University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Syntactic structures in nominals: A comparative study of Spanish and Southern Quechua

(USC Thesis Other)

Syntactic structures in nominals: A comparative study of Spanish and Southern Quechua

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zed) Road, Arm Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES IN N0M3NALS : A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SPANISH AND SOUTHERN QUECHUA by Liliana Sanchez A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Linguistics) May 1996 Copyright 1996 Liliana Sanchez Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 9636744 Copyright 1996 by Sanchez, Liliana All rights reserved. UMI Microform 9636744 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007 This dissertation, written by } —\ \ \ c * — ^ 0 L r'C.K€'z- under the direction of fc& .C.... Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re quirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY D ean o f Graduate Studies Date DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ' Chairperson Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To Irma Alvarado and Cesar Sanchez. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am very glad to come to this stage to express my gratitude. First, I would like to thank the members of my committee: Joseph Aoun, Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, Barry Schein, Jean-Roger Vergnaud and Mario Saltarelli for their help and support at different stages of my studies at USC and during the process of writing this dissertation. Thanks to Joseph for teaching me (I tried to learn) many of the skills required to become a syntactician: how to get the relevant distribution, how to present a generalization and how to argue for an analysis, but the most important skill: how to see the fun side of linguistics. Thanks to Maria Luisa Zubizarreta for patiently reading my manuscripts, always demanding clarification and further explanation of my ideas. My gratitude to Jean-Roger Vergnaud for his help in long appointments where he tried to find ways of making my limited horizons broader. Thanks to Barry Schein for his classes and seminars in Semantics where I learned how to go through the zillions of interpretations that an innocent-looking sentence involving either pizzas or students at Harvard and Columbia may have and almost a new word in English per class during my first year. Thanks also for the long appointments where I learned how to argue in favor of what I believe is true and for the info on the best restaurants in LA My gratitude also to Mario Saltarelli for his continuous support during both my studies in the Department of Spanish and the Department o f Linguistics. I would also like to thank all the other members of the faculty at USC for all I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. have learned in classes and outside them. Special thanks to Aliqa Gorecka, Hajime Hoji, Audrey Li and Bill Rutherford. To Ignacio Bosque, Judy Bernstein, Giuseppe Longobardi, Georges Rebuschi, Friederike Moltmann and Jaume Sola, my gratitude for their comments on the different forms of manuscripts that preceded this dissertation and for the inspiration I drew from their linguistic work and, in the case o f Giuseppe Longobardi, from the seminar he taught at USC during the fall of 1994. To Irma Egusquiza de Paredes and Satuco Orozco my deepest gratitude for their patience as consultants for Southern Quechua. I also want to thank the incredibly efficient staff in the Linguistics Department: Linda Culver, Kathy Stubaus, Don Bui and my friend Laura Reiter whose office was always an oasis o f peace and the source of all possible solutions to all existing problems. To all my past and present fellow students at USC my gratitude for their camaraderie. Special thanks to my pals of all these years Alfredo Amaiz and Claudia Sibila, we have been together through college in Lima and through grad school in Los Angeles and I guess this is not the final frontier yet. Thanks to Liliana Paredes for our beautiful friendship, that developed and grew incredibly strong in this crazy city o f Los Angeles with our love for dancing, El Polio Inka, Trader Joe’s and the Andean culture and its languages, and with our memories from college, our favorite spots in Lima and the unforgettable city of Cuzco. Thanks also to Elena Herburger for her friendship and her support. To my friends and neighbors: Gorka Elordieta, Magdalena Romera and Estibaliz Amorrortu, my gratitude for their support and the gallons of coffee I must have drunk with them. To Patricia Schneider, my gratitude for the long hours of linguistics Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and life discussions over the phone and for her support during the horrible job search process. I also want to thank Pablo Albizu, Nancy Antrim, Hiroshi Aoyagi, Lina Choueri, Daeho Chung, Abdesslam Elomari, Helena Halmari, Miao Ling Hsieh, Ibtisam Kortobi, Yuki Matsuda, Karin Megerdoomian, Keiko Miyagawa, Charles Paus, Shu-Ing Shyu, Maki Watanabe and Shin Watanabe for their support and their friendship. I am also indebted to my friends at California State University Long Beach. Especially to Maria Carreira whose encouragement and support helped me become a Lecturer at CSULB and go through the job search process. To Alicia Cuadros, Lina Llerena and Carolina Argueta thanks for making me feel at home in the Romance Languages Department. Thanks also to my college professors at the Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru: Mario Montalbetti, who introduced me to the fascinating world of syntax, Rodolfo Cerron-Palomino, from whom I acquired a special interest in the study of Quechua, and Luis Jaime Cisneros who introduced me to the study o f language. To my friends from college: Karen, Katia and Roberto thanks for being there no matter what or who, and to the Cesar I knew, thanks. Finally, thanks to my parents for their love and for the emotional and economic support in tough times and to Pepe, Martin and my sisters Irma and Maria del Carmen for always being there for me. And as Garcia Marquez would say: A Jose, por supuesto. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VI TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER TWO: NON-ARGUMENTAL MODIFIERS AND PREDICATE PHRASE INSIDE DP..............................................................................................................................18 2.1 Non-argumental modifiers and Predicate Phrase............................................... 18 2.2 The distribution of adjectives in Spanish and Southern Quechua..................... 27 2.2.1 Canonical Noun-Adjective word order in Spanish..............................28 2.2.2 Canonical Adjective-Noun word order in Southern Quechua........... 33 2.2.3 Common syntactic properties of extensional adjectives in Spanish and Southern Quechua....................................................................................35 2.2.3.1 Null nominal licensing............................................................35 2.2.3.2 Extensional adjectives as predicative complements........... 37 2.2.3.3 Stacking of extensional adjectives........................................ 38 2.2.4 Diverging properties of extensional adjectives in Spanish and Southern Quechua.......................................................................................... 40 2.3 The distribution of restrictive relative clauses in Spanish and Southern Quechua...................................................................................................................... 42 2.3.1 Spanish.................................................................................................. 43 2.3.2 Southern Quechua................................................................................. 45 2.3.3 Common syntactic properties of restrictive relative clauses in Spanish and Southern Quechua......................................................................49 2.3.3.1 Null nominal licensing............................................................49 2.3.3.2 Stacking.................................................................................50 2.3.4 Diverging properties...............................................................................51 2.4 The distribution of non-argumental pre- and post-positional phrases in Spanish and Southern Quechua................................................................................... 53 2.5 Bilingual Spanish...................................................................................................57 2.5.1 Extensional adjectives............................................................................ 58 2.5.2 Relative clauses.....................................................................................62 2.6 Previous unified analyses.......................................................................................66 2.6.1 The transformational approach...............................................................67 2.6.2 Bernstein (1993a)...................................................................................71 2.6.3 Kayne (1994)......................................................................................... 79 2.7 Predicate Phrase analysis....................................................................................... 90 2.7.1 Word order: XP-movement versus Noun Incorporation..................... 91 2.7.2 Number and Gender Agreement............................................................ 94 2.7.3 Null-NP licensing and Predicate Phrase................................................98 2.7.4 Recursivity and Agreement inside Predicate Phrase.........................115 2.7.5 Th-role assignment............................................................................... 116 2.8 Predicate Phrase and other syntactic phenomena............................................... 125 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.8.1 Stranding.............................................................................................. 125 2.8.2 Coordination.........................................................................................131 2.8.3 Deverbal Nominate............................................................................... 133 2.8.4 Indefinite DPs....................................................................................... 134 Notes...................................................................................................................................... 138 CHAPTER THREE: NOMINAL PERSON AGREEMENT AND PREDICATE PHRASE IN DP..................................................................................................................................... 146 3.0 Introduction......................................................................................................... 146 3.1 Argumental structures..........................................................................................147 3.1.1 Morphosyntactic properties.................................................................. 149 3.1.2 Other argumental relations....................................................................159 3.1.3 Argumental hierarchies......................................................................... 164 3.1.4 Argumental nominate and thematic relations......................................171 3.1.5 Predicate Phrase and Person Agreement Phrase................................ 175 3.1.6 Predicate Phrase shell in Southern Quechua.......................................184 3.1.7 Predicate Phrase shell in Spanish......................................................... 187 3.1.8 Wh-extraciion.......................................................................................188 3.2 Possessive structures in Bilingual Spanish......................................................... 193 3.2.1 Word order shift in Bilingual Spanish..................................................194 3.2.2 Clificization...........................................................................................198 3.2.2.1 Inalienable possession............................................................198 3.2.2.2 The categorial nature of the clitic.........................................206 Notes......................................................................................................................................208 CHAPTER FOUR: SCOPAL MODIFIERS IN DP..............................................................216 4.0 Introduction...................................................................................................... 216 4.1 Modal adjectives and Mode Phrase inside DP...................................... 231 4.1.1 The distribution od modal adjectives in Spanish................... 232 4.1.2 Mode Phrase in Spanish DPs...................................................242 4.1.3 The distribution of modal adjectives and modal suffixes in nominate in Southern Quechua......................................................... 245 4.1.4 Mode Phrase in Southern Quechua DPs................................. 248 4.2 Aspectual Adjectives............................................................................... 250 4.2.1 The distribution of aspectual adjectives in Spanish inside DP.................................................................................................... 250 4.2.1.1 Licensing and interpretation of null NPs................253 4.2.1.2 Specificity effects..................................................... 255 4.2.1.3 Position inside DP.................................................... 256 4.2.1.4 Predicative complements......................................... 259 4.2.1.5 Aspect Phrase in DP.................................................261 4.2.2 The interpretation o f aspectual adjectives as DP and VP modifiers...........................................................................................261 4.2.2.1 The adnominal interpretation.................................261 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VU1 42.2.2 The adverbial interpretation.................................. 263 4.2.2.3 Statives.....................................................................265 4.2.2.4 Incorporation o f nominal Aspect0 to verbal Aspect0 ................................................................................. 266 4.2.2.5 The conditional reading........................................... 270 4.2.3 The distribution of aspectual quantifiers in Southern Quechua inside DP.......................................................................................... 273 4.2.3.1 Pro-DP licensing...................................................... 274 4.2.3.2 Person Agreement................................................... 276 4.2.3.3 Predicative complements......................................... 277 4.2.3.4 Coordination............................................................ 278 4.2.3.4.1 Stative coordination..................................279 4.2.3.4.2 Non-stafive coordination.......................... 280 4.2.4 Aspectual Phrase in Southern Quechua..................................281 Notes......................................................................................................................................282 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 288 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT The main aim o f this dissertation is to provide an analysis of the syntax of nominal modification based on the hypothesis that there is a group of DP-intemal functional categories in addition to Gender/ Number Agreement Phrase that mediate between nouns (derived and non-derived) and their argumental and non-argumental modifiers. The common syntactic properties of restrictive modifiers such as adjectives, restrictive relative clauses and prepositional phrases in the two languages under study, Spanish and Southern Quechua, are accounted for as properties o f a functional projection Predicate Phrase internal to DP. The common morphosyntactic properties of argumental modifiers are accounted for as the properties of a DP-intemal Person Agreement Phrase which is required to express subjecthood inside DP. Finally, the syntactic properties of a special class of nominal modifiers that includes adjectives in Spanish and quantifiers and suffixes in Southern Quechua are accounted for as properties of two DP-intemal functional projections, Mode Phrase and Aspect Phrase, that interact with the modality and aspectuality of the main clause. The data examined comes from Spanish and Southern Quechua, two languages with opposite values in the Head Parameter; Spanish is a head-initial language whereas Southern Quechua is head-final. It also includes different stages of Bilingual Spanish, the variety of Spanish spoken by native speakers of Southern Quechua. The latter shows a gradual shift in the feature specification of the functional projections proposed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PREFACE This dissertation was inspired by many sources of interest. One of them, that has remained firm through the years, is the need to understand the process that takes place when two very different languages and cultures come to a sometimes gradual and oftentimes brutal contact. The following passage of the Aulobiografia de Gregorio Condori Mcanani (Valderrama and Escalante 1982) is just one token to illustrate the brutality with which Spanish and Southern Quechua have established contact even in modem times. Ejercitopeqa abecedariota yachachiwarankun. Susiytapas irmanranin; a, o, i, p, letrakunatapas papelpi resqseqmi kani. Pero manachu hina umay kaq abecedariopaq, mana yachaqchu kani. Leey yachasqay letrakunata, sutiyta iman qonqapunin, cuartelmanta lloqsimusqay pisi tiempollaman. Kunanqa ninku cuartelman mana nawiyoq haykoqkunaqa, nawin kicharisqan lloqsimunku, leeyta yachaspa. Chay mana simiyoqkunapas, lloqsimullankutaq castellanoman siminku t’okhaspa. Khaynan karan. Cuartelta haykoq kanki mana nawiyoq, mana nawiyoq lloqsimoq kanki, porque mana atiykoqchu abecedario correcto lloqsimuy. Chhaynallataq mana simiyoq haykunki mana simillayoqtaq lloqsimunki, apenas castellanoman simi t’okhashaq. Cuartelpin chay tenientekuna, capitankuna, mana munaqkuchu runa simi rimanaykuta. -Indios, carajo! Castellano-neqkun. Chhaynan a pura patada castellanota rimacheq kasunkiku clasekuna. (Valderrama and Escalante 1982) En el ejercito me ensefiaron el abecedario. Tambien firmaba mi nombre, las letras a, o, i, p, reconocia en el papel. Pero yo creo que no tenia cabeza para el abecedario porque no aprendi. Las letras que sabia leer y mi nombre, me olvide al poco tiempo de salir del cuartel. Ahora dicen que los que entran al cuartel como esos sin ojos salen con los ojos abiertos, sabiendo leer. Esos que no tienen boca, tambien salen con la boca reventando a castellano. Asi era, se entraba al cuartel sin ojos y sin ojos se salia porque no podias salir con el abecedario correcto. Tambien sin boca entrabas y sin boca salias, apenas reventando a castellano la boca. Hasta antes de entrar al cuartel no sabia castellano; ya en el cuartel mi boca revento al castellano. En el cuartel Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. esos tenientes, capitanes no querian que hablasemos runa simi: - Indios, carajo, casteUano!- decian Asi, a pura patada, te hacian hablar castellano los clases. (Valderrama and Escalante 1982) They taught me how to read and write in the army. I learned also how to sign my name, I could recognize the letters a, o, i, p in the paper. But I think I did not have the brains to learn how to read and write because in the end I did not learn. I forgot the few letters that I knew how to read and my signature pretty soon after I left the post. Now, they say that those who enter the army without knowing how to read come out of the army with their eyes opened, knowing how to read. Those who have no voice, come out with Spanish popping out of their mouths. That was the way it was, you entered the army with no eyes and you came out with no eyes because you could not read correctly. You entered the army with no voice and you came out the same. Very little Spanish popped out of your mouth. Before I entered the army, I did not speak Spanish; it was in the army that Spanish started to pop out of my mouth. In the army post, those lieutenants and captains they did not want us to speak in Quechua: -Indians, damm it, Spanish! -they said. They kicked you to make you speak Spanish in the classes. Fortunately, there are many people in the Quechua speaking regions of South America (mostly the Andes of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Northern Argentina and Peru) who have tried and are still trying to make the contact productive and fair. I hope I can, in some way, contribute to their goal. To some, formal syntax seems far removed from goals like this. Not to me. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction The internal syntax of nominals has been the subject of much research in the generative grammar tradition in the past two decades. Since Chomsky’s (1970) “Remarks on nominalizations” the issue o f the parallelism or lack of parallelism between nominal structures and verbal structures has been at the center of different proposals about the internal structure of Noun Phrases. In the last decade, major shifts in the conception of Noun Phrases have taken place that have pushed forward the existence o f such parallelism. Among the most important hypothesis that have proposed the existence of a parallelism between Noun Phrases and Verb Phrases are: a) the Configurational Hypothesis, proposed by Giorgi and Longobardi (1991) (based on previous work by Cinque 1980, Milner 1982, Torrego 1984) according to which the argumental structure of Nouns is projected in a similar fashion to that of Verbs and is therefore also subject to variation in Head parametrization; b) the Noun Incorporation hypothesis, proposed by Ritter (1988), Valois (1991) Picallo (1991) among others, according to which the noun as a head incorporates to higher functional heads such as Agreement in a parallel fashion to what occurs inside the Verb Phrase; c) the DP-hypothesis proposed by Abney (1987) (based on earlier proposals by Szabolsci 1983) according to which Noun Phrases are embedded under a higher functional projection (DP), a syntactic structure that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. can be easily correlated with the higher functional projections (CP or IP depending on the analysis) that dominate the Verb Phrase. The first two hypothesis mentioned rely heavily on a parallelism between the behavior of nouns and verbs as lexical elements that either project a similar argumental frame or have a similar syntactic behavior (they incorporate as heads). The third hypothesis differs radically from the first hypothesis (and partially from the second) in that the parallelism is not in the behavior of the nouns and verbs as lexical heads but in the existence in both cases of higher functional projections with similar syntactic properties that dominate Noun and Verb Phrases. In this dissertation, I will follow the path opened by the third hypothesis and I will explore a view of the syntactic structure of nominals that proposes that the parallelism between Noun Phrases and Verb Phrases lies in the fact that there is a group of functional projections that may optionally dominate Noun Phrases (which crucially includes those headed by simple non-deverbal nouns) whose specific syntactic properties parallel the properties of functional projections associated with the verbal system and which may under special circumstances interact with them. One of these properties is the licensing of null NPs inside DPs in environments of non-argumental restrictive modification and argumental modification. The following examples from Spanish and Southern Quechua illustrate the licensing of pro-NPs inside DP in such environments: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (1) Spanish Non-argumental Restrictive M odifiers Ayer compramos la [casa de m adera\ grande, no la [e]{ pequena. Yesterday we bought the big [wooden housed ,not the[e]; small ‘Yesterday we bought the big wooden house, not the small one.’ (2) Ayer compramos la [casa de m adera\ que nos gustaba no la [e] que nos querian vender. Yesterday we bought the [wooden house]; that we wanted not the [e] that they wanted to sell us. ‘Yesterday we bought the wooden house that we wanted not the one that they wanted to sell us.’ (3) Ayer compramos la [casa de m adera\ de Lima no la [e\ de Los Angeles. Yesterday we bought the [wooden house]; in Lima not the [e]; in Los Angeles ‘Yesterday we bought the wooden house in Lima not the one in Los Angeles.’ (4) Argumental M odifiers Ayer compramos la \foto\ de Maria y la [e\ de Juan. Yesterday we bought the [picture]; of Maria and the [e]; of Juan ‘Yesterday we bought the picture of Maria and the one of Juan.’ where Maria and Juan can be interpreted as agents, themes or possessors. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (5) Southern Quechua Non-argumental Restrictive Modifiers a.Paraqay [sara]-manta-chu icha-ri q'illu-[e]-manta-chu aqha ruwa-ku-n. White [com]-abl-inte or-emph yellow-[e]-abl-int chicha make-reflex-3p ‘Is chicha made of white com or yellow (com)? ’ Calvo Perez (1993) b.Taki-q [warmi] tusu-q-[e]-wan ancha munay. Sing-nom woman dance-nom-[e]-with very beautiful ‘The woman who sings and the one who dances are beautiful.’ Argumental modifiers c.Maria-q [rz7rafti]r n-pas Marcela-q [e]r pas. Maria-gen [picture]r 3p-add Marcela-gen [e]; -add ‘Maria’s picture and Marcela’s.’ The licensing of null NPs in two paradigmatic subject pro-drop languages such as Spanish and Southern Quechua in the contexts of restrictive and argumental modification of nouns ressembles the situation found in main clauses where AgrP, a functional projection that mediates between the subject of the clause and the Verb Phrase, is responsible for the licensing of a pro in subject position. In the dissertation, I propose that inside DPs, Agreement Phrase alone cannot license the null NP and that the presence of a DP-intemal functional projection: Predicate Phrase (whose existence at the clausal level has independently been proposed by Bowers 1993) is required. Thus, the parallelism between: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 (6) a. Maria / pro vio a Juan. Maria saw to Juan ‘Maria saw Juan.’ b. La casa/pro bonita. The house/pro pretty ‘The pretty house/one.’ in terms of licensing a null element can be accounted for by assuming a common structure in bothe cases, namely, the ones in (7) (based on Bowers’1993 proposal for clauses): (7) a. [n > [prey [Maria] Pred0 [vp [Juan] vio] b. [op La [ p ^ [casa] Pred0 [xp bonita] In this respect, PredP behaves as a two place predicate with an NP subject in its specifier position and AgrP in its complement position. The position occupied by PredP as an intermediate projection between NP and AgrP is a position similar to the one occupied by Tense Phrase in the main clause. Curiously enough, one of the main characteristics that distinguishes nominal structures from verbal structures both in Spanish and Southern Quechua is the lack in nominal structures of independent tense (assuming that relative clauses and nominalizations contain tense inflected verbal forms and therefore should not be considered themselves projections of a noun in the sense that is relevant to our discussion). That is, syntactically PredP encodes a specific type of relation between an NP Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and a restrictive or argumental modifier that is characterized by the fact that although it has propositional content, in the sense that the NP behaves as a subject and the modifier as a predicate, the content is devoid of any tense specification. In other words, the transformationalist intuition that there is a relation between expressions such as: (8) Spanish La ventana roja. The window red ‘The red window.’ (9) La ventana es roja. ‘The window is red.’ can be expressed in a non-derivational analysis by proposing that restrictive and argumental modification have as its syntactic representation PredP, a functional category that has a propositional content but lacks one of the main characteristics of: tense. This baric parallelism can be inserted into a more general view of the internal syntax of Noun Phrases, a view that has centered around the notion that there are crucial differences between Noun Phrases and Verbal Phrases. This view is embodied in the literature in the work of Anderson (1979), Zubizarreta (1987) and Grimshaw (1990) among others. In this view, Noun Phrases differ crucially from Verb Phrases with respect to the syntactic encoding of their arguments. As pointed out by Grimshaw, nouns are syntactically intransitive, that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. is, they do not show obligatory argumental modifiers or for the matter of our discussion obligatory restrictive modifiers. I would like to point out that the parallelism proposed in this dissertation acknowledges and assumes Grimshaw’s observation that nouns are syntactically intransitive but leaves room for the existence of functional projections inside DP whose behavior can be compared to that of functional projections that dominate VPs. As in the case of VPs, the issue of whether these functional projections are always present or are optionally present is open to debate (as in the case of aspectual and modal projections associated to verbs or even tense projections associated to infinitivals), but that does not invalidate the idea that the similarities in syntactic behavior found inside DPs and main clauses can be traced back to similarities in the behavior of the functional projections that dominate Noun Phrases and Verb Phrases. Thus, positing the existence of a DP-intemal projection such as PredP has, in addition to providing a syntactic frame for the notion that restrictive and argumental modification inside DP involve some type of subject-predicate relation, other syntactic consequences. First, it allows for a unified account of the similarities in syntactic behavior and semantic interpretation of restrictive noun modifiers such as adjectives (in their extensional interpretation), prepositional phrases and relative clauses and for the syntactic properties of argumental modifiers found in thematic structures and inalienable possession constructions as previously noted by several authors such as Gueron (1985), Authier (1988), Vergnaud and Zubizarreta (1992). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Second, it provides a way of dealing with parametric variation in the relative word order o f nouns and adjectives that is not linked to the existence of number agreement in a language, a correlation that is in the basis of all the analyses that derive variation in the relative word order of nouns and adjectives from Noun Incorporation to Number0 (cf. Ritter 1988, Valois 1991, Cinque 1993 and Bernstein 1993a), and that the analysis presented in the second chapter of the dissertation challenges. Third, in terms of the parallelism between syntactic and semantic representations, it provides a correspondence between the notion of non-argumental modifiers as independent predicates in the restriction of a quantifier and their syntactic representation. That is, it provides a view of the syntactic structure found in DPs involving restrictive and argumental modification that parallels the main structural division inside main clauses between subjects and predicates. The parallelism between functional projections dominating Noun Phrases and functional projections dominating Verb Phrases is not limited to PredP. Another case in which a certain parallelism between functional projections that dominate NP and functional projections that dominate VP can be found is the case of a sub-class of nominal modifiers that are incapable of null NP licensing. It has been noted in the literature on Romance adjectives (Ronat 1977, Bernstein 1993a) that the licensing of null nominals is not common to all types non-argumental modifiers. In Spanish, there is a class of adjectives that are not capable o f licensing null nominals as illustrated by the following examples: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (10) Spanish *Ayer vi a la verdadera [terrorista] y a la supuesta [e]. Yesterday see-past-lp the true [terrorist] and the alleged [e] ‘Yesterday I saw the real terrorist and the alleged one.’ In Southern Quechua, it is also the case that certain non-argumental modifiers have a syntactic behavior that distinguishes them from those that license null NPs. Again there is a class of adjectives which in their intensional interpretations, do not license null nominals: (11) ?? Huch'uy [runa] r ta-pas hatun-[e]r ta-pas reqsini. Small [man]-acc-add big-[e]r add know-lpsg ‘I know a small man and a great (one).’ The unavailability of null NP-licensing in these cases shows that null NP-licensing is a phenomenon that is not dependent on the categorial nature of the modifier. In fact, it crosses categorial boundaries by grouping a class of adjectives with relative clauses and opposing it to another class of adjectives. In the recent literature on the syntactic properties of some non-argumental modifiers such as adjectives, a distinction has been made between different syntactic types of adjectives. Thus, Cinque (1993) notices the need to distinguish between predicative adjectives and a peculiar type of adjectives in Romance that seem to behave as functional Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 heads and Bernstein (1993a) proposes a distinction between two syntactic types of adjectives: adjectives that are adjuncts to NP and adjectives that are functional heads. I will propose that the apparent syntactic ambiguity of adjectives corresponds in feet to the different selectional properties of DP-intemal functional heads. Thus, whereas adjectives that allow null NP-licensing are embedded under PredP, adjectives unable to do so are embedded under a functional projection different from PredP. That is, I will argue for the existence of another functional projection related to DPs in addition to Predicate Phrase and to Agreement Phrase (proposed by Ritter 1988). Following proposals by Valois (1991) and Bernstein (1993a) who refer to the adjectives that lack the property of null NP licensing as modal adjectives, I will call the projection under which they are embedded Modal Phrase. Such labeling is based on the similarity found between the semantic interpretation of some of these adjectives and the semantic interpretation of modal adverbs as shown in the following Spanish examples: (12) Los arquitectos supuestamente [construyeron varias casas], ‘The architects allegedly built several houses.’ (13) Los arquitectos construyeron varias supuestas [casas]. ‘The architects built several alleged houses.’ In both sentences the adverb and the adjective cast doubt on the constituent they modify. But this similarity in interpretation is not enough to show that modality has a syntactic status inside DP. As it was mentioned before, Modal adjectives do not not license null NP both Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in Spanish and in Southern Quechua, suggesting that the specifier of Modal Phrase is not a position in which pro-NPs can be licensed. Unlike restrictive adjectives, modal adjectives appear in pre-nominal positions in Spanish suggesting a different structural position than that o f restrictive adjectives. More importantly, they interact with other functional projections at the clausal level. For instance, modal adjectives have the same interpretation of modal adverbs when the later are associated with a focalized noun as shown in: (14) Los arquitectos construyeron supuestamente varias CASAS que en realidad resultaron ser EDIFICIOS. The architects built allegedly several HOUSES that turned out to be BUILDINGS ‘The architects allegedly built several HOUSES that turned out to be BUILDINGS. ’ The interpretation of (14) is very close if not the same as as the interpretation of: (15) Los arquitectos construyeron varias supuestas [casas] que en realidad resultaron ser edificios. ‘The architects built several alleged houses that turned out to be buildings.’ This similarity in interpretation is absent in the presence of negation . Thus, an example such as: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (16) Los arquitectos no construyeron supuestamente varias [CASAS] sino que construyeron varios edificios. ‘The architects did not built allegedly several HOUSES but they built several buildings.’ does not have the same interpretation as: (17) Los arquitectos no construyeron varias supuestas [CASAS] sino que construyeron varios supuestos edificios. ‘The architects did not built several alleged houses but they built several alleged buildings’ which suggests that the presence of other syntactic phenomena in the main clause such as focus and negation are of relevance in the interpretation of modal adjectives. On the basis of these syntactic characteristics, I propose that Modal Phrase is another functional projection internal to the DP. The feature specification of Modal Phrase is responsible for the peculiar syntactic distribution of intensional adjectives in languages with a canonical Noun-Adjective word order such as Spanish in which they appear in pre- nominal position (as noted for Romance in general by Bernstein 1993a) as well as for the fact that certain DP-intemal adjectives have scope over VPs. Positing its existence allows us to account for the lack of intensional adjectives in predicate positions such as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. complements of copulative verbs and secondary predicates as a selectional restriction imposed on the functional projection Modal Phrase. Tn addition to modal adjectives, there is a third class of modifiers associated to nouns whose syntactic behavior is peculiar. This class is formed in Spanish by collective and distributional adjectives such as juntos ‘together’, solo ‘alone’ and mismo ‘self. These adjectives as well as modals are characterized in Spanish by the fact that they do not allow null NP licensing either as shown in the following example: (18) Spanish *La [mujer] sola llevo la carta al correo. La [ e] misma la envio. The [woman] alone took the letter to the post office. The [e] herself sent it ‘The woman alone took the letter to the post office. The woman herself sent it.’ In Southern Quechua, these adjectives can be distinguished from restrictive modifiers in that they show obligatory agreement with the verb in the main clause as shown in the following contrast: (19) *Kiki-0 punku-ta kicha-nfer. Self- 0 door-acc open-3p ‘(pro) Open the door (by him/her)-self.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 (20) Kiki-n- mi punku-ta kicha-n. Self-3p-foc door-acc open-3p ‘(pro) Opens the door (by him/her)-self.’ In addition to these differences, one important fact about the modifiers is that as in the case of modal adjectives these have a bearing on the grammaticality and the interpretation of the main clause. This is shown by the fact that their distribution is affected by the stative or non-stative nature of the VP. Thus, both in Spanish and in Southern Quechua , they may not co-occur with non-aspectual statives as shown in the following contrasts: (21) Southern Quechua USapa-Mz-n sumaq-mi. Alone- lim-3p Maria beautiful-foc ‘(pro) Is beautiful alone.’ (22) &zpa-lla-n-mi punku-ta kicha-n. /f/one-lim-3psg-foc door-acc open-3psg ‘(pro) Opens the door alone.’ (23) Spanish ??? Maria sola es bonita. ‘Maria alone is beautiful.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 (24) Maria sola cargo el piano. ‘Maria alone lifted the piano.’ On the basis of this and other syntactic characteristics of these modifiers such as their overt incorporation to the verb in Spanish, I will propose that they are the heads of a nominal Aspectual Phrase which interacts either overtly or at LF with the aspectual projection of the main clause. To summarize, the view of the syntactic structure of nominals presented in this dissertation is one that assumes that the parallelism between the syntax of DP s and that of the main clause is based on the existence of functional projections that dominate the Noun Phrase whose syntactic behavior is similar to that of certain syntactic projections that dominate the Verb Phrase. In other words, it is not a view that assumes a parallelism in the syntactic behavior of nouns and verbs as lexical heads but in the syntactic fact that the interpretation o f Noun Phrases may be dependent on the interpretation of functional projections higher than the NP itself as is the case with Verb Phrases whose interpretation varies according to the presence or absence o f higher functional projections involving modality and aspectuality. The theoretical assumptions upon which the analysis is based are the following. I will assume a paradigm that incorporates both certain aspects of Kayne’s (1994) system which derives linearity in language from the structural configuration of constituents and the basic principles of Chomsky’s (1993) minimalist framework , namely, the position that UG provides a fixed system of principles and a finite array of finitely valued parameters. A Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 6 particular selection of parameters determines a language. The objects to which this invariant principles apply are sets of linguistic expressions each a pair (1 , p) drawn from the interface levels PF and LF respectively. In each chapter a more in depth discussion of the principles adopted will be given. The dissertation is organized as follows. In Chapter Two, I present the distribution of restrictive modifiers in Spanish and Southern Quechua and I show their differences in syntactic behavior with respect to NP-raising, null NP-licensing and the ability to occupy predicate positions. I argue that these differences can be accounted for by proposing that the structures involving restrictive modifiers in both languages are embedded under the functional projection Predicate Phrase (PredP) (cf.Bowers 1993) which is the complement of D°. Predicate Phrase takes as its complement an Agreement Phrase that has an NP in its Specifier position and an AgrP in its complement position. The differences in word order between Spanish and Southern Quechua in the context of restrictive modification are derived from the existence versus absence of overt NP-raising to the specifier of PredP. Data from Bilingual Andean Spanish (spoken by native Quechua speakers) is presented as evidence that there is a shift in the parametric values of PredP at different stages of the acquisition of Spanish as L2. In Chapter 3, I discuss the implications of positing a PredP inside DP for the analysis of argumental modifiers and for the syntactic organization of constructions involving semantic relations such as whole-part, spatial and kinship relations. It is proposed that these constructions involve both in Spanish and in Southern Quechua a DP-intemal Person Agreement Phrase (PAgrP) in whose specifier position genitive case is assigned. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 Parametric variation between languages such as Spanish and Southern Quechua follows from a difference in the feature specifications o f PAgr0 which yields the word order possessor- possessed in Southern Quechua but possessed-possessor in Spanish. The case of possessive constructions in Bilingual Spanish is presented also as evidence of gradual parametric shift and the emergence of a genitive clitic in Bilingual Andean Spanish (not present in other dialects of Spanish) is discussed. In Chapter Four, I argue for the existence of two functional projections related to NP: Modal Phrase and Aspect Phrase. Both are proposed on the basis of the syntactic behavior of a special type of adjectives in Spanish and Southern Quechua inside the DP and on the restrictions found in their distribution at the clausal level. In the case of aspectual adjectives in Spanish, the fact that their distribution and semantic interpretation is affected by the stative or non-stative nature of the main clause predicate is explained by assuming that these adjectives are generated as functional heads that incorporate at LF to a higher AspP at the clausal level. The feet that they agree in gender and number with the NP is explained through incorporation of Agr° to the higher function.?! projections inside DP. In the case of the quantifiers of Southern Quechua whose interpretation corresponds to that of aspectual adjectives in Spanish, their distribution common to that o f non-stative coordination is presented as evidence of their aspectual nature and their obligatory inflected nature is derived from their ability to license a pro-DP in their specifier position. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 CHAPTER TWO: NON-ARGUMENTAL MODIFIERS AND PREDICATE PHRASE INSIDE DP1 2.1 N on-argum ental m odifiers and Predicate Phrase Non-argumental modifiers are those nominal modifiers that do not form part of the argumental structure of the noun. They are adjectives, restrictive relative clauses and prepositional phrases. Their syntactic distribution has served in most typological accounts since Greenberg (1966) as an indicator of the parametrization of languages in two types. Thus, languages with prenominal non-argumental modifiers have been characterized as head-final languages and languages with post-nominal modifiers have been characterized as head-initial languages. In this chapter, I will provide a unified analysis for non- argumental modifiers in two languages which exemplify in an almost paradigmatic way the traditional notion of head-initial and head-final Noun Phrases and I will present evidence from the acquisition of one of the languages by adult native speakers of the other that shows that the shift from one parameter to the other takes place gradually in stages. The two languages in question are Spanish and Southern Quechua^, both of them spoken in Peru. Spanish is a typical example of a head-initial language. In Spanish most of these modifiers appear post-nominally as illustrated by the following examples: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (25) La casa roja]. (adjective) The house red] ‘The red house.’ (26) La casa [ < 3, que me compre]. (relative clause) The house [q, that cl-bought] ‘The house that I bought.’ (27) La casa [„, de ventanas rojas]. (prepositional phrase) The house [pp of window-fem-pl red-fem-pl] ‘The house with red windows.’ Southern Quechua , on the other hand, has been characterized as a head-final language because in Southern Quechua most of these modifiers appear in pre-nominal position: (28) 1^ Puka] wasi. [a p Red] house ‘The/a red house.’ (29) [cp Ranti-sqa-y] wasi. [ c p Buy-nom-lp] house ‘The house that I bought.’ (adjective) (relative clause) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 (30) taap Puka wintana-yuq] wasi. (postpositional phrase) [ P o n P Red window-poss] house ‘The house with red windows.’ In addition to their similar distribution inside DP non-argumental modifiers share other two properties in both languages. First, they allow the licensing o f null nominals: (31) Spanish La casa roja y la [e] blanca son bonitas. The house red and the [e] white are beautiful ‘The red house and the white one are beautiful.’ (32) La mujer que canto y la [e] que bailo son amigas. The woman that sang and the [e] that danced are friends ‘The woman that sang and the one that danced are friends. ’ (33) La casa de ventanas rojas y la [e] de ventanas blancas son bonitas. The house of windows red and the [e] of windows white are beautiful ‘The house with red windows and the one with white windows are beautiful.’ (34) Southern Quechua Paraqay sara-manta-chu icha-ri q'illu-[e]-manta-chu aqha ruwa-ku-n. White com-abl-inte or-emph yellow-[e]-abl-int chicha make-reflex-3p ‘Is chicha made of white com or yellow (com)?.’ Calvo Perez (1993, 278) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (35) Taki-sqa warmi tusu-sqa-[e]-wan sumaq-mi. Sing-nom woman dance-nom-[e]-com beautifiil-foc ‘The woman who sang and the woman who danced are beautiful.’ (36) Puka wintana-yuq wasi-pas yuraq wintana-yuq-[e]-pas sumaq-mi. Red window-poss house-conj white window-poss-[e]-conj beautifiil-foc ‘The house with red windows and the one with white windows are beautiful. ’ Second, they appear in recursive structures as illustrated in: (37) Spanish La [[mujer alta] bonita]. The [[woman tall-fem] pretty-fem] ‘The pretty tall woman.’3 (38) La [[mujer que tiene dinero] que compro una casa]. The [[woman that has money] [that bought a house] ‘The woman that has money that bought a house.’ (39) La [[casa de ventanas rojas] de puertas coloniales]]. The [[house of window-fem-pl] red-fem-pl of door-fem-pl colonial-pl]] ‘The house with red windows with colonial doors.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 (40) Southern Quechua [Phina [q’ara alqu-ta]] seq’u-ru-sqa-ku suwa-ku-sqa-manta. [Fierce [bald dog-acc]] hang-asp-oast-3ppl steal-reflex-nom-abl ‘They had hang the fierce bald dog because it had stolen.’ Morato Pena (1981,LVD )) (41) [Uwiha suwa-sqa [llank’a-q runa]] hamusqa. [Sheep steal-nom [work-agent man]] come-past ‘The man that works that stole the sheep.’ (42) [Qulqi-yuq [warmi-yuq runa]]. [Money-poss [woman-poss man]] ‘The rich married/womanizer man.’ These similarities in the syntactic behavior of a sub-class of non-argumental modifiers suggests the need for a unified analysis of these elements. This unified analysis has not been part of the mainstream in generative linguistics. Thus, non-argumental modification inside DP in Spanish and in Southern Quechua has not been traditionally analyzed as a unified phenomenon. Many recent studies concentrate on the syntactic characteristics of each class of non- argumental modification. For instance, the syntactic properties of adjectives in Romance languages have been the subject of recent research by Cinque (1993), Lamarche (1991), Bernstein (1991, 1993a) Crisma (1993) among others. In some cases, the syntactic properties Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 of adjectives have been related to those of adverbs as in Valois (1991) and Crisma (1993) or to those o f relative clauses as in Bernstein (1993a), for a sub-part of cases. On the other hand, the syntax of relative clauses in both languages has been investigated in depth by many authors focussing on the internal characteristics o f relative clauses. Thus, the studies on restrictive relative clauses in Spanish such as Schroten (1987), Rivero (1982) and Plann (1980), among others, have concentrated on the internal syntactic properties of relative clauses. In a parallel fashion, the studies on restrictive relative clauses in Quechua such as Weber (1983), Cole (1987), Cole, Harbert and Hermon (1982) and others have concentrated on the specific characteristics of different types o f relative causes in Quechua without necessarily relating the properties exhibited by relative clauses to those exhibited by adjectives. Some noticeable exceptions to this approach have been the work of Lefebvre and Muysken (1989) and Weber (1976). In their work, these authors have pointed out the similarities in syntactic behavior of non-argumental modifiers. The first attempt to provide a unified account for non-argumental modifiers can be traced back to the transformational model (Chomsky 1964). This model took the idea, originally present in the Port Royal grammar, that modification of a noun by an adjective was the result of a nominalizing transformation that operated on a sentence with an adjective in a predicative position. In many developments of this transformation, a relative clause was one o f the intermediate steps in the derivation. The transformation was the following: (43) The house is red. (44) The house that is red. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 (45) The house red. (46) The red house. This approach was criticized by authors such as Bolinger (1967) who pointed out that these transformations could not apply to all adjectives as shown in: (47) The main reason, which could not have come from: (48) The reason that is main. (49) The reason is main More recently, Bernstein (1993a) proposed that adjectives could be treated as syntactically ambiguous elements. That is, adjectives can be divided into two major sub classes: those whose projections adjoin to other maximal projections and those that are heads. Bernstein’s analysis opens the possibility of treating adjectives as two types of categories with different syntactic properties. However, it also opens the question of how the information on whether a certain adjective will be treated as an adjunct or as a head will be encoded in the grammar. In this dissertation, I will explore a possible answer to this question. I will take the option of assuming that the particular behavior of certain adjectives can be associated not Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 only with the adjectives themselves but with higher projections dominating them. This not a new path. Bernstein herself proposes a common analysis for certain uses o f attributive adjectives and a sub-class of reduced relative clauses. This line of analysis has also been pursued by Kayne (1994). Kayne notices some of the commonalities in the syntactic behavior of adjectives and restrictive relative clauses and proposes a unified account for three types of non-argumental modifiers: attributive adjectives, restrictive relatives and possessives by proposing that they are embedded under a common maximal projection: CP. In this chapter, I will take Kayne’s hypothesis under closer scrutiny and I will pursue the idea that the commonalities in the syntactic behavior of a sub-class o f non-argumental modifiers can be explained by assuming that they are contained in the same maximal projection. In other words, I will propose that the common syntactic behavior of different non-argumental modifiers such as a class o f attributive adjectives, restrictive relative clauses and pre- and post-positional phrases can be accounted for by assuming that they are all embedded under the same maximal projection. That is, in the analysis I will present their common syntactic behavior will not be exclusively derived form their syntactic status as adjuncts, specifiers or heads but from the feature specification of a higher functional projection dominating them and from their interaction with that head. I will depart, however, from Kayne’s proposal and I will propose that the common maximal projection under which the noun and some of its non-argumental modifiers are embedded is not a CP but a Predicate Phrase (similar to that proposed by Bowers 1993) which is a complement of the Determiner. Evidence in favor of positing this projection will Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. be provided by examining the common syntactic properties of three types of non-argumental modifiers. It must be noted that this projection does not encompass all types of non- argumental modification inside DPs although it is by large the one responsible for what is known as the canonical word order of adjectives and nouns inside DP. In addition to it, other maximal projections will be posited in the next chapters of the dissertation and again syntactic evidence will be presented to support their existence each time. This chapter is organized as follows. First, I present the distribution of attributive adjectives in Spanish and Southern Quechua and the distribution of restrictive relative clauses and pre-and post-positional phrases in the three languages. Second, I present evidence of word order transfer from different stages of Bilingual Spanish (Spanish spoken by native speakers of Southern Quechua) that shows the transition in the feature specification of the maximal projections involved in the cases of non-argumental modification previously mentioned. Third, I will discuss previous unified analysis of these three types of non-argumental modifiers and I will compare them to the proposal presented here according to which the noun and the non-argumental modifier are contained in the projection Predicate Phrase. The semantic nature of Predicate Phrase will be argued to be that o f proposition. Finally, I will discuss the syntactic properties associated with this projection. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.2 The distribution o f adjectives in Spanish an d Southern Quechua 27 The position of adjectives in Romance in general and in Spanish in particular has been a matter of much discussion in the post-GB literature (Bosque 1992, Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, Lamarche 1991, Longobardi 1994, Bernstein 1993a, Cinque 1993, Crisma 1993, Zamparelli 1993, Bosque and Picallo 1994 among others). It has been a matter of great debate given the relative freedom of word ordering that Romance languages exhibit inside DPs in certain contexts. This contrasts with the common assumption that Romance languages are head-initial languages and should therefore exhibit a canonical Noun- Adjective word order. In the last decade, the debate on the position of adjectives has shifted from assuming that it is determined by the Head Parameter, a parameter that divides languages in head- initial languages (such as Romance languages) and head-final languages (such as Germanic languages) (Giorgi and Longobardi 1991) to assuming that the position of adjectives in Romance is the result of other operations such as Noun-Incorporation that take place inside DPs (Ritter 1988, Valois 1991, Picallo 1991, among others). In this section, I will present the distribution of attributive adjectives in Spanish taking into account a series of observations previously made by many researchers working either under the head-parameter hypothesis or the noun-incorporation hypothesis that point out that the distribution and interpretation o f attributive adjectives varies according to different factors. Some are purely linguistic factors such as the definiteness o f the DP they are embedded in, the deverbal or non-deverbal nature of the noun they modify or the thematic relations established between Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 nouns and adjectives. Others appear to be less strictly linguistic factors such as the register of the language in which the Noun Phrase appears. I will aim to show that, once all these factors are taken into account, it is possible to distinguish a class of adjectives whose syntactic behavior parallels that of restrictive relative clauses and pre-positional phrases. I will also present the distribution of attributive adjectives in Southern Quechua. Adjectives in Southern Quechua have not concentrated much of the attention of researchers. As Southern Quechua exhibits a canonical Adjective-Noun word order (Cerron-Palomino 1987, Wolck 1987), that rarely shows exceptions, adjectives have not been the matter of great debate. Nevertheless, certain peculiar syntactic properties of adjectives in Southern Quechua such as their ability to be stranded out of the noun phrase carrying a case marking suffix (Lefebvre and Muysken 1989) or their inability to receive the topic suffix -qa (Wolck 1969) in predicative positions have been examined in the literature. These characteristics are of interest to the analysis presented here because they parallel the properties of restrictive relative clauses in Southern Quechua as well that of post-positional phrases. As in the case of Romance, many restrictions will be taken into account to provide an adequate description of the distribution of this class of attributive adjectives in Southern Quechua. 2.2.1 C anonical N oun-Adjective word order in Spanish In order to provide a brief but accurate description of the distribution of attributive adjectives in Spanish, I will limit the discussion in this section to the syntactic properties that adjectives exhibit when they are modifiers of non-deverbal or eventive nouns in sentences Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 that belong to a neutral register of the language. The assumption behind the choice of these two restrictions is that adjectives may have (and in feet do have) a different distribution and a different interpretation when they are used in non-neutral registers of Spanish or when they are modifiers o f eventive or deverbal nouns4 . However, towards the end of this chapter, a discussion of non-argumental restrictive modification of eventive and deverbal nouns will be provided. In addition to that, the data will privilege examples in which the adjectives appear inside Determiner Phrases headed by a definite determiner. This is a methodological bias based on Bernstein’s (1993b) and Bosque and Picallo’s (1994) findings about the special behavior of indefinite noun phrases. The behavior of certain non-argumental adjectives inside indefinite Noun Phrases will be discussed at the end of this chapter. As noticed previously in the literature (Demonte 1982, Bernstein 1993a among others), there is a class of adjectives that appears always in post-nominal position in the neutral register of Spanish. These adjectives may never occur in pre-nominal position in that register. This is illustrated in the following examples: (50) a. El papel azul contiene datos importantes. The paper blue has important data ‘The blue paper has important data.’ b. *E1 azul papel contiene datos importantes. The blue paper has important data ‘The blue paper has important data.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. They contrast with other types of adjectives in the language. For instance, they contrast with a class o f adjectives that occurs only in pre-nominal positions in the neutral register of the language, as shown in the following contrast: (51) a. Maria es la presunta ladrona. Maria is the alleged thief ‘Maria is the alleged thief. ’ b. *Maria es la ladrona presunta. Maria is the thief alleged ‘Maria is the alleged thief.’ and with the class of adjectives in Spanish whose behavior is peculiar in that they admit both pre-nominal and post-nominal positions with different interpretations: (52) Maria es una ladrona de joyas habil. Maria is a thief of jewelry skillful ‘Maria is a skillful jewelry thief.’ (53) Maria es una habil ladrona de joyas. Maria is a skillful thief of jewelry ‘Maria is a skillful jewelry thief.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 The interpretation of the expression ladrona de jo ya s habil in (52) can be paraphrased as a ‘ jewelry thief who is skillful’ whereas the interpretation of h a b il ladrona de jo ya s in (53) can be paraphrased as ‘skillful as a jewelry thief. As the latter case illustrates, and as it has been noted by authors such as Bolinger (1967) for English, Siegel (1976) for English and Russian, Cinque (1993) for Italian and Bernstein (1991, 1993a) for Spanish, there are semantic differences that correlate with the difference in the syntactic distributions of adjectives in many languages. In the case of Spanish, the first type of adjectives correspond to what the traditional and normative literature (Esbozo de la Real Academia 1986) calls attributive adjectives. They have been called attributive because they refer to a property or attribute assigned to the elements denoted by the noun. For example, in the expression red house the adjective red represents an attribute of the noun house. In addition to being labeled as attributive, these adjectives have been called restrictive in the sense that they restrict the denotation of the noun to a subset. What the term restrictive implies is that the denotation of the expression red house is a sub-set of the denotation of the expression house. They have also been studied in depth and divided in different sub-classes by Bosque (1992) and Bosque and Picallo (1994).As both terms attributive and restrictive are very commonly used in the literature when referring to post- nominal adjectives in Spanish, I will refer to them often in this section. The second type of adjective, exemplified by presunta ‘presumed’, does not refer to an attribute of the element denoted by the noun and has received different denominations. It has been labeled m odal (Bernstein 1993a) and intensional (Kamp 1975). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 The semantic ambiguity of the third type of adjective has been the matter of some studies showing that in certain languages (for Russian see Siegel 1976) there are syntactic and/or morphological correlates to the different semantic interpretations. In this section, I will adopt Kamp’s (1975) definition of extensional and intensional adjectives to distinguish between post-nominal attributive adjectives and pre-nominal adjectives. Any other differences in terminology will be made explicit when relevant. Kamp (1975) defines extensional adjectives as adjectives that when applied to co extensive nouns yield the same denotation. For example, in a world in which the extension of the noun house is the same as the extension of the noun building, that is, a world in which all and only houses are buildings and all and only buildings are houses, the expression red house has the same denotation as the expression red building. This is not the case with intensional adjectives. Kamp provides as an example the case of the adjective skillfu l in one of its interpretations. Let us say, that in a world in which “all and only cobblers are darts players, it may well be that not all and only the skillful cobblers are skillful darts players ” p. 125. Kamp’s example alludes to the interpretation of the adjective sk illfu l in our example (53). This interpretation can be paraphrased as skillfu l fo r a cobbler or sk illfu l fo r a darts player. Notice that in the case o f an adjective such as presum ed, Kamp’s definition also holds. In a world in which all and only cobblers are dart players and all and only dart players are cobblers, it may well be the case that not all alleged cobblers are alleged dart players. That is, intensional adjectives cannot be applied to co extensive nouns and yield the same extension. I will take this to be a basic semantic distinction between pre-nominal and post-nominal adjectives in Spanish (in the neutral Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 register of the language) that correlates with other syntactic phenomena that will be shown later. To summarize, attributive adjectives interpreted as extensional adjectives appear in post-nominal positions in Spanish in the neutral register of the language when they modify non-deverbal or non-eventive nouns. 2.2.2 C anonical Adjective-N oun W ord O rder in Southern Quechua Southern Quechua is a language that exhibits the opposite canonical word order inside DP to the Spanish word order. Southern Quechua has a canonical Adjective-Noun word order (Cusihuaman 1976, Wolck 1987, Cerron-Palomino 1987 among others). This is shown by the fact that attributive adjectives must always precede the noun in Southern Quechua, again in the neutral register of the language, as illustrated in: (54) H atun mayu-ta riqsi-rqa-ni. Big river-acc know-past-lp ‘I know the/a big river.’ (55) Upa [hatun mayu]-ta riqsi-rqa-ni. Tame [big river]-ta reqsi-rqa-ni ‘I know the/a big river.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 versus (56) a. *[[Mayu upa] hatun] riqsi-rqa-ni. [[River tame]] big know-past-lp ‘I know the/a big river.’ b. *[[Mayu hatun] upa] riqsi-rqa-ni. [[River big] tame] know-past-lp ‘I know the/a big river.’ The distribution of adjectives in Southern Quechua differs from their distribution in Spanish. In Southern Quechua, both extensional and intensional adjectives appear pre- nominally. This is illustrated in (57) where the adjective hatun ‘big’ is ambiguous between an intensional reading as in a great m an and an extensional reading asm. a big m an: (57) Qayna p’unchay hatun runa-ta riqsi-ni. Yesterday great/ big man-acc meet-lpsg ‘Yesterday I met a great/big man.’ It would seem that extensional and intensional adjectives cannot be syntactically distinguished in Southern Quechua, at least with respect to their position, as it is the case in Spanish. In the next, sub-section we will see the common syntactic properties that extensive adjectives have in both languages. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.2.3 Common syntactic properties o f extensional adjectives in Spanish and Southern Quechua As it was mentioned in the first section o f this chapter, extensional adjectives share some common syntactic properties in both languages. The first common property that they share is the ability to license null nominals. 2.2.3.1 N u ll nom inal licensing As noted by Ronat (1977) for French and later by Bernstein (1993a) for Romance, extensional adjectives license null NPs whereas non-extensional adjectives do not in Spanish: (58) Hoy visitamos la [casa de campo]; azul, no la [e], blanca. Today visit- lp-pl the [house of country]; blue, not the [e]s white ‘Today we visited the blue country house, not the white one.’ (59) *Hoy atraparon a la verdadera [ladrona de joyas]; no a la presunta [e\. Today catch-3p-past to the real [thief of jewelry]; not to the presumed [el ‘Today they caught the real jewelry thief not the presumed one.’ (60) Hoy atraparon a la [ladrona de joyas]; habil, no a la [e]; torpe. Today catch-3p-past to the [thief of jewelry]; skillful, not to the [e]; clumsy ‘Today they caught the skillful jewelry thief not the clumsy one.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (61) ?? Hoy atraparon a la habil [ladrona dejoyas];, no a la torpe [e]j. Today catch-3p-past to the skillful [thief of jewelry]b not the [e]s clumsy ‘Today they caught the skillful jewelry thief not the clumsy one.’ This property is shared by adjectives in Southern Quechua. Thus, Southern Quechua allows null nominals in the context of an extensional adjective, but it does not in the case of an intensional adjective: (62) Nust’a-kuna-q musuq wasii-n yanapa-q-kuna-q mawk'a-[e] r n-pas rawra-ri- pun. Lady-pl-gen new housej-3ps-ag help-agent-pl-gen old-[eJ -3psg-add bum- inchoative-trans- 3psg ‘The ladies’ new house and the helpers’ old (one) burned.’ Calvo Perez (1993, 278) (63) ?? Huch’uy runaj-ta-pas hatun-[e]r ta-pas reqsini. Small man-acc-add big-[e]r add know-lpsg ‘I know a small man and a great (one).’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 2.2.3.2 E xtensional adjectives as predicative com plem ents Another common property of extensional adjectives in Spanish and Southern Quechua is that they may be complements of copulative verbs5 . The following examples show the case o f extensional adjectives versus intensional ones in Spanish: (64) La casa es azul. ‘The house is blue.’ (65) La casa esta azul. (perfective be) ‘The house is blue.’ (66) *La criminal es presunta. ‘The criminal is presumed.’ (67) *La criminal esta presunta. ‘The criminal is presumed.’ Southern Quechua also allows predicative uses of extensional adjectives as illustrated in: (68) Qhiswa uray sara-qa sumaq-mi. Ravine down com-TOP beautiful-FOC ‘The com of the lower part of the ravine (is) beautiful.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 However, Southern Quechua disallows the intensional reading of the adjective when it appears in a predicative context, that is as a complement of a copulative verb. The following example shows this difference in interpretation. As additional information, notice that the third person form of the verb ka-y ‘to be/to have’ is elided in the present tense in Southern Quechua. We know this is a copulative main clause because only main clauses have the validator/focus marker -m i. (69) Juan-W H hatun. Juan-FOC big/*great ‘Juan is big.’ In this example, the interpretation of the adjective hatun as ‘great’ is not possible. 2.2.3.3 Stacking o f extensional adjectives A third common property that extensional adjectives exhibit in both languages is the possibility of occurring in recursive structures. These stacking structures (Jackendoff 1977) are somewhat preferred in the case of extensional adjectives and yield some level of uneasiness in the case of intensional adjectives at least for Spanish (see Bernstein’s 1993a discussion on stacking of modals in French) in the neutral register. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 (70) Conod a la [[mujer alta] bonita], Meet-lppast to the [[woman tall-fem] pretty-fem] ‘I met the pretty tall woman.’ (71) ???Conod a la [presunta [ habil ladrona de joyas] ]. Meet-1-past to the [presumed [skillful thief of jewelry]] ‘I met the presumed skillful jewelry thief.’ The same is true in the case of Southern Quechua when the interpretation of the adjectives is not extensional: (72) [Phifia [q’ara alqu-ta]] seq’u-ru-sqa-ku suwa-ku-sqa-manta. [Fierce [bald dog-acc]] hang-asp-past-3ppl steal-reflex-nom-abl ‘They had hang the fierce bald dog because it had stolen.’ Morato Pena (1981, LVTI) (73) ?? [Hatun [sumaq runa-ta]] riqsi-ni. [Great [good man-acc]] know-lpsg ‘I know a great good man.’ Although it could be the case that stacking of intensional adjectives is allowed in certain contexts it seems more restricted than the stacking of extensional adjectives in both languages. