhalla and Ur Shlonsky, 45-70. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533–564.

Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1996. Partial agreement and coordination. Linguistic

Inquiry 27: 661-676.

Kelling, Carmen. 2006. Spanish se-constructions: the passive and the impersonal construction. Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference, ed. By Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King. Stanford: USLI Publications, 275-288.

King, Tracy, and Mary Dalrymple. 2004. Determiner agreement and noun conjunction.

Journal of Linguistics 40: 69–104.

Legate, Julie. 1999. The morphosyntax of Irish agreement. In Karlos Arregi, Benjamin Bruening, Cornelia Krause, and Vivian Lin (eds.), Papers on Morphology and

Syntax, Cycle One: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 219-240.

Marušič, Franc, Andrew Nevins, and Amanda Saksida. 2007. On Slovenian conjunct

agreement. Novi Sad Generative Grammar Workshop, Novi Sad, Serbia. 8.-10. 1.

2007.

May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Ph.D dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Munn, Alan. 1999. First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic

Inquiry 30(4): 643–668.

Radford, Andrew. 2006. Minimalist Syntax Revisited, http://courses.essex.ac.uk/lg/lg514

Richards, Marc. 2008. Defective Agree, Case Alternations, and the Prominence of Person. In M. Richards & A. Malchukov, eds., Scales. Linguistische

Arbeitsberichte 86: 137-161.

Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel. 2005. Case and agreement in Spanish existential constructions (and beyond). Minimalist Essays, 326-394.

Sheehan, Michelle. 2006. The EPP and Null Subjects in Romance. PhD dissertation,

Newcastle University.

Sobin, Nicholas. 1994. Non-local agreement. Manuscript, University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Soltan, Usama. 2007. On agree and postcyclic merge in syntactic derivations: First conjunct agreement in Standard Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XIX:

Papers from the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Urbana,

Illinois, April 2005, ed. Elabbas Benmamoun, 175-189. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Uriagereka, Juan. 2002. Pure adjuncts. Ms., University of Maryland, College Park.