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 We have seen that there are at least three syntactic phenomena that distinguish extensional or restrictive adjectives from other types o f adjectives in Spanish and Southern Quechua. Their existence justifies a specific syntactic analysis for extensional or restrictive adjectives, different from the one given to other types o f adjectives in Spanish and Southern Quechua. In this chapter, an analysis will be provided to account for the syntactic characteristics o f extensional adjectives. In Chapters 3 and 4 the special characteristics of intensional or modal adjectives will be discussed. 2.2.4 D iverging properties o f extensional adjectives in Spanish and Southern Q uechua In spite o f the similarities in syntactic behavior between extensional adjectives in Spanish and Southern Quechua there are some aspects in which they differ. The first type of difference is morphological. Adjectives in Spanish are inflected for gender and number whereas they are only optionally inflected for number in Southern Quechua. The contrast is illustrated in the following examples: (74) Las casa-s roj-a-s. The house-s red-fem-pl ‘The red houses.’ (75) Puka w asi-(kuna). Red houses-pl ‘(The) red houses.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Notice that the previous examples show an additional difference between Spanish and Southern Quechua that is somehow related to our analysis. This difference is that while Spanish is a language with overt definite determiners Southern Quechua lacks overt definite determiners. The second difference between extensional adjectives in Spanish and in Southern Quechua is that extensional adjectives can be stranded and receive case markings in Southern Quechua whereas they cannot be stranded in Spanish: (76) [Hatun runa-ta] riqsi-ni. [Big man-acc] know-lpsg ‘I know a big man.’ (77) [Runa-to] riqsi-ni [hatun-to], [Man-acc] know-1 [big-acc] ‘I know a big man.’ (78) Conozco [a un hombre grande]. Know-lpsg [to a man big] ‘I know a big man.’ (79) *[Un hombre] conozco [grande]. [A man] know-lp [big] ‘I know a big man.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 These differences in the syntactic behavior of extensional adjective will be shown to parallel differences in the behavior of restrictive relative clauses in both languages and will be used as an indication that a common analysis should be provided for extensional adjectives and restrictive relative clauses that will be able to deal with their common and diverging properties in both languages. 2.3 The distribution o f restrictive relative clauses in Spanish and Southern Quechua Restrictive relative clauses have been studied in the generative tradition from different perspectives. As in the case of attributive adjectives, their distribution inside DPs has been related to the classification of languages in one of the two major parameters proposed since Greenberg (1966). Thus, languages with pre-nominal restrictive relative clauses have been considered head-final whereas languages with post-nominal restrictive relative clauses have been considered as head-initial languages (Kuno 1974). In addition to being used as a test for headedness, relative clauses have been traditionally used in generative grammar to show that knowledge of a language involves the knowledge of some basic constraints that operate in syntax. Since Ross (1967), the impossibility of extraction out of relative clauses in complex noun phrases has been considered one of the classic tests used in syntactic analysis. In the analysis proposed in this chapter, the impossibility o f extraction out of restrictive relative clauses will be shown to parallel the impossibility of extraction out of certain complex adjectival phrases in Spanish. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 In this section, I will provide the syntactic distribution of restrictive relative clauses in Spanish and Southern Quechua. 2.3.1 Spanish The distribution of restrictive relative clauses in Spanish parallels that o f extensional adjectives. Restrictive relative clauses appear always in post-nominal position in Spanish as illustrated in the following contrast: (80) La casa [q, que me compre]. The house [C T that cl-bought] ‘The house that I bought.’ (81) *La [cp que me compre] casa. The [C T that cl-bought] house ‘The house that I bought.’ As in the case of extensional adjectives, restrictive relative clauses form only a sub-part of the general class of relative clauses. Thus, Spanish exhibits another type of relative clause with an overt antecedent: appositional relative clauses. Appositional relative clauses are characterized in Spanish by the fact that they are separated from their antecedents by a pause usually indicated in the written language by commas: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 (82) La mujer, que sabia la verdad, lo ayudo. The woman, that know-3p-past the truth, him helped ‘The woman, who knew the truth, helped him.’ Syntactically, this type of relative clause can be differentiated from a restrictive relative clause in that it does not license a null nominal a property that restrictive relative clauses share with extensional adjectives. The contrast is shown in: (83) La [mujer]j que sabia la verdad lo ayudo y la [ e \ que no la sabia tambien. The [woman]; that know-3p-past the truth him helped and the [e]; who not it- fem knew too ‘The woman who knew the truth helped him and the (one) who didn't (helped him) too.’ (84) *La [mujer];, que sabia la verdad, lo ayudo y la [e]{, que no la sabia, tambien. The [woman];, who knew the truth, helped him and the [e] ,who not it-fem knew, too ‘The woman, who knew the truth, helped him and the one, who didn't (helped him), too.’ Because they lack this important property that is crucial to our analysis, we will exclude them from the discussion . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 In addition to appositive relative clauses, Spanish has what has been called free relative clauses (Suner 1983-84 ) or clauses without an overt antecedent (Plann 1980): (85) Lo que Pedro dijo es cierto. The that Pedro said is true ‘What Pedro said is true.’ These relative clauses will be marginally discussed later with respect to their impossibility to have overt antecedents: (86) *Lo palabra que Pedro dijo es cierto. The word that Pedro sad is true ‘What word Pedro said is true.’ In this section, we will be concerned only with the syntactic properties of restrictive relative clauses in Spanish. 2.3.2 Southern Q uechua The most common type o f restrictive relative clauses in Southern Quechua are nominalized relative clauses. They appear in pre-nominal position in the neutral registers of the language. This is shown in: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 (87) [q. Ranti-sqa-y] wasi. [c p Buy-nom-lp] house ‘The house that I bought.’ (88) *Wasi [a. ranti-sqa-y]. House [cp buy-nom-lp] ‘The house that I bought.’ There are some important differences between nominalized relative clauses in Southern Quechua and relative clauses in Spanish that need to be explained. The main difference is that relative clauses in Southern Quechua belong to the clausal type of nominalizations (Lefebvre and Muysken 1989). This means that they do not show verbal agreement. Instead they show nominal agreement. Thus, in a relative clause such as: (89) [cp Ranti-sqa-^] wasi. [cp Buy-nom-lp] house ‘The house that I bought.’ the agreement marker -y ‘ lpsg’ belongs to the set of nominal suffixes used in possession as in: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 (90) Wasi-j. House-lp ‘My house.’ Another important difference is that although they show tense, it is not embodied in the verb ending but in the nominalizing suffix. Thus, as pointed out by Weber (1976) and Lefebvre and Muysken (1989) different nominalizing suffixes imply different tense markings: (91) Hamu-^runa. (action being realized = present)6 Come-ag man ‘The man who comes.’ (92) Riku-sga-y runa. (action realized = past) See-nom-lp runa ‘The man that I saw.’ (93) Rima-na-yki runa. (action unrealized = future) Speak-nom-2p man ‘The man that you will speak to.’ As in Spanish, the situation in Southern Quechua is not a simple one and nominalized relative clauses with overt antecedents are not the only type of nominalized relatives found in the language. In feet, Southern Quechua distinguishes between two types o f nominalized relatives on the basis of whether the antecedent appears outside the nominalized relative Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. clause or in a position internal to the relative clause. The first type of relative clause has been called headed relative clause by Lefebvre and Muysken (1989). The second type has been called headless also by Lefebvre and Muysken (1989). Both types are illustrated in the following examples from Lefebvre and Muysken (1989): (94) H eaded relative clause [[Hamu-sha-q] runa] nana-y-pa wasi-n-ta ri-n. [[Come-PR-AG] man] sister-l-GE house-3-AC-3 ‘The man who is coming goes to my sister’s house.’ Lefebvre and Muysken (1989,166) (95) H eadless relative clause [Runa hamu-sha-q] fiana-y-pa wasi-n-ta ri-n. [Man come-PR-AG] sister-l-GE house-3-AC-3 ‘The man who is coming goes to my sister’s house.’ Lefebvre and Muysken (1989,168) The differences between these two types of relatives have been the subject of several studies in the literature on the Quechua languages such as Weber (1983), Cole (1987), Cole, Harbert and Hermon (1982) and Lefebvre and Muysken (1989), among others. In the analysis presented here we will concentrate basically on headed relatives although some references will be made to headless relatives7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.3.3 Common syntactic properties o f restrictive relative clauses in Spanish and Southern Quechua As in the case of extensional adjectives, restrictive relative clauses share common syntactic properties in Spanish and Southern Quechua. Curiously enough, they are the same properties extensional adjectives show. In the next section, I present them. 2.3.3.1 N ull nom inal licensing Restrictive relative clauses allow null nominal licensing in Spanish and in Southern Quechua: (96) Spanish La [casa]; roja y la [e]; blanca son bonitas. The [house]; red and the [e]; white are beautiful ‘The red house and the white one are beautiful.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 (97) La [mujer]; que canta y la [e \ que baila son amigas. The [woman]; that sings and the [e]; that dances are friends ‘The woman who sings and the one who dances are friends.’ (98) Southern Quechua Paraqay [sara];-manta-chu icha-ri q’illu-[e]r manta-chu aqha ruwa-ku-n. White [com];-abl-inte or-emph yellow-[e];-abl-int chicha make-reflex-3p ‘Is chicha made of white com or yellow (com)?’ Calvo Perez (1993, 278) (99) Taki-q [warmi]; tusu-q-[e]r wan ancha munay. Sing-nom [woman]; dance-nom-[e];-with very beautiful ‘The woman who sings and the one who dances are beautiful.’ 2.3.3.2 Stacking It is also the case that restrictive relative clauses share the property of appearing in recursive structures in both languages, a property we saw was also shared by extensional adjectives: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 (100) Spanish La [[mujer que tiene dinero] que compro una casa]. The [[woman that has money] [that bought a house] ‘The woman that has money that bought a house.’ (101) Southern Q uechua [Uwiha suwa-q [llank’a-q runa]] hamu-sqa. [Sheep steal-nom [work-agent man]] come-past ‘The man that works that stole the sheep came.’ 2.3.4 D iverging properties As in the case of extensional adjectives, Spanish and Southern Quechua differ in their ability to leave a restrictive relative clause stranded: (102) Southern Q uechua [Hamu-q runa-ta] riqsi-ni. [Come-ag/nom man-acc] know-lpsg ‘I know the man who is coming.’ (103) [Runa-ta] riqsi-ni [hamu-q-to], [Man-acc] know-lpsg [come-ag/nom-acc] ‘I know the man who is coming.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 (104) Spanish *[Un hombre] conozco [que sabe la verdad], A man know-lpsg that know-3p the truth ‘I know a man who knows the truth.’ This shows that extensional adjectives and restrictive relative clauses have a peculiar syntactic property in Southern Quechua that makes them differ from extensional adjectives and relative clauses in Spanish. The distribution of extensional adjectives and relative clauses in Spanish and Southern Quechua indicates not only the existence o f common properties of both types of modifiers in each of the languages but also the existence of common properties shared by non-argumental modifiers in both of the languages. This is shown by the feet that extensional adjectives and restrictive relative clauses allow null nominals and stacking in both languages. This distribution also shows that when the patterns differ they do in a principled way as in the case of stranding of extensional adjectives and restrictive relative clauses. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 2 .4 The distribution o f non-argum ental p re- a nd post-positional phrases in Spanish and Southern Q uechua As it was mentioned before, there is a third class of non-argumental modifier that has similar properties in Spanish and Southern Quechua. This type of modifier corresponds to what is called a prepositional phrase in Spanish and a post-positional phrase in Southern Quechua. The following examples illustrate the two types: (105) Spanish La casa [pp de ventanas]. The house [pp of windows] ‘The house with windows.’ (106) Southern Quechua [ p p Wintana-jy«#] wasi. [ p p Windows-poss] house ‘The house with windows.’ Notice that in both cases the pre and post-position have associated with them some inclusive or restrictive relation usually taken as an instance of alienable possession (see Calvo Perez (1993) for Southern Quechua). Because in Spanish these prepositional phrases are superficially similar to some genitive modifiers of nouns, I would like to distinguish these non-argumental prepositional phrases from the ones that embody grammatical genitival Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. or possessive relations which can be and have been argued to be argumental. In Spanish, an expression such as (105) appears to be superficially identical to: (107) La casa [pp de Pedro], The house [pp of Pedro] ‘Pedro’s house.’ Notice, however, that the relation between Pedro and the house is one of ownership, that is one that can be expressed as Pedro owns the house. I would like to argue that although this expression shares some syntactic properties with (105), both expressions must be distinguished on the basis of their different restrictions with respect to the complement of the preposition in Spanish, as pointed out to me by G. Longobardi. The following expressions contrast with expressions such as (107) in that they do not allow bare singulars and bare plurals: (108) *La casa [pp d S ? mujer]. The house [pp of woman] ‘The house of woman.’ (109) *La casa [pp de mujeres]. The house [pp of women] ‘The house of women.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 The last two expressions are ungrammatical if they intend to convey a possession relation between the complement of the preposition and the noun house. This I will take to suggest that the prepositional phrases analyzed in this section differ syntactically from those argumental prepositional phrases expressing possession.8 In the next chapter, a discussion of the semantic import of the two types of relations will be provided. Going back to their syntactic properties, as previously shown for adjectives and restrictive relative clauses, these also allow null nominal licensing: (110) Spanish La [casa]; de ventana-s roj-a-s y la [e] de ventana-s blanc-a-s son bonit-a-s. The [house]; of window-pl red-fem-pl and the [e]s windows white-fem-pl are beautiful-fem-pl ‘The house with windows and the (one) with white windows are beautiful.’ (111) Southern Quechua Puka wintana-yuq [wasi];-pas yuraq wintana-yuq-[e]r pas sumaq-mi. Red window-poss [house]-conj white window-poss-[e];-conj beautiful-foc ‘The house with red windows and the (one) with white windows.’ and they allow stacking in both languages: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (112) Spanish La [[casa de ventanas rojas] de puertas coloniales]]. The [[house of window-fem-pl] red-fem-pl of door-fem-pl colonial-pl]] ‘The house with red windows with colonial doors.’ (113) Southern Quechua [Qulqi-yuq [warmi-yuq runa]]. [Money-poss [woman-poss man]] ‘The rich married/womanizer man.’ More importantly, they show the same difference in both languages with respect to stranding: (114) Spanish *[Un hombre] conozco [de muchas virtudes]. [A man] know-lp-sg [of many virtues] ‘I know a man of many virtues.’ (115) Southern Quechua [Runa-ta] riqsi-ni [kallpa-yuq-ta], [Man-acc] know-lp [strength-poss-acc] ‘I know a man with strength.’ Lefebvre and Muysken (1989,142) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 2.5 B ilingual Spanish Southern Quechua and Spanish are in close contact in the southern region of Peru. Mannheim (1991,4) defines Southern Peruvian Quechua as the variety of Quechua “spoken in the contiguous highlands departments of Apurimac, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Cuzco, Huancavelica and Puno. (...) It is also spoken by urban migrants from these areas to the major cities (Mannheim 1991, 4).” It is usually the case that these migrant speakers acquire Spanish in the urban settings and become bilingual as adults. They become speakers of what was traditionally called Interlecto (Alberto Escobar 1978). Recently, Anna Maria Escobar (1994) uses the term Bilingual Spanish to refer to this variety defined as: “a social variety of Spanish spoken by native Quechua (...) speakers who are is the early stages of the acquisition of Spanish as a second language ” (Escobar 1994, 51). In this section, I will present data taken from the recorded speech of Bilingual Spanish speakers in the dty ofLima by Paredes (1994) and confirmed in some cases through elicitation of grammatical judgements from them during fieldwork I did in December 1994. The data refers mainly to the position of extensional adjectives, restrictive relative clauses and pre-positional phrases at different stages of the acquisition of Bilingual Spanish. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 2.5.1 E xtensional adjectives As we said before, Spanish in the southern regions of Peru is in close contact with Southern Quechua, a language that we have shown exhibits a strict Adjective-Noun word order, optional number agreement between the noun and the adjective and no gender agreement between them. At a very low level of proficiency in Spanish, speakers of Bilingual Spanish have the Adjective-Noun word order found in Southern Quechua and an unstable specification of number and gender agreement features. The following examples from Paredes (1994) illustrate the peculiar word order and the lack of number specification9: (116) El zorro tiene grande diente. The fox have-3p big-sg tooth ‘The fox has big teeth.’ In this example, the adjective grande ‘big’ appears in a pre-nominal position. Notice also that both the noun and the adjective lack the plural marking obligatory in Spanish when referring to a bare plural. This contrasts with the corresponding version of the Bilingual Spanish sentence in Standard Spanish: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 (117) El zonro tiene diente-s grande-s. The fox has big-pl tooth-pl ‘The fox has big teeth.’ In this sentence, the word order is Noun-Adjective and both the noun and the adjective receive a plural marking. The interpretation o f the adjectives in both sentences is extensional indicating that Bilingual Spanish has pre-nominal extensional adjectives. In addition to that, the foim in which the pre-nominal extensional adjective appears in Bilingual Spanish is the regular form of the adjective and not the abbreviated form used in Standard Spanish in the case of intensional pre-nominal adjectives: (118) Una gran explosion. ‘A big explosion.’ indicating that whatever the process involved in the abbreviation of the pre-nominal adjective in Standard Spanish, it does not affect extensional adjectives in Bilingual Spanish in the early stages of acquisition. The previous example showed the lack of number marking in both the noun and the adjective. It is also possible to find examples in which there is a mismatch between the number marking o f the noun and the adjective: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 (119) Todos nosotros ha llevado ese m al-a-s gente-0. All us has taken this-sg bad-fem-pl people-sg ‘Those bad people had taken us all. ’ It is also the case that gender marking is unstable as illustrated by the following examples: (120) Nuestro pueblo mucho peligro tiene, ha entrado m al-o-s gente-s. Our town much danger has, has entered bad-masc-pl people-(fem)-pl ‘There is much danger in our town, bad people has entered the town.’ (121) Cuando recien han entrado a nuestro pueblo, las m al-a-s gente -s ,el ha escapado. Just when the-fem-pl bad-fem-pl people-(fem)-pl entered our town he escaped ‘Just when the bad people entered our town, he escaped.’ Notice that in these examples both the noun and the adjective agree in number and in gender but gender is not a stable feature. In other words, it would seem as if there is a need for marking gender and number morphologically but the feature specification is not stable. Notice that this takes place even when the adjective appears pre-nominally. Later on, we will see that these data supports a line of analysis that considers the relative word order of adjectives and nouns as an independent issue from the overt marking of gender and number on the noun and the adjective. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. At a higher level of proficiency, speakers have the word order Noun-Adjective but the agreement in number features remains not clearly specified. Thus, in the following examples the noun is singular but the adjectives are plural as illustrated by the adjective picaditos ‘chopped’1 0 : (122) Despues aparte pico 1-a cebolla delagadit-a-s y de ahi lo pongo por ejemplo apio picadit-o-s. Then aside chop-lp the-fem onion(fem.sg) thin-fem-pl and from there it put- lp for example celery(masc.sg) chopped-masc-pl ‘Then, aside, I chop the onions thin and I add, for instance, chopped celery.’ It is also the case, that although the adjective appears post-nominally, there is still a mismatch in gender features between the noun and the adjective, as shown by an example in Escobar (1994): (123) L-a escuela noctum-o. The-fem school nightly-masc ‘The evening school.’ To summarize, it is possible to find in the initial stages of acquisition of Bilingual Spanish the word order Adjective-Noun and in later stages see this ordering reversed to Noun-Adjective. Morphological marking of agreement features are present in the early stage Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 and coexist with the word order Adjective-Noun although there are mismatches in the feature marking of nouns and adjectives. At later stages, it is possible to find the word order Noun- Adjective and still there is a mismatch in the feature marking of nouns and adjectives. I will take this to suggest two things. First, there is a process of transfer o f the canonical word order in Southern Quechua to Bilingual Spanish in the initial stages o f acquisition. Second, the morphological marking o f gender and number features is not responsible of the change in the relative word order of nouns and adjectives. 2.5.2 R elative Clauses As in the case of adjectives, relative clauses in Bilingual Spanish may appear in pre- nominal positions at early stages of the acquisition of the language. The following paragraph illustrates some examples of relative clause in early stages of Bilingual Spanish": (124) Q uestion in Standard Spanish ^Nadie se quedo en tu casa cuidando? Nobody cl-remain-past3p at your house guarding ‘Did anybody stayed at home watching?’ (125) Answer in B ilingual Spanish [Yo estaba am arrado] no mas ha dejado, nada, nadie no he dejado nada. [I was tied] not more have left, nothing, nobody, not have left nothing ‘(I) have only left [what I had tied], nothing, nobody left anything.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 (126) Mi casa \yo he dejado [w s cositas]} esta lleno. My house [I have left [my things]] is full ‘My house is full (with) [[my things] that I have left].’ (127) Pero [esta yo he am arrado] seguro ha llevado los gentes. But [this I have tied] surely has taken the people ‘But the people has surely taken [what I had tied].’ (128) Yo le he preguntado [ahi viene [var/os]] y no hay nada dice. I cl-have asked [there come [several]] and not have nothing say ‘I have asked [[several] who come from there] and there is nothing (they) say.’ Sentences (126) and (128) in this paragraph show the existence of pre-nominal relatives in Bilingual Spanish with an inflected verb but without an overt complementizer. In (126) the antecedent m is cositas ‘my things’ is the object o f the verb in the relative clause and appears after the relative clause.)** he dejado ‘I have left’. In (128) the antecedent varios ‘several’ is the subject of the verb in the relative clause and appears also after the relative clause. This shows that it is possible in Bilingual Spanish to have relative clauses with inflected verbs in a pre-nominal position although at this very early stage of acquisition they lack an overt complementizer. Notice also that at this early stage it is possible to find free relatives as illustrated by sentences (125) and (127). As mentioned before, free relatives in Standard Spanish are characterized by the fact that they lack an overt antecedent. The following contrast shows Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the syntactic differences between the free relatives in Standard Spanish and Bilingual Spanish: (129) Standard Spanish Pero seguro que la gente se ha llevado [lo que yo he amarrado]. But surely that the people cl-have taken [the that I have tied] ‘But the people has surely taken [what I had tied].’ (130) B ilingual Spanish Pero [esta yo he amarrado] seguro ha llevado los gentes. But [this 1 have tied] surely has taken the people ‘But the people has surely taken [what I had tied].’ Notice that the basic difference between free relatives in both languages is the lack in Bilingual Spanish of an overt complementizer and the lack of a definite article preceding the complementizer, instead Bilingual Spanish has a demonstrative. These examples are relevant to show that at this stage there are no overt complementizers in headed or free relatives in Bilingual Spanish. At later stages of acquisition, it is possible to find in Bilingual Spanish pre-nominal relative clauses with an overt complementizer as shown in: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 (131) Ya no hay arbolitos, ya no. Hay un laguito, algo parecido, donde esta [este que necesiten mas] [aguitas]. Not anymore have trees, not anymore, have a lake, something similar, where is [this that needs more] [water] ‘There are no trees anymore, not anymore. There is a lake, something similar where the water [that is badly needed] is.’ In this example, there is no pause between the relative clause and the noun aguitas ‘waters’. Notice however that the relative clause is more complex than the ones that we have presented before. It has an overt complementizer que ‘that’. Still the relative clause precedes the noun. This suggests that even when an overt complementizer appears at early stages of acquisition, Bilingual Spanish speakers maintain the word order found in Southern Quechua irrespectively of the complexity of the internal structure of the relative clause.1 2 At later stages of acquisition, we find the word order Noun-Relative clause as illustrated by the following sentence: (132) Hay una ave-cita [que tiene su nido]. Have a bird-dim [that has its nest] ‘There is a little bird that has a nest.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 The data presented shows that, as in the case of adjectives, the position of the relative clause goes from a pre-nominal position in the earlier stages of Bilingual Spanish to a post- nominal position at later stages. I will take tins to suggest that in both cases there is a common process triggering the shift in the position of extensional adjectives and relative clauses. In the following section, I will present previous unified analysis of non-argumental modification and the one that will be presented here. 2.6 Previous un ified analyses As it was mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, there are not many unified treatments of non-argumental modifiers in the history of generative grammar. I will present three that I have found in the literature. The first one is the transformational approach to the syntax of attributive adjectives that related relative clauses to attributive adjectives. The other two are more recent attempts to relate the structural representations of different non- argumental modifiers. The second proposal is Bernstein’s (1993a). She notices that the frets about null nominal licensing in the context of a definite determiner in Romance require a common analysis for the sequences D° AP, Ef CP and Ef PP and she argues that the definite determiner in Spanish creates an argument out o f a predicative category. As her main line of analysis is concerned with deriving the differences between extensional attributive adjectives and non-extensional adjectives in terms of their positions as adjuncts or heads, she leaves open the question of which structures should be assigned to these Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 constructions. Although she does not provide a specific analysis for all the constructions, she presents an analysis of the empty nominal in those constructions that I will discuss in this section. A more detailed unified proposal is given by Kayne (1994). Kayne proposes that nouns and certain adjectives, relative clauses and prepositional clauses are embedded under a common projection, in Kayne’s analysis a CP. In this section, I will present Kayne’s analysis and I will argue that the common projection that contains nouns and a a sub-class of non-argumental modifiers is not a CP but a Predicate Phrase with very specific properties different from those of CP. 2.6.1 The transform ational approach In the history of generative grammar, the first attempt to relate two types of non- argumental modification was undertaken by the transformational approach (Chomsky 1964). Based on the Port Royal description of attributive adjectives the transformational model proposed that expressions containing an attributive adjective such as red house were derived by a nominalizing transformation operating on a sentence containing an adjective in a predicative position: (133) The house is red. The transformation converted the string into the corresponding noun phrase: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (134) The red house. Bolinger (1967) questioned this approach using as its central argument the idea that not all adjectives can be used in predicative positions, that is, that not all adjectives can appear as complements o f the verb to be. In his criticism o f the transformational approach, Bolinger shows an example of the set of transformations required to obtain a noun phrase modified by an attributive adjective in an object position. Thus the expression: (135) I bought a big table, supposes the following transformations: (136) a. I bought the table. The table was big. b. I bought the table that was big. c. I bought the table big. d. I bought the big table. The analysis, as presented by Bolinger, supposed an intermediate stage between the original string and the noun phrase in which a restrictive relative clause was involved. Bolinger’s central criticism was that this analysis did not take into account a wide variety of adjectives which could not be derived used in predicative positions such as m ain. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 (137) The main reason, could not be derived from: (138) The reason is main. But he also noticed that the intermediate stage in which a relative clause was needed to achieve the complete transformation was not semantically equivalent to the different uses of attributive adjectives ending in the suffix -able. Thus he argues that the expression: (139) The only river that is navigable. is ambiguous as to whether the adjective refers to a class of rivers or to the feet that the river happens to be navigable at the moment. But the expressions: (140) a. The only river navigable, b. The only navigable river. are not. The first one refers unambiguously to what he calls the occasion and the second to refers unambiguously to what he calls the characteristic. That is, not only is it the case that certain attributive adjectives cannot be derived from predicative uses but that even Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 when they can be derived, the logical intermediate stages in the set of transformations are not semantically equivalent. Bolinger’s rejection of a common analysis for non-argumental modifiers was based on the lack of total parallelism between adjectives in attributive positions and adjectives in predicative positions and on the lack of a similar semantic interpretation between adjectives and restrictive relative clauses. Nevertheless, when considered more carefully, it was a criticism to the idea that all adjectives were derived by the same transformation process. Of course, given the fact that adjectives were defined as a basic lexical category (Chomsky 1970, JackendofF 1977) accepting the possibility of dividing adjectives in different classes according to their syntactic behavior was not the best option at the time. Notice however that Bolinger’s argument did not take into account the possibility of explaining the diversity in syntactic behavior of adjectives by assuming that the different distribution of adjectives implied different structures. Thus, an adjective such as navigable could be thought of as bong embedded in different structures in (140)a. and b. This can be shown by the following example: (141) The [only [[navigable river] [navigable this time of the year]] is the Amazonas. This example shows that the adjective is not in the same position in both cases and that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bolinger’s objection to a common analysis for adjectives and relative clauses may be overcome if we accept the idea that there is a sub-class of adjectives and a sub-class of relative clauses that are dominated by a common projection. 2.6.2 B ernstein (1993a) Bernstein (1993a) takes the position that the differences in syntactic distribution of adjectives must be explained by different structures. She proposes that adjectives are syntactically ambiguous in the sense that they may appear as adjuncts to the NP or as functional heads. She proposes that the difference pointed out by Bolinger in terms of the syntactic behavior of adjectives such as red and m ain can be captured if one assumes that extensional adjectives are adjoined to Number Phrase whereas adjectives such as m ain are functional heads. The corresponding structures proposed by Bernstein are the following: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 (142) E xtensional adjectives DP D’ D° NumP (Number Phrase) Num’ Num° NP AP N’ N° (143) Intensional adjectives DP D’ D° AP A0 NumP Num’ Num0 NP One important question that this analysis raises is the syntactic nature of the complement of D°. Especially in the case of the so called ambiguous adjectives such as ha b il ‘skillful’, one would have to assume that in one interpretation they are marked with a feature [+functional] that allows their projections to be the complement of D° whereas in the structure in which they appear as adjuncts to the Number Phrase this feature is absent. Of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 course nothing prevents such a view of the distinction between the two types o f adjectives but as we have pointed out previously there are several syntactic phenomena that point in the direction of a common analysis for extensional adjectives and other types of non- argumental modifiers such as relative clauses and certain pre-and post-positional phrases. In fact, Bernstein herself notices that this is the case with respect to the licensing of null nominals in Romance. Thus, she proposes that constructions of the type D° + AP, D° + CP and D° + PP should receive a common analysis. In order to maintain her original proposal in (142), Bernstein claims that there are two different structures: one corresponds to the cases in which there is an overt nominal and the other to the cases in which there is a covert nominal modified by an adjective. Following Torrego (1984), Bernstein proposes that it is a property of the definite article in Romance to allow for the licensing of null nominals. In Bernstein’s proposal the definite determiner is a subordinator that converts an otherwise predicative category into an argument or at least into a projection that licenses an argument in its specifier position. Thus, in her proposal an expression such as: (144) El pro rojo. The pro red ‘The red (one).’ has the following representation: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. where the null nominal is in the specifier of the adjectival phrase. This contrasts with the representation o f expressions containing overt nominals ((142) repeated here): (146) DP D’ D° NumP (Number Phrase) Num’ Num0 NP libro / ' \ s AP N’ rojo / " X N° In the representation in (145), the null element is a pro sitting in the Specifier of AP. AP is the complement of D° which acts as a subordinator that turns the predicate AP into an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 argument. In order to claim that the structures are different Bernstein uses the following contrast: (147) Considero [el examen facil]. Consider-lppres [the exam easy] ‘I consider the exam easy.’ versus: (148) *Considero [el pro facil]. Consider-lp [the pro easy] ‘I consider the one easy.’ Bernstein argues that in this example one can see that when the determiner turns the AP into an argument it cannot be selected as a small clause. Notice, however, that structures containing a small clause and structures containing a DP have different syntactic properties in Spanish. For instance, they have different possibilities of cliticization. Complements of verbs such as tom ar ‘to take’ can be cliticized whereas the complement of considerar ‘to consider’ cannot be cliticized: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 (149) Juan tomo [el examen facil]; pero Pedro no lo tomo [ e];. Juan took [the easy exam]; but Pedro not cl-took [e]; ‘Juan took the easy exam but Pedro did not take it.’ (150) ??? Yo considero [el examen facil]; pero Pedro no lo considera [ e];. I consider [the exam easy]; but Pedro not cl-considers [e]; ‘I consider the exam easy but Pedro does not considers it.’ This suggests that the expressions e l examen fa c il ‘the easy exam’ in (149) and in (150) are not the same type of constituent. Furthermore, cliticization o f a sub-part of the small clause that is the complement of consider is possible in Spanish but it is not possible to cliticize a sub-part of a DP that is a complement of take : (151) Yo considero [el examen]; facil pero Pedro no lo considera [e]; facil. I consider [the exam easy]; but Pedro not cl-considers [e]; easy ‘I consider the exam easy but Pedro does not consider it easy.’ (152) ???Juan tomo [el examen]; facil pero Pedro no lo tomo [e]; facil. Juan took [the exam]; easy but Pedro not cl-took [e]; easy ‘Juan took the easy exam but Pedro did not take it easy.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 All this suggests that the complement of consider and the complement of take are structurally different in Spanish and therefore the impossibility o f (152) cannot be used to support a differentiated analysis for the DPs in the following structures: (153) Tome [cpel examen facil], I took [up the easy exam] ‘I took the easy exam.’ (154) Tome el [e] facil. I took the [e] easy ‘I took the easy one.’ In fact, I would like to suggest that the corresponding structures are the following: (155) tom ar... [dP el examen facil ]. (156) considerar... [w [dP el examen] Y° facil]. where the complement of tom ar ‘take’ is a DP. The complement o f considerar ‘to consider’ is a projection YP that has a DP in its specifier position and an AP in its complement position. If one assumes that clitics in Spanish are specific or that they are coindexed with a DP it becomes apparent why is it the case that the subject o f the small clause can be cliticized but the NP inside the DP cannot. Therefore, it is not the case that the subordinating properties of the definite determiner forbid the null nominal in the case of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. small clause but instead that the impossibility of a null nominal follows from the same reason that makes it impossible to have a null nominal inside a DP with no modifier o f the noun in Spanish: (157) *Maria vio [dP el asesinatoj] y Pedro tambien vio [dP el [N T e; ]]. Maria saw [dP the [> jp murderj] and Pedro also saw the [dP el ]] ‘Maria saw the murder and Pedro also saw the one.’ That is, the impossibility of a null nominal in the case of the small clause has its explanation in the internal syntax of the DP in Spec o f YP and not in the subordinating properties o f the definite determiner. Notice that if one adds a modifier to the DP in Spec of YP (the small clause of consider) the sentence becomes grammatical (as noted by Ordonez cited by Bernstein (1993a)): (158) Considero a [yp [up los e inteligentes] Y° [ap poco educados]]. Consider-lpsg to [yp [dP the e intelligent] Y° little educated]] ‘I consider the intelligent (ones) little educated.’ and the same is true in the case of a DP complement of a transitive verb (no small clause involved): Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 (159) Maria vio [el [asesinatolj reriente] y Pedro vio [el [e]; anterior]. Maria saw [the [murder^ recent] y Pedro also saw [the [e]; previous] ‘Maria saw the recent murder and Pedro also saw the previous one.’ Given this difference in the internal structure of small clause complements and DP complements, I will assume that there is no empirical basis for analyzing the DPs containing an overt nominal and a modifier as structurally different from those containing a null nominal and a modifier in the way proposed by Bernstein. I will still pursue Bernstein's proposal o f treating the constructions o f the type D° + AP, Ef + CP and D + PP under a unified analysis but I will include under such analysis their counterparts with overt nominals. 2.6.3 K ayne (1994) A different approach to the matter of a unified analysis for non-argumental (and argumental) modification inside DPs can be found in Kayne (1994). Kayne’s proposal is embedded in a more general linguistic model that derives linear order from syntactic hierarchies. In this section, I will provide a brief and schematic view of Kayne’s model. In Kayne’s model, if two phrases differ in linear order, they must differ in hierarchical structure. In order to capture this difference in hierarchical structure between two linearly distinct phrases, Kayne proposes a system in which the relations between non terminal nodes in a tree are responsible for the linear ordering of the terminal nodes in that tree. That is in a structure such as: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the ordering of the the terminal nodes such as m, n is the result of structural relations between non-terminal nodes such as J, L, M, N. The main question that Kayne’s proposal asks is what are the crucial relations between nonterminal nodes that yield the ordering of terminal nodes. Kayne notices that linear ordering at the terminal level is characterized by anti symmetry: (161) not (xLy & yLx) In order to derive this asymmetry of linearity at the terminal level from structural relations taking place between non-terminal elements, he proposes that the crucial structural relations between non-terminal elements responsible for linear ordering must also be anti-symmetric. Thus, he proposes that the basic relationship between non-terminal elements that yields terminal ordering is asymmetric c-command defined as: (162) X asymmetrically c-commands Y iff X c-commands Y and Y does not c- command X. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In order to further establish the connection between asymmetric c-command between nonterminals and linearity at the terminal level, he defines the relation between nonterminals and terminals as dominance. In Kayne’s model, as in all previous X’-models, non-terminal nodes dominate terminal nodes. This dominance relation between a non-terminal node and a particular set of terminal nodes is expressed as: (163) d (X) is the set of terminals that X dominates. Kayne dubs d (X) the image under d of X. d(X) is not restricted to single nonterminal nodes in Kayne’s model. In fact, in order to introduce ordering between nonterminals, Kayne introduces the idea of having images under d of ordered pairs of nonterminals. Thus, d <X,Y> is: “the set of ordered pairs {<a,b>} such that a is a member of d(X) and b is a member o f d(Y)” (Kayne 1994, 5). This yields the set of ordered pairs of terminal nodes dominated by ordered pairs of nonterminal nodes. He finally extends d(X) to sets of ordered pairs of nonterminal nodes and provides the crucial axiom from which linear ordering is derived: (164) L inear Correspondence Axiom d(A) is a linear ordering of T. where A contains “all pairs of nonterminals such that the first asymmetrically c-commands the second” (Kayne 1994,5) and T is the set of terminals. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 In Kayne’s model the notion o f asymmetric c-command plays a crucial role in determining the linear ordering o f terminal nodes. In fact, in Kayne’s model a structural representation must meet the requirements imposed by the LCA (Linear Correspondence Axiom). If a structural representation fails to do so it must be ruled out. This has several consequences. The main one is that Kayne’s system derives the X’-theory by means of disallowing representations in which two heads are sisters and representations with two nonheads as sisters. In addition to that, Kayne’s theory derives the marginal positions of specifiers and complements to the sides o f a head as a result of the application o f the LCA. Another important consequence o f his model is the lack of rightward adjunction, a process that did not have a well-founded theoretical justification in previous models. However, the most important consequence of Kayne’s model to our analysis is that the LCA requirement combined with other assumptions on the asymmetry o f time are responsible in Kayne’s proposal for the fact that Specifier-Head-Complement is a Universal Order. That is, in Kayne’s view all languages have a basic Specifier Head Complement word order from which all variations between specific languages are derived via movement. Kayne’s argument is the following. Given that the LCA rules out configurations with two heads or with non heads because they cannot provide the linear ordering o f terminal nodes and given that it follows from the LCA that the terminals dominated by specifiers and the terminals dominated by complements must be on opposite sides of the head (see Kayne for a more detailed explanation), once the head of a constituent is identified we are left with two possible orderings: Specifier-Head-Complement or Complement-Head-Specifier. From this two word orders, Kayne adopts the first as the Universal Order based on the idea that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the relation expressed by asymmetric c-command is one of precedence and not of subsequentness. In that sense, the terminal nodes dominated by specifiers precede the terminal nodes dominated by the complement. I will not enter into a detailed discussion o f the specific proposal that one of the two is the necessary word order. I will rather concentrate on the idea that given the LCA requirements and other requirements further detailed by Kayne, there is a universal word ordering that is altered in each specific language by the application of movement rules. In other words, I will be concerned with the idea that in Kayne’s model differences in word order in between different languages are due to the presence o f absence of movement. This idea is crucial to our analysis because it allows us to treat different types of non- argumental modification in different languages as having the same basic representation (therefore their similarity in syntactic behavior) but allowing the differences in word order between elements internal to this representations to be subject to different movement operations in each specific language. Kayne himself explores this possibility opened by his analysis and applies it to the case o f relative clauses, possessives and reduced relatives and reduced adjectives. He proposes a common analysis for these different types of nominal modification. The basic structure he proposes is the following: (165) [Dp D ° [ C p ....] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 His proposal is based on the following facts. First, he notices that possessive expressions such as o f Jo h n ’ s in: (166) I have [two pictures [of John’s]]. cannot be interpreted as the complement of the noun picture. In fact, they are not in complementary distribution with real complements: (167) Two pictures of Mary of John’s. Therefore, Kayne argues that in (167) two pictures is not in the complement position but in the Specifier of DP licensing a null D°. The impossibility of: (168) *1 have [the [two pictures [of John’s]]. is due in Kayne's analysis to the feet that two pictures o f Jo h n 's is itself a DP and he assumes that DP recursion is not possible. This opens the question of why is it possible to have: (169) The two pictures of John’s that you lent me. In order to account for this possibility Kayne argues that in (169) p ictures o f Jo h n ’ s that you lent me forms a constituent distinct from the. Because of his previous argument the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. constituent cannot be a DP nor can the head of such constituent be inside two pictures o f Jo h n ’ s, he concludes it must be the head of the relative clause C°. This yields the structure in (165) repeated here: (170) { ^ D 0 [&....] Before discussing the theoretical implications of Kayne’s proposal, I would like to suggest that this is not the only possible logical solution. In fact, it may very well be the case that the head of the constituent is not phonetically present and therefore does not appear overtly in the structure. In other words, it is logically possible to have a structure of the type: (171) [dp D° [xp [DP pictures of John’s ] X° [q, that you lent me]]. where the head of the constituent is not located in either p ictu res o f J o h n ’ s nor in that you lent me. A point to which I will return later. Kayne’s assumption that the head of the constituent is the head o f the relative clause requires an explanation for the position of pictures o f Jo h n ’ s before the complementizer that. Given the impossibility of rightward adjunction in his system, in order to explain this word order Kayne assumes the raising analysis of relatives (Vergnaud 1974) but with the specification that there is no head position of the relative outside the CP1 3 : ( 1 7 2 ) [pp The [Specofcp Inp picture] [cpthat jjp Bill saw [e]]]. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 That is, he proposes that the complement of D° is a CP that has an NP in its specifier position. He further extends this analysis to reduced relatives and reduced adjectives by assuming that in the cases of reduced relatives the complement of the D° is a CP (based on Kayne 1993 and Mouchaweh 1985) This is exemplified by: (173) [The [a, bookj [C° [e]; 1° [IP sent to me]]. where the reduced relative clause contains a phonetically null complementizer. Finally he extends it to possessives in French as in: (174) La [a, voiturej de [n, [Jean] 1 ° [e]j ]. where the noun voiture is in Spec of CP and the preposition is one instance of C°. Kayne also extends the analysis to adjectives by claiming that in the case non-reduced adjectives the structure is the following: (175) The [cp [ ^ yelloWj] [C 0 [* book] 1° [e]j ]]. where the element that raises out of the CP is the Adjective Phrase. In languages such as French in which the noun precedes the adjective there would be further structure and the noun livre ‘book’ in spec of IP will later incorporate to C° and from there to the head o f a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 higher functional projection (presumably Agreement Phrase, FP in Kayne’s structure) as shown in: (176) Le [fp F° [cp [xp jaune,] C° y livre] 1° [ e \ ]]. In all of these cases, he argues there is a CP that is the complement of D°. Notice, however, that there is an asymmetry in the treatment of nouns when modified by relative clauses and when modified by adjectives. Although I agree strongly with the idea that the NP and its modifiers form a constituent distinct from the determiner, I would like to present some arguments suggesting that a differentiated treatment o f the structures involving adjectives and relative can be replaced by a unified analysis and that CP is not the projection that these structures have in common. The first argument is based on the licensing of null nominals in Spanish. As we saw earlier, Spanish allows the licensing of null nominals in expressions such as: (177) La casaj roja y la [e]; verde. The house red and the e green ‘The red and the green house.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 (178) La [casa rojal que me compraste y la [el que te regale. The [house redl that lp bought and the e; that I gave you ‘The red house that you bought for me and the one I gave you.’ Under an extension o f Kayne’s analysis for French to Spanish, licensing of the null element in (177) would have to be done either in the Spec of IP or via incorporation of the noun to C° or to P whereas licensing of the null constituent in (178) would have to take place in Spec of CP. Licensing oftheNPin Spec of IP in (177) seems to be ruled out by the fact that Spec of IP is a position that licenses only DPs as shown by: (179) *[jp[ Casa] 1 ° esbonita]. [jp [House] 1 ° is pretty] ‘(The) house is pretty.’ leaving only incorporation as a viable way of licensing the null nominal. This would imply that these are different types of null elements requiring different types of licensers. The absence of null nominal licensing in both structures in languages such as English would have to be attributed to the absence of null nominal licensing via incorporation and to the absence of null nominal licensing via Spec-Head Agreement between an NP in Spec of CP and C°. Curiously enough in both cases we find the same pronoun in English: (180) The red [house]; and the green [one];. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 (181) The [red house]; that you bought me and the [one]; that I gave you. Under Kayne’s analysis the pronoun in (180) would be a head and in (181) it would be an XP. Although this is a plausible analysis, it involves two different mechanisms for the licensing of a null element inside DP that would have to be reproduced for each specific language that has a common pattern in which null nominals simple and complex can be licensed. Two such languages are Spanish and Southern Quechua. In addition to that, the assumption that the structures containing the noun and an adjective suppose incorporation of the Noun to a higher functional projection in Romance languages such as French or Spanish can be challenged on the basis of the impossibility of leaving certain complements of the noun stranded as will be shown in the next section. Thus, instead of a differentiated analysis for nouns modified by adjectives and nouns modified by relative clauses I would like to pursue the idea that a unified analysis can be obtained. The question is to decide, once noun incorporation is put aside, whether the common structure would be the general one proposed by Kayne: (182) [dpD° [cp... ] where D° selects as its complement a CP or a different one. I would like to present two arguments against CP as the complement of D °. The first one is based on the feet that CP allows wh-words in their Specifier positions. This is not the case when the CP is inside a DP as shown by the following contrast: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (183) [cp [Who] C° |jp do you know]? (184) *[D P The [cp [who] C° [n > do you know]].1 4 90 under Kavne’s analysis it is not clear why this should not be possible. The second argument against CP as a complement of D° is the impossibility of: (185) *[D P The [a, that [n > you are coming]] is good. In the next section, I will provide an alternative to CP as the complement of D°. 2.7 P redicate Phrase analysis Until now, I have presented arguments in favor of treating constructions of the type: (186) bp D° [[NP] [AP/CP/PP]]] (187) [op D° [[e] [AP/CP/PP]]] under a unified analysis that treats them as part of the same constituent. In this section, I will argue in detail in favor of this constituent. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.7.1 Word O rder: XP-m ovem ent versus N oun Incorporation 91 The first important aspect of the analysis to be presented is the idea that the relative word order inside DP does not affect nouns and their modifiers as heads but that it affects maximal projections: NPs, APs, CPs and PPs. In recent years, the debate concerning the position of attributive adjectives has centered on the syntactic status of these adjectives. The most generally adopted position in Romance syntax has been that these adjectives are adjoined to NP or some maximal projection dominating NP such as Agreement (Valois 1991, Lamarche 1991, Bernstein 1991,1993a, Bosque and Picallo 1994). Other lines o f analysis have also been pursued. For instance Abney (1987) dealt with adjectives as heads and Cinque (1993) has proposed that attributive adjectives are not adjuncts but specifiers o f functional projections located higher than the Noun Phrase. (Zamparelli 1993) has proposed that they are ambiguous between functional heads and specifiers. One crucial point that has been maintained unchallenged throughout the whole debate has been the idea that noun incorporation is responsible for the post-nominal position o f attributive adjectives in Romance whereas the lack o f noun incorporation is responsible for their pre-nominal position in Germanic languages.1 5 I would like to challenge the notion that the relative word order of attributive adjectives and nouns in at least one Romance language, Spanish, is derived exclusively from the existence of overt noun incorporation. A strong argument in favor of not relating the position of the adjectives in Spanish with the process o f Noun Incorporation is given by the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. feet that post-nominal adjectives modify NPs and not just N° as already noticed by Lamarche (1991) for French: (188) Maria es una [NP ladrona de joyas] [torpe]. Maria is a [NP jewelry thief] [clumsy] ‘Maria is a clumsy jewelry thief.’ this sentence illustrates the case in which an adjective modifies an NP that has an object complement. In this case, incorporation of the N° to a higher functional head over an AP in Specifier position would leave the complement of the noun stranded. Curiously, this option is not available (unless a pause mediates between the adjective and the complement of the noun): (189) *Maria es una [ladrona]; torpe [N T e, de joyas]. Maria is a [thief]; clumsy [ ^ e, de joyas] ‘Maria is a clumsy jewelry thief.’ Notice that the argument that ladrona de jo ya s ‘ jewelry thief could be a compound noun does not go through given the possibility of further modifying the noun jo ya s ‘ jewelry’: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 (190) Maria es una [^p ladrona de joyas finas] [torpe]. Maria is a thief o f jewelry expensive] [clumsy] ‘Maria is a clumsy thief of expensive jewelry.’ Thus, whatever analysis is given to ladrona de jo y a s the analysis must acknowledge that it is not a head by virtue o f being a compound word in Spanish. It must be an XP and it is as an XP that it precedes the adjective. This is also the case with prepositional phrases that are predicates of the noun: (191) Ayer compre una [casa de campo] [grande]. Yesterday I bought a [house of country] [big] ‘Yesterday I bought a [big [country house]].’ (192) ??Ayer compre una [[casa grande] de campo]. Yesterday I bought a [[house] [big of country]] ‘Yesterday I bought a big country house.’ Here again, the noun cannot be incorporated as a head leaving the rest of the constituent it is part of stranded. This shows that it is not only the case that post-nominal adjectives may modify NPs, it is also the case that N° can not raise leaving an object complement or a predicate stranded in these cases. It cannot be the case then that incorporation of the noun to a higher functional category is responsible for the post-nominal position of the adjectives in these cases and an alternative explanation must be found.1 6 By assuming that Noun Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 Incorporation is not the movement responsible for the post-nominal position of attributive adjectives in Spanish, I also assume that the pre-nominal position o f adjectives in the earlier stages of Bilingual Spanish is not necessarily derived form the lack of Noun Incorporation. 2.7.2 Num ber a nd G ender Agreem ent Once one acknowledges that Noun Incorporation cannot be the only source of differences in word order, the issue of what is the syntactic nature of adjectives can be explored without assuming that adjectives are necessarily N° modifiers. In that respect a very important feature of the syntactic behavior of post-nominal adjectives in Spanish is that they themselves can be modified by adverbs: (193) Ayer conoci a una [N 1 >ladrona de joyas] increiblemente bella]. Yesterday I met a [O T thief of jewelry] incredibly beautiful] ‘Yesterday I met an incredibly beautiful jewelry thief.’ This in conjunction with the fact that adjectives modify NPs indicates that the relation between adjectives and nouns in DPs at least in cases such as the one illustrated in (193) can be a relation between two XPs and not necessarily between a head and a Specifier. Let us then explore the possibility of a unifying analysis for these constructions and the simple cases of post-nominal adjectives modifying a noun. That is, let us try to provide a unified account for the following pair: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 (194) Una [up ladron-a] [y, bell-a]. A [up thief-fem sg] [y, beautiful-fem sg] ‘A beautiful thief.’ (195) Una [N -p ladron-a de joyas] [y, increiblemente bell-a]. A [np jewelry-fem sg thief] [y, incredibly beautiful-fem sg] ‘An incredibly beautiful jewelry thief.’ One salient feature of these constructions is that in both the noun (or the head of the NP) and the adjective (or the head of the AP) must agree in gender and number. The existence o f obligatory overt morphological agreement between the heads of the two XPs suggests that there is a syntactic mechanism that allows the feature checking of these morphological features before Spell-Out as proposed in Chomsky (1993,1994). In order to account for the obligatory agreement between a noun (or an NP) and an adjective (or an AP), let us assume the existence of an intermediate projection marked with gender and number features between the two: (196) AgrP AP Agr1 Agr° NP I will assume that AP is in the Specifier o f Agreement based on the fact that in Spanish only the adjective carries a purely syntactic agreement in the sense that there is no Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. semantic motivation at all for an adjective to be marked with one or another gender or number features (Harris 1991). Nouns instead could vary their agreement marking on the basis o f lexical considerations. Thus, it is possible to find oppositions in nouns such as: (197) El policia. ‘The policeman.’ versus (198) Laoolicia. ‘The policewoman.’/ ‘The police force.’ I will take this to suggest that the relation between adjectives and agreement is not mediated by any principle of classification that distinguishes two elements in the lexicon. However, the fact that agreement between heads of different projections is obligatory in Spanish seems to indicate that it could not be the exclusive job of the morphology to obtain agreement between them. In (194) agreement between the projection headed by the adjective (that is selected from the lexicon bearing gender and number features) and Agr° would be achieved through Spec-Head Agreement. This relationship would determine the gender and number features of adjectives. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 Before further exploring this issue, I would like to suggest that it could be possible to distinguish between the syntactic fact that heads o f different projections must agree in certain features and the actual phonological instantiation of particular word markers or suffixes identified with those features in each particular language. As we will see later, it seems that these are two independent issues. Going back to our analysis, if an adjective or AP bears the same type of features as Agr° then it can check them through Spec-Head Agreement. The question is how does the head of the NP checks its features in an expression such as (197). As we said before, Noun Incorporation does not seem an appropriate candidate given the impossibility of stranding certain complements of the noun. One possibility would be to have the agreement features of the NP being checked through Spec-Head Agreement in a second specifier. Nevertheless, there is no empirical evidence that would justify such a move. Another possibility is to re-examine the feet that all the heads inside DP in Spanish bear gender and number features as a reflex o f a syntactic process that takes place all along DP. It has been said that Noun Incorporation inside DP parallels Verb Incorporation inside CP in Romance. Notice, however, that there is no process inside CP that requires all the elements in the clause to agree in some specific feature. In feet, inside the CP it is the verb alone that bears all the morphological markings that indicate the relations it establishes with elements in the specifier of higher functional projections, namely subject agreement, object agreement, aspect, tense, etc. Inside DP quite the opposite seems to be the truth. Agreement is spread to all the heads inside DP. In other words, there is a strong asymmetry in Spanish Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 between the behavior of the noun and the verb. The noun has gender and number morphological markings but so do the determiners and the adjectives. A plausible answer to the question of obligatory agreement would be to say that what happens inside DPs in Standard Spanish is that it is not theNoun that incorporates to higher positions but Agreement. That is, Agreement incorporates to higher functional projections until it reaches D°. Every element in the Specifier position of a category to which Agreement incorporates will be able to check its gender and number features in that position. Thus, if one imagines that the NP could further raise to a higher specifier position it could certainly check its feature? in that position. The question is what other intermediate projections could there be between Agr° and D°. The next section explores this issue. 2.7.3 N ull N P -licensing and Predicate Phrase As it has been shown in the previous sections, null elements can be licensed either through incorporation if they are x°s, or through Spec-Head Agreement, if they are XPs. As Spanish licenses null NPs inside DPs, the option o f incorporation does not seem appropriate. Spec-Head Agreement seems more relevant, especially because Spanish is a pro-drop language with strong agreement at the clause level. It would not be surprising that agreement inside NP be strong in Spanish. This would allow in Spanish the licensing of null NPs by a [+strong] Agr" through Spec-Head. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 Notice, however, that if Agr° was responsible for the licensing of a null NP, the licensing would take place inside AgrP. This is not the case. Thus, the mere presence of a determiner is not enough to license a null NP: (199) * Ayer yo vi la [casa de campo]; y tu la [e];. Yesterday I saw the [country house]; and you the [e]; ‘Yesterday I saw the country house and you the one.’ Something else that is present only in the context of an extensional or post-nominal adjective must be responsible for the licensing of the null NP. I would like to propose that in Spanish there is an additional functional projection that mediates between D° and Agr°. Following Bowers (1993) treatment of small clauses and secondary predicates, I will call that projection Predicate Phrase (PredP). The proposal is illustrated in: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In this structure, the licensing of null NPs as well as the post-nominal position of extensional adjectives in Spanish can be explained as the result of the availability of the Specifier position o f PredP. Let us assume, that in Spanish Spec of PredP is a position in which null NPs can be licensed through Spec Head Agreement with Pred0 . This would parallel the situation at the clausal level in which a null DP is licensed in Spec of AgrP. In other words, we would have a position in which null complex NPs can be licensed as subjects of a predication that does not involve verbal agreement. Let us also recall that in order to account for the spreading of agreement features throughout the DP in Spanish, I proposed previously that Agr° incorporates in syntax to higher functional heads. If Agr° incorporates to Precf, this accounts for the feet that when the NP raises to the Specifier of PredP it checks its gender and agreement features. In this analysis, the post-nominal position of extensional adjectives would be an instance of obligatory NP raising that is required to satisfy the checking of the strong Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 predicate features of NP. It would in addition allow the head of the NP to check its agreement features. The proposal is the following: (201) D° [ p ^ [NPL Pred° AP Agr* [e]J] Let us recall that CP was discarded as the possible complement of D° on the basis of the unavailability o f DPs containing a CP with a Spec filled by a wh-word other than a relative pronoun. This unavailability would be explained if the antecedent of the relative clause would have to end up in Spec of PredP, a position not available to wh-words. Predicate Phrase is then an alternative to Kayne’s proposal according to which CP is the constituent selected by D° that includes the NP and the adjective. This proposal is similar to Kayne’s in that it deals with the need for a common constituent that includes the NP and an XP modifying it. It differs from Kayne’s in that it introduces a new functional category inside DP that heads the common constituent. This functional category has been previously proposed by Bowers (1994) to deal with predicate relations inside the clause but not with predicate relations internal to DPs. I believe there is an empirical argument in favor of proposing a new functional category as internal to DP and a conceptual argument for this to be a Predicate Phrase. The first one is based on two related empirical facts. First, the impossibility of licensing a null NP by Spec-Head of the NP with Agr° suggests the need for an intermediate Specifier in which the licensing takes place and second the impossibility of CPs with Specs filled by wh-words other than relative pronouns as complements of D° makes CP an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 unsuitable candidate for the intermediate projection. This establishes the need for a functional projection different from AgrP and CP. O f course any projection could do the job. Now the question is which one should it be. So, in addition to the empirical motivation for a new projection, there must be a conceptual motivation for this to be a Predicate Phrase and not another type o f functional projection. The conceptual motivation is based on the idea that in the case of modification of an NP by extensional adjectives (and as we will see later restrictive relative clauses and certain PPs) there is a subject/predicate relation defined in fregian terms as saturation of an open function by an argument. In the data I have presented the NP is the argument that saturates the open functions represented by AP, CP or PP. The notion of saturation has been at the basis of some syntactic treatments of predication but not all. Thus whereas, Rothstein (1983), Zubizarreta (1987) and Bowers (1993) consider it to be the crucial semantic relation involved in the grammar of predication, Wiliams (1980) does not include it in its analysis as the crucial semantic relation underlying his syntactic proposal. This creates a first difference between William’s and the other analysis. But even though the other analyses agree that the crucial relation between an argument and a predicate is that the argument saturates its predicate, they differ with respect to what is the grammatical structure or the grammatical condition that corresponds to the notion of saturation. I will briefly review the analyses I mentioned and I will provide the arguments in which I base my adherence to Bower’s proposal. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 Williams (1980) proposes that predication takes place at a special level of representation which he calls Predicate Structure (PS) in which the subject-predicate relation is indicated by indexing two elements which are in a very specific structural relation which he proposes is c-command. As in William’s analysis, saturation plays no crucial role, other syntactic phenomena such as obligatory control (under c-command) are also instances of predication. As the data that I tiy to explain treats restrictive adjectives, relative clauses and prepositional phrases as a class and excludes non-extensional adjectives, non-restrictive relative clauses and some pre and post-positional phrases, I will prefer not to follow a syntactic theory of predication as powerful as Williams. Notice that c-command is a structural relation that depending on the syntactic analysis may hold between an NP and a non-extensional adjective. However, it seems to be a crucial distinction between both types of adjectives that extensional adjectives are saturated by an argument whereas non-extensional adjectives are not saturated by an NP. This is illustrated by the contrast mentioned before (noted by Bolinger 1967): (202) The big house. (203) The house is big. (204) The alleged criminal. (205) ??The criminal is alleged. The availability of extensional adjectives as predicative complements of the verb to be as opposed to the unavailability of non-extensional ones could be explained if non- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 extensional adjectives are not predicates that can be saturated by an argument or (in a view that considers them as predicates) cannot be saturated by the same type o f argument. Thus, the base relation between the NP and this type of adjectives seem to be one o f saturation and in that sense mutual c-command seems too powerful to distinguish between the two cases. Rothstein (1980) proposes a rule o f Predicate linking as a condition on well- formedness at S-Structure. This rule applies under certain conditions contained in the rule itself: (206) Rule o f Predicate L inking a. Every non-theta marked XP must be linked at S-Structure to an argument which it immediately c-commands and winch immediately c-commands it. b. Linking is from right to left. In this case two points in the definition of the rule are problematic to deal with the data. The first one is c-command as in the case o f Williams analysis and the second is that it requires for the predicate not to be th-marked. As we will see later and as noted by Bosque (1992) and Bosque and Picallo (1994), some extensional adjectives are th-marked as in their example (see section 2.7.5 for a detailed discussion): (207) Pesca ballenera. Fishing whaly ‘Whale fishing.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 Zubizarreta (1987) proposes that predication is encoded in the grammar as a contextual rule of interpretation that may apply at different levels of the grammar. It may apply at the level of S-Structure or it may apply at the level of lexico-syntactic structure. In the first case, we have syntactic predicates such as relative clauses (which involve an operator that bears an argument-variable index that is equated with the lexical index o f the noun) and in the second case we have lexical predicates such as adjectives that bear an argument-variable index by virtue o f being the syntactic projection of a lexical head. Although I agree with the notion that there is a level of lexical representation that is responsible for differences in the encoding o f specific lexico-syntactic properties of modifiers in each language (as I wall show with respect to certain orderings of adjectives), I would like to follow a line of analysis that assumes a basic syntactic structure that accounts for the commonalities across different languages in the syntactic behavior o f restrictive adjectives and restrictive clauses without dividing them in two classes. I believe that the syntactic structure proposed by Bowers (1993) allows me to do that. Bowers (1993) proposes a Predicate Phrase (PrP) internal to main clauses with the following characteristics. A) Its Spec position is the canonical D-structure for external subjects. B) It F-selects the maximal projection o f any lexical category and C) It is either F-selected by 1° or it can be subcategorized as the complement of V°\ The proposal made here differs form Bowers’ in that PredP is internal to DPs but it preserves Bowers proposal that it is the syntactic instantiation of the semantic notion of saturation.1 7 I want to point out that all the previous analysis mentioned including Bowers’ aim to provide a more general theory of predication. The analysis that I am presenting here will Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 be extended to other modifiers inside DP but does not attempt to treat all types of modification inside DP as instances of PredP. As we will see in other chapters, the case of adjectives that take scope will be dealt with as involving other functional projections different from PredP. Going back to previous unified accounts, the analysis presented here and based on Bowers differs from Kayne’s in two other respects. First it proposes that PredP selects as its complement an AgrP. Notice that this allows for us to account for the agreement frets between NPs and APs in a principled manner without assuming Noun incorporation to a higher agreement head. It also provides a landing position for NPs outside CP, a position that would allow us to explain the differences between relative clauses in languages such as Southern Quechua and English. Before extending the proposal to the cases of restrictive clauses and prepositional phrases, I would like to address the issue of selectional restrictions. One of the main objections that analyses that propose functional projections internal to DP have encountered is the idea that they are unable to solve the issue o f the selectional restrictions of the verb. The analysis presented here takes this problem to even higher dimensions by not assuming the need for Noun incorporation and therefore having no resource to any type of percolation of N-features to Agr° combined with the transparency of DP. I would like to follow the path started by Abney (1987) and argue that syntactic selection of an argument by a verb is not selection of NPs. In feet, syntactic selection affects functional categories and not lexical categories. What is selected by a verb is not an NP as shown by the multiplicity of complements that certain verbs may have in languages such as Spanish: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 (208) Juan quiere [comida (s)]. Juan wants [food (pi)] ‘Juan wants food/meals.’ (209) Juan quiere [la (s) comida (s)]. Juan wants the (p i) food(s) ‘Juan wants the food.’ (210) Juan quiere [una (s) comida(s)]. Juan quiere a (pi) food (pi) ‘Juan wants a /some meal (s).’ (211) Juan quiere [comer]. Juan wants to eat ‘Juan wants to eat.’ (212) Juan quiere [que comamos]. Juan wants that we eat ‘Juan wants for us to eat.’ (213) Juan quiere [eso/algo/todo]. Juan wants that/something/everything ‘Juan wants that/something/everything.’ (214) Juanqueria [las casas limpias para mafiana], ‘Juan wanted the houses clean by tomorrow.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 Whatever the analysis given to these examples, it must incorporate an explanation for why is it possible to have bare nouns as in (208) , DPs as in (209H210), (213), IP s or CPs (depending on the analysis) as in (211), CPs as in (212) and presumably a small clause as in (214) as complements of the verb querer ‘want’. Notice that the language distinguishes syntactically between some of these. In (209X210) the complement can be cliticized by a clitic bearing the same gender and number features: (215) Juan 1-a (s) quiere. Juan cl-fem (pi) wants ‘Juan wants them.’ In sentences (211), (214) the complement of the verb cannot be cliticized: (216) ??Juan quiere [ comer]; y yo tambien [lo]; quiero. ?? Juan wants [to eat]; and I also [it]i want ‘Juan wants to eats and I also want to.’ (217) ??Juan queria [las casas limpias para mahana]; y yo tambien [las]; queria. ??Juan wanted [the houses clean by tomorrow ]x and I also [cl-fem-pU wanted ‘Juan wanted the houses clean for tomorrow and I also wanted them.’ versus: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 (218) Juan queria [las casas]; limpias para rnanana y yo tambien [[as] queria limpias para manana. Juan wanted [the houses]; clean by tomorrow and I also [cl-fem-pl]; wanted clean by tomorrow ‘Juan wanted the houses clean for tomorrow and I also wanted them clean by tomorrow.’ This suggests that the verb querer may select as its complements different projections with different syntactic properties. Whatever the explanation given to these facts the point remains that syntactic selection does not operate on lexical projections but on functional projections and that it does not seem to be the case that in all cases a nominal head can be identified as the lexical element being selected by the verb as in the cases of (211), (212), (214). Going back to our analysis, in the case of the prepositional phrases presented at the beginning of the chapter such as ladrona de jo y a s ‘ jewelry thief, I would like to argue that the situation is the following: (219) D° [j^p [np ladrona J Pred°+ Agr* de [ ^ U- joyas] e , [NPj]] That is, in this case the element in Spec of AgrP is another NP. As the NP in this specifier position is strongly marked for agreement features in Spanish a dummy preposition de ‘ o f is used to avoid a clash in features. Notice that expressions such as: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (220) Ladrona de joyas. Thief of jewelry ‘Jewelry thief.’ or (221) Casa de campo. House of country ‘Country house.’ do not require a dummy preposition in languages such as English where nominal agreement is not strong (as shown by the glosses of the previous examples) or in Southern Quechua: (222) Chakra wasi. Field house ‘Country house.’ In that respect these are not real prepositional phrases. This would allow us to distinguish them from the real PPs in which the head takes a DP as its complement. To summarize, the analysis for extensional adjectives in expressions such as ladrona bonita ‘beautiful thief and prepositional phrases such as ladrona de jo ya s ‘ jewelry thief in Spanish, presented at the beginning of the chapter, would be the following: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (223) D° [p t o jp [ot ladrona]j Pred°+ Agr0 ; (de) bonita joyas] tj [NP]] The analysis that I have just presented can be extended to Southern Quechua in the following way. Let us assume that the situation in Southern Quechua is very similar to that in Standard Spanish with only one exception: there is no overt NP-raising to Spec of PredP. Still PredP has the property of licensing null NPs. The situation will be the following: (224) DP D’ D° PredP pro Pred’ Pred0 AgrP AP/NP Agr’ Agr° NP As agreement is not strong it does not necessarily incorporates to Pred0 in syntax as shown by the fact that gender is not marked and number is marked almost optionally inside DPs: (225) Hatun runa-(kuna). Big man-(pl) ‘Big man/men.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 The lack of overt incorporation of Agr® to higher functional projections results in a lack of agreement marking spreading throughout DP. Nevertheless, null NP-licensing is still possible as a property o f Pred0 . The representation in (224) covers the cases of NPs modifying other NPs and the cases of extensional adjectives in Southern Quechua, where the APs and NPs predicated of the subject NP are generated in Spec of AgrP, the NP is generated as the complement of Agf* and there is no overt NP raising to Spec of PredP. In order to account for the similarities in syntactic behavior of restrictive relative clauses in Spanish and Southern Quechua (the null nominal licensing property and stacking) and at the same time account for the obvious significant differences in terms of their internal syntax (nominalization versus verbal inflection), something must be said about their position inside PredP and their internal structure. Kayne relates the two issues and proposes that nominalized relative clauses are located in a higher position than verbally inflected relatives. Kayne bases his proposal on the well known fact that languages with pre-nominal relative clauses tend to have clauses containing a nominalized form of the verb. He selects data from Amharic, a language with nominalized pre-nominal relative clauses that precede the determiner which is in turn followed by the noun and proposes that nominalized relatives represent the case in which an IP raises from inside the CP (which is the complement of the determiner) to the specifier o f DP. Because the relative clause has raised as an IP, the verb has not been able to incorporate to C° and is unable to check its inflected features. Therefore it appears as a nominalized form. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 I will follow Kayne’s proposal with some modifications. First, I want to propose that relative clauses unlike AP and NP predicates which are generated in Spec of AgrP in our analysis are selected as complements of Agr° Thus in the case of relative clauses in Spanish such as L a m ujer que vino ‘the woman that came’ the situation is the following: (226) [up La [p n x jp [np mujer ] } Pred°+ Agr" [q , [e], que [p vino]]] In this structure, Agr° selects a CP and not an NP. Agr° incorporates to Pred0 and the NP raises to Spec of PredP. In this fashion, the predication relation between the antecedent and the relative clause is obtained. Notice that (226) incorporates the raising analysis of relative clauses as modified by Kayne according to which the antecedent of the relative clause is extracted to Spec of CP. The main reason to do that is to allow for post-nominal relatives in languages such as English where the NP does not seem to raise overtly to Spec of PredP but still appears before the relative clause. In this analysis, both nominalized and verbally inflected relatives originate as CPs that are complements of Agr°. In Southern Quechua and in Bilingual Spanish, IP raises to Spec of AgrP explaining the word order in : (227) Southern Quechua Hamu-q runa. Come-AG man ‘The man who comes.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 (228) Southern Andean Bilingual Spanish Yo le he preguntado [ahi viene [varios]] y no hay nada dice. I cl-have asked [there come [several]] and not have nothing say ‘I have asked [[several] who come from there] and there is nothing (they) say.’ Notice however that, at least in Bilingual Spanish, pre-nominal relative clauses need not be nominalizations. Of course this can be a trait of the grammar of second language acquisition. Nevertheless, it seems indicative of the fact that what is being raised is an IP and not a CP. When extended to a language such as English this analysis will account for the asymmetry in the position of extensional adjectives and relative clauses by assuming that in English IP does not raise to Spec of AgrP. It is not clear to me why is it the case that IP does not raise to Spec of AgrP neither in English nor in Spanish given the existence of verbally inflected pre-nominal relative clauses in Bilingual Spanish but I will leave that issue open as one that requires further investigation. Notice also that in this analysis headless relative clauses in Southern Quechua may have a pro in Spec of PredP coindexed with the non-extracted antecedent. Although an incomplete analysis of the complex picture of relative clauses, this proposal preserves the basic intuition that there is a common constituent in the three cases of predication inside DP under study in this chapter and that this allows us to explain their common syntactic properties and similar interpretation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.7.4 R ecursivity and Agreem ent inside Predicate Phrase 115 Having presented the common constituent for all the structures under consideration, I will refer to its properties. One important characteristic of Predicate Phrase is its recursive nature, what we called following Jackendoff (1977) the stacking of relative clauses, extensional APs and PPs. Given the analysis provided until now, agreement between adjectives being stacked is not a strange property . It is made possible by incorporation of Agr° to Pred0 in syntax in Spanish.1 8 This incorporation allows the features of A gr2tobe checked against those o f Agrl by Spec-head Agreement as shown by the analysis of (229)a in (230)b: (229) a.Mujer alta bonita. Woman tall pretty ‘Tall pretty woman.’ b. PredP2 PredPl: Pred2’ NPjPredl’ Pred2° AgrP2 m u j e r | Predl0 AgrPl | AP Agr2’ | | bonita AP Agrl’ alta / \ Agrl0 tj L Agr2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 2.7.5 Th-role assignm ent I will briefly refer to the assignment of th-roles inside PredP. In an analysis of the syntax of post-nominal adjectives in Spanish that is alternative to the one presented here , Bosque and Picallo (1994) (based on Bosque 1992) provide a comprehensive classification of post-nominal adjectives in Spanish and divide them in three classes: C -adjectives (classificatory adjectives), Th-adjectives (thematic adjectives) and Q -adjectives (Quantificational adjectives). Bosque and Picallo treat adjectives as adjuncts in a layered NP structure and assign a different adjunction site to each class of adjectives . As the main proposal of this chapter is to provide a unified analysis for different types of non-argumental modifiers, I will refer the reader to the work o f Bosque and Picallo (1994) for a detailed presentation o f the syntactic properties of each class of post-nominal adjectives and their syntactic analysis. In this section, however I would like to refer to the class of adjectives which they label th-adjectives. These are adjectives that saturate the th-role introduced by the nouns they modify. This exemplified by: (230) La pesca ballenera. The fishing whaly ‘The fishing of whales.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 They also note that this is a property shared by certain prepositional phrases such as: (231) La pesca de ballenas. ‘The fishing of whales.’ Notice that in both cases the noun could be interpreted as a nominalization and it would not be surprising that it would introduce th-roles. Bosque and Picallo show that this can also be the case with non-deverbal nouns as in: (232) Una comedia americana. ‘An American comedy.’ They also notice that the th-adjective ‘americana’ may not precede an adjective such as ‘musical’ which they treat as a non th-adjective (a C -adjective) . This is shown by the following contrast: (233) Una comedia musical americana. A comedy musical American ‘An American musical comedy.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 versus (234) *Una comedia americana musical. A comedy American musical. ‘An American musical comedy.’ Bosque and Picallo attribute this ordering to the feet that C -adjectives are adjoined to a lower layer of NP whereas th-adjectives adjoin to a higher layer. I would like to provide an alternative analysis but before doing so, I would like to point out that not only adjectives or prepositional phrases may bear thematic roles. In languages in which a noun modifies another noun as a predicate one of them may bear a th-role. Notice the following examples from Southern Quechua and Spanish: (235) Southern Quechua Rumi wasi. Stone house ‘Stone house.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 (236) Wasi rumi. House stone ‘House stone.’ (237) Standard Spanish Casa de piedra. House of stone ‘House of stone.’ (238) Piedra de casa. Stone of house ‘House stone.’ (235) and (237) have the NP stone in Spec of AgrP in both languages in our analysis. The interpretation of this noun is the material that the house is made of. In (236) and (238) on the other hand, the NP house is in Spec of AgrP in both languages in our analysis and its interpretation is the place from which the stone com es fro m . Let us recall that we proposed that in the case of Spanish the preposition was a dummy preposition. This seems confirmed by the fact that Southern Quechua does not have one and still has the source interpretation for the NP. In both cases it would seem as if the NP in Spec of AgrP is understood either as a material source (made o f) or as a locative source (com es fro m ). Again we see a parallelism in the behavior of post-nominal adjectives and NPs in that the latter may also receive a th-role. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 If we look in detail, we can see that these two different th-roles can be found in other cases such as: (239) El papel japones. The paper Japanese ‘The Japanese paper.’ (240) El papel de arroz. The paper o f rice ‘The rice paper.’ In (239) we refer to the locative source of the paper whereas in (240) to the material source. Notice that these are ordered: (241) El papel de arroz japones. The paper o f rice Japanese ‘The Japanese rice paper.’ but not: (242) *E1 papel japones de arroz. The paper Japanese of rice ‘The rice Japanese paper.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 This suggests that when both sources are present the material source is more embedded than the locative source. Now going back to Bosque and Picallo’s example: (243) La comedia musical americana. The comedy musical American ‘The American musical comedy.’ (244) *La comedia americana musical. The comedy American musical ‘The musical American comedy.’ Notice that in this case the adjective m usical could be considered as a material source provided that music is what the comedy is made o f whereas the adjective am ericana could be interpreted as the locative source. Thus, I would like to propose that in these examples the adjectives bearing a material source th-role occupies the most embedded position inside PredP and the one bearing the locative source th-role occupies the outermost position. This is shown in: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 (245) PredP2 PredPlj Pred2’ NPj Predl’ Pred2°AgrP2 co media Predl0 AgrPl AP Agr2’ americana AP A grl’ Agr2° t; musical Agrl0 t, In the case of modification of an NP by another the N P , it is the NP in Spec of AgrP is that is assigned a th-role and in the case of stacking of NPs there is ordering too as shown by the following contrast: (246) Vestido de seda de tienda. Dress of silk of department store ‘Department store silk dress.’ (247) ??Vestido de tienda de seda. Dress of department store of silk ‘Silk department store dress.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 In this case the structure is the same and it is shown in: (248) PredP2 PredPl; Pred2’ NP, Predl’ Pred2°AgrP2 vestido Predl0 AgrPl NP Agr2’ t ie n d a /'\ NP A grl’ Agr2° t; seda / \ Agrl0 tj Thus, I would like to argue that when assignment of th-roles to non-argumental modifiers (adjectives and NPs) takes place, it takes place inside PredP, presumably in Spec of AgrP, and that the material source th-role is assigned in the most embedded PredP whereas the locative source th-role is assigned in the outermost PredP. As for how does th-role assignment proceed, Pred0 is the best candidate for the task of th-role assignment. I will assume that Pred0 discharges a th-role on AgrP. The NP or AP comes itself marked for possible th-features. These th-role features are checked by the AP or NP in Spec of AgrP . Th-role assignment does not seem to be the case always. It is hard to conceive of a th-role for the adjective red in: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 (249) La casa roja. The house red ‘The red house.’ It seems as if adjectives such as red do not bear th-roles. With this type of adjectives ordering is not that strict. As shown by: (250) El papel rojo grande. The paper red big ‘The big red paper.’ (251) El papel grande rojo. The paper big red ‘The big red paper.’ Although for some speakers of Spanish (251) is more marked it is not ungrammatical at all. It simply conveys a different process of predication. Let us say that in this case the stacking of predicates indicates a process of selection such as the following. First select the class of big papers and from those select a red one. The lack of ordering then seems to be paired with the lack o f a thematic structure. Languages such as English seem to have strict adjective ordering in terms of color, size and shapes: (252) Red balloon. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 (253) Big red balloon. (254) *Red big balloon. I would like to propose that ordering in these cases is a particular feature of English that can be found also in Romance languages such as French (see Cinque 1993) but is not a particular feature of Spanish. Thus, in terms of the grammar what is available is PredP and PredP is a structure flexible enough to be used both when ordering o f th-roles is involved as in the case of NPs and th-adjectives and when other types of ordering are involved as in the case of English color, shape and size and adjectives or when ordering is not required as seems to be the case o f non th-adjectives in Spanish. In the next chapter, we will see that PredP provides the building blocks for the organization of the syntactic structure of DP. 2.8 Predicate P hrase and other syntactic phenom ena 2.8.1 Stranding One of the properties that we mentioned was particular of non-argumental modifiers in Southern Quechua was the stranding of adjectives, relative clauses and postpositional phrases. In order to account for it, I will assume that the canonical SOV word order found in Southern Quechua is obtained by raising of the Noun Phrase (DP) to the Specifier of Agreement Object Phrase (Chomsky 1994) whereas the verb remains in its base generated position in syntax (unless it is focalized). Thus a sentence such as (255) has the structure in (256): Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 (255) (Nuqa) runa-ta riqsi-ni (I) man-acc know-lpsg ‘I know a/the man’ (256) AgrOP runa-taj AgrO’ AgrO0 VP V’ V° DP riqsi-ni e; Stranding is exemplified in (257): (257) [Runa-to] riqsi-ni [hatun-ta], [Man-acc] know-1 [big-acc] ‘I know a big man.’ In order to account for it, I would like to propose that the position in front of the verb occupied by the NP marked with accusative is higher than Spec of AgrO. This is shown by the fact that it is the same position that wh- words occupy when followed by a validator or focalizing particle (Wolck 1969): Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 (258) [Ima-ta-/n] ranti-rqa-nki [puka-to], [What-acc-FOC] but-past-2psg [red-acc] ‘What did you buy red?’ It is also the position occupied by focalized elements as noted byWolck (1969) who points that in Southern Quechua “...there is atendency if not a requirement to move the constituent highlighted by the definitive -m to a position in front of the verb” p.4. (Definitive -m in this citation is the also called validator or focus marker in the literature on Southern Quechua syntax (Wolck 1969)).Wolck gives the following examples: (259) Tayta-n-m i qu-n wasi-ta churi-n-man. Father-3p-FOC give-3p house-acc boy-3p-dat ‘It is his father who gave the house to the boy.’ (260) Tayta-n wasi-ta-m qu-n churi-n-man. Father-3p house-acc-FOC give-3 p boy-3 p-dat ‘It is the house that his father gave to the boy.’ (261) Tayta-n churi-n-man-m/' qu-n wasi-ta. Father-3p boy-3 p-dat-FOC give-3p house-acc ‘It is to the boy that his father gave the house.’ I will assume then that in the case of stranded adjectives relative clauses and post-positional modifiers the Noun Phrase has raised from its position internal to PredP to a focalized Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 position (Specifier of Focus Phrase) and the modifier remains inside PredP in Spec of AgrOP. The following structure illustrates the process: (262) FP NP F’ runa-taj man-acc F° AgrSP J riqsi-ni know-lp (nuqa) AgrS’ (I) AgrS0 AgrOP DP; AgrO’ D’ AgrO0 VP D° PredP V’ _ej hatun-ta V° DP; tall-acc Looking into the internal syntax of PredP the process would have to be one in which the NP that is a complement of AgrP raises to the focalized position through a position in which it receives case. Following Lefebvre and Muysken (1989) proposal according to which Comp is a Case position I would like to establish a parallelism inride DP and propose that Spec of DP is a case position. When the whole PredP raises to this position it receives accusative case as in : Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 (263) Hatun runa-ta. Big man -acc ‘A/the big man.’ (264) DP hatun nma-taj D’ D° PredPj Pred’ Pred0 AgrP AP/NP Agr’ Agr° NP When the NP raises from inside PredP to the focalized position it goes through Spec of DP where it receives Case. Later the whole PredP raises to Spec of DP where it receives Case and we obtain: (265) Runa-ta reqsi-ni hatun-ta. Man-acc know-lp big-acc ‘I know a big MAN.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 Movement of the NP through Spec of DP illustrated in: (266) DP NP D’ runa-ta; / " ' s \ D° PredP Pred’ Pred0 AgrP AP/NP Agr’ hatun Agr0 NP ti Once the NP has raised to the focalized position, then the remaining PredP raises to Spec ofDP: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. D° PredPj Pred’ Pred0 AgrP AP/NP Agr’ Agr0 NP ti Raising of the NP is motivated by focalization (either in the form of features that have to be checked in Spec o f FP or in the form of a position required by scopal reasons) whereas raising of PredP is motivated by case assignment. This structure is relevant to our analysis because it shows that the subject of PredP can be separated from the restrictive modifier. This can only be possible if the NP can move independently from its modifier as in our analysis. 2.8.2 C oordination There are some instances of obligatory parallelism in coordination in Spanish that are better explained provided if one assumes PredP. There is a contrast between: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 (268) Entonces Alicia dejo de ser [ la [esposa eficiente] y[ madre abnegada]] que siempre habia sido para converdrse en [la[ oficial valiente] y [piloto aniesgada]] que siempre habia querido ser. ‘Then Alicia stopped bang [the [efficient wife] and [caring mother]] that she had always been in order to become [the [brave officer] and [daring pilot]] that she always wanted to be.’ and: (269) ?? Entonces Alicia dejo de ser [ la [esposa eficiente] y[ madre]] que siempre habia sido para convertirse en [la[ oficial valiente] y [piloto]] que siempre habia querido ser. ‘Then Alicia stopped being [the [efficient wife] and [mother ]] that she had always been in order to become [the [brave officer] and [ pilot]] that she always wanted to be.’ (268) involves coordination of two PredP but (269) involves coordination of PredP and NP. Under an analysis that would treat both constituents under the determiner as NP with adjoined adjectives this contrast would be mysterious in the sense that it would make it impossible to coordinate two NPs if the NP which is the second conjunct lacks an adjunct whereas under this analysis the impossibility of coordination can be explained as the impossibility of coordinating two different types of projections. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 2.8.3 D everbal Nom irtals As we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, eventive or deverbal nominals have a different interpretation according to the type of adjective that modifies them. The following contrast illustrate this: (270) La construction roja. The construction red ‘The red building.’ (271) La supuesta construction. ‘The alleged construction.’ In the first example the eventive nominal is interpreted as an object whereas in the second example it is interpreted as a process. Notice that if they are modified by thematic adjectives they may be ambiguous between a process and a result reading. Thus, in: (272) La confection americana The manufacturing American ‘The American manufacturing’ the eventive nominal confeccion can be interpreted either as a piece of couture from the United States or as the type of manufacturing o f clothing done by the Americans. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134 The first contrast seems to be related to the absence of th-role marking on the adjective re d whereas the second one seems to be related to two different types of th-role assignment. Thus, in the product reading the adjective has a locative source reading whereas in the second it has a clear agent reading. In the next chapter, we will see that the type of agentivity found in (272) is related to Person Agreement. 2 .8 .4 Indefinite D Ps Finally, I would like to refer to the case of indefinite NPs. There are two syntactic phenomena related to PredP inside indefinites. The first one is the obligatory presence of the morpheme -o in the cases in which there is no overt nominal as in: (273) Un hombre grande. A man big ‘A big man.’ (274) *Un grande. ‘A big one.’ (275) Uno grande. ‘A big one.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 Bernstein (1993)b. proposes that the morpheme -o that appears in these cases is a nominal suffix. Under the analysis presented identifying the suffix with a nominal head would be problematic in the sense that it would have to be generated as an XP in cases such as: (276) Un Padron de joyas] habil y un-[o] torpe. A [thief of jewelry] skillful and a -[o] clumsy ‘A skillful jewelry thief and a clumsy one.’ Thus, I would like to argue that if the suffix -o is a morpheme sensitive to syntactic environments, as proposed by Bernstein, it surfaces when there is a pro being licensed in Spec of PredP, but it is not a nominal head. The second syntactic phenomenon related to indefintes and PredP is the apparent opacity o f indefintes with respect to the interpretation of scopal adjectives such as nuevo ‘new’. This can be seen in the following contrast: (277) Ayer compramos la casa nueva. Yesterday we bought the house new ‘Yesterday we bought the new house.’ (278) Ayer compramos una casa nueva. Yesterday we bought a house new ‘Yesterday we bought a new house.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In a context in which there are two houses one built a long time ago and the other recently built the definite expression in (277) can be understood as the recently built house. In a context in which we have been planning to acquire an additional house the definite expression in (277) can be understood as the additional house. Thus, the expression la casa nueva is ambiguous between the recently b u ilt house or the additional house. This is not the case with the indefinite expression. In this case, the interpretation: an additional house is banned. It would seem as if the indefinte blocks the additional interpretation. Notice that if the adjective is a pre-nominal adjective we only obtain the additional interpretation: (279) Ayer compramos una nueva casa. Yesterday we bought an additional/ ^recently built house ‘Yesterday we bought a new house.’ (280) Ayer compramos la nueva casa. Yesterday we bought the additional/*recently built house ‘Yesterday we bought the new house.’ which suggests that the ambiguity of the postnominal adjective in the definite expression is obtained by means of some sort of raising to a higher position. In the case of the indefinite this raising seems blocked. Notice that, when a focalizing element such as hasta ‘even’ is added to the indefinite, the additional interpretation reappears: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 (281) Ayer compramos hasta una casa nueva. Yesterday we bought even a house new ‘Yesterday we bought even a new house.’ Ttts would suggest that the hasta -phrase patterns with definite expressions with respect to allowing some sort of raising. Notice however that hasta ‘even’ is involved in the interpretation of post-nominal nueva ‘new’ even if it is part of another constituent: (282) Hasta Juan compro una casa nueva. Even Juan bought a house new ‘Even Juan bought a recently built/additional house.’ I will take to suggest that the interpretation of adjectives such as nueva outside PredP is subject to a series of syntactic conditions inside the clause and not only inside DP and I will leave the study of some of those conditions for Chapter Four where I will concentrate on the analysis of scopal adjectives. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 Notes 1. Thanks to Irma Egusquiza de Paredes, Maura Reyes, Ricardo Reyes and Satuco Orozco for providing grammatical judgments on Southern Quechua and Liliana Paredes for allowing me access to the corpus of Andean Spanish data collected for her dissertation (Paredes 1996). Thanks also to Jose Camacho, Giuseppe Longobardi, Barry Schein, Jean-Roger Vergnaud and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions o f this chapter. Parts of this chapter will appear in Sanchez (In press). 2 .1 will use the term Southern Quechua to refer to Southern Peruvian Quechua as defined by Mannheim (1991,113): “the Quechua language spoken in the six southeastern departments of Peru: Apurimac, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Cuzco, Huancavelica and Puno.” The data belong basically to the Cuzco dialect. By Spanish, I will understand Standard Peruvian Spanish which does not differ substantially from other Standard varieties of Spanish. The data belong to the Lima dialect. 3. The English gloss reveals the freedom in word ordering in Spanish. 4. In contrast with neutral registers, the word order Adjective-Noun is allowed in literary registers: (1) A lo lejos, se veia el azul oceano. ‘Far away, one could see the blue ocean.’ The position of adjectives also affects the interpretation of the noun they modify. Post- nominal adjectives in Spanish force a result reading of a deverbal noun: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 (2) Ayer vimos una construccion roja. Yesterday we saw a red construction ‘Yesterday we saw a red building.’ whereas pre-nominal adjectives force a process reading of the deverbal nominal: (3) Ayer descubrieron que la supuesta construccion del puente nunca ocurrio. ‘Yesterday they discovered that the alleged construction o f the bridge never took place.’ I will leave the case of literary registers aside for methodological reasons. I will come back to the case of eventive nouns towards the end of this chapter. 5. This was originally noted by Bolinger (1967) for English and later by Siegel for Russian. For Romance this has been used as a test distinguishing both types of adjectives by Bernstein (1993a). 6. Lefebvre and Muysken prefer to consider the suffix -q as an agentive suffix that is as part o f Agreement and not as part o f Tense. 7.1n relation to headless relatives, it seems appropriate to introduce a special type of relative clauses in Southern Quechua. In addition to nominalized relative clauses, Southern Quechua has a special type of relative clauses in which the verb is inflected. As noted by Lefebvre (1980), there are at least three possible structures for verbally inflected relative clauses in Southern Quechua, although their use is not common and they are not very productive. The Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140 three strategies are a) the -W H or pronominal strategy, b) The c/jay+case strategy (also noted by Me Cubbing de Kindberg (1989)) and c) the chayqa strategy: (1) The-W H or pronom inal strategy Riku-chka-ni warmi-ta p i-n hamu-n. See-prog-lpsg woman-acc who-val come-3p ‘I see the woman who is coming.’ (2) The chay+case strategy Warmi hamu-chka-n chay, pay-mi rima-nqa. Woman come-prog-3p that, she-val speak-fat3p ‘The woman who is coming will come.’ (3) The chayqa strategy Warmi-ta riku-ni chayqa, pay-mi rima-wa-nqa. Woman-acc see-lpsg that, she-val speak-lpobj-3pfixtsubj ‘The woman I see will take to me.’ Structurally, these verbally inflected relative clauses cannot be equated with the inflected relative clauses of Spanish because they do not behave as subordinate clauses in Southern Quechua. This is shown by the feet that they accept validation markers which is impossible in Southern Quechua for complement clauses (see (1)). These three strategies are marginal to the language. They seem to be the remanent of a historical process that spread Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 verbally inflected co-rrelatives throughout the languages of the Andean Plateau. 8.1n the case o f Southern Quechua, the superficial forms of both types of expression are different and therefore do not require of further argumentation to treat them differently. The contrast is illustrated in: (1) [pp Wintana-^a^] wasi. [ p p Windows-poss] house ‘The house with windows.’ (2) [Juan-/wt] wasi-n. [Juan-gen] house-3 p ‘Juan’s house.’ 9. The speaker whose speech is presented here as a data is an adult woman, she speaks Quechua at home with her husband and close relatives. She has been for 4 years in the city of Lima and started speaking in Spanish 4/S years ago. She attended only the first year of escuelaprim aria (elementary school). She is from the department o f Huancavelica (Paredes 1994). 10.The speaker whose speech is presented here is also an adult woman from the department of Ayacucho. She has been 7 years in the city of Lima and finished the escuela secundaria (high school). She is a native speaker of the Ayacucho dialect (Paredes 1994). 11. This is the same speaker described in note 9 (Paredes 1994). 12.The distribution of relative clauses in Bilingual Spanish is complex. For instance, null nominal licensing in Bilingual Spanish shows some interesting features. The following example shows the case of null nominal licensing in the context of a relative clause: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 (1) a. En antes [un [trabajaba con mi tio]] se ha pisado un clavo ese el pie. In before [a [worked with my uncle]] cl-has stepped a nail that, the foot. ‘Before (one) who worked with my unde stepped on a nail (with) his foot.’ b. iTu tio? ‘Your uncle?’ c. No, otro su gente ahi. No, other his people there ‘No, another of Ms people.’ The additional context of the dialogue shows that the sentence (1) a. has as its subject the expression un trabajaba con m i tio ‘a (one) who worked with my uncle’, that is, it has as its subject a DP with an overt indefinite article, a null noun and a relative clause. This expression has peculiar syntactic features that are not present in Standard Spanish relative clauses as one can see from the following comparison: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 (2) B ilingual Spanish Un-[e] [[e]] trabajaba con mi tio]. A-[e] [[e] worked with my uncle] ‘One who worked with my uncle.’ (3) Standard Spanish Un-o [que trabajaba con mi tio]. A-nom [that worked with my uncle] ‘One who worked with my uncle.’ The Bilingual Spanish expression is peculiar in two respects. First, it has a null antecedent but unlike in the sentence in Standard Spanish the indefinite article does not show the suffix ~o which is obligatory in Standard Spanish and has been argued by Bernstein (1993b) to be a nominal head affixed to the indefinite article. Second, there is no overt complementizer as in the Standard Spanish expression. This indicates that licensing of null nominals appears even in expressions with no overt complementizer. 13. Kayne points as additional evidence the ambiguity of: (1) John bought the picture of himself that Bill saw which in a reconstruction approach such as Chomsky’s (1993) supposes that at a certain point in the derivation B ill c-commands him self. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14. These sentences are possible in Spanish: 144 (1) La mujer que vino y a la cual tu conoces. The woman who came and the which you know ‘The woman who came and whom you know.’ (2) El que vengas me asombra The that you come me amazes ‘That you come amazes me.’ Under Kayne’s analysis their impossibility in English would have to follow from some independent constraint operating in English that disallows wh-expressions in CPs that are complements of D° but allows them in CPs in main clauses. Under our analysis, the possibility of having (1) and (2) would be accounted for by having a null nominal in Spec of the projection that conatins the relative clause. 15.There is variation however with respect to the functional head that N° incorporates to. The traditional proposals have incorporation to Agr°. See Bosque and Picallo (1994) for incorporation to KP(Case Phrase). 16. Later, we will see that certain complements and predicates that appear to be left stranded as shown in the following contrasts illustrate cases in which there is a different stacking of constituents: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 (1) *La casa grande de campo. The house big of country ‘The big country house.’ (2) La casa grande de ladrillo. The house big of brick ‘The big brick house.’ (3) *La ladrona buena de joyas. The thief good of jewelry ‘The good jewelry thief. ’ (4) La foto grande de los ninos. The picture big of the kids ‘The big picture of the kids.’ 17.1 would like to suggest that PrP differs from PredP in that PrP takes DP as its subject whereas PredP being internal to DP takes NP as its subject. In the case of argumental modification (genitive subjects of nominalizations), we will see DP as a possible subject for PredP. 18. For an alternative explanation of Agreement and recursivity of post-nominal adjectives in Spanish see Bosque and Picallo (1994). As the analysis presented here aims to cover different types of non-argumental modification, I will refer the reader to their work for an analysis aimed exclusively to account for the behavior of adjectives. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 CHAPTER THREE: NOMINAL PERSON AGREEMENT AND PREDICATE PHRASE IN DP1 3.0 Introduction In the previous chapter, an analysis was proposed to account for the common behavior of a sub-class o f non-argumental modifiers such as adjectives, restrictive relative clauses and certain prepositional phrases in Spanish and Southern Quechua as well as for the data from different stages of Bilingual Spanish. In addition to non-argumental modification, there is another other type of modification inside DPs that has been the main subject o f study inside Noun Phrases in the generative grammar tradition both in Romance languages and Quechua languages: argumental modification. In this chapter, I will present the distribution of argumental nominal modifiers and I will argue that what is crucial about the syntax of DPs in Southern Quechua and Spanish is that argumental relations (as well as other lexico- semantic relations that will be dealt with in this chapter) involve the existence of a nominal Person Agreement projection and a Predicate Phrase internal to DP and that the special properties of case and th-role assignment inside DPs depend on the interaction of the lexical specifications of the noun and the syntactic properties of the functional projections Predicate Phrase and Person Agreement Phrase. It will also be argued that DPs containing simple nouns such as dog or house with no apparent obligatory th-grid differ crucially from verbal clauses with respect to the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147 optionality versus obligatoriness o f arguments because, inside the DP, Person Agreement does not encode exclusively thematic relations as it is the case in the verbal domain. Following Grimshaw (1990), I will propose that association of a noun with a particular th- grid is dependent on the type of event that the Predicate Phrase inside DP denotes. 3.1. A rgum ental structures The two types of argumental nominal modifiers most studied in the generative grammar literature are thematic modifiers such as agents and themes and possessive modifiers. They are represented in brackets in the following expressions in Spanish and Southern Quechua: (283) Spanish La /Una foto [de Madona]. (theme) The/A picture [of Madona] ‘Madona’s picture/ A picture of Madona.’ Context: the image o f Madona appears on the picture (284) La /Una foto [de Mapplethorpe], (agent) The/A picture [of Mapplethorpe] ‘Mapplethorpe’s picture/ A picture by Mapplethorpe.’ Context: Mapplethorpe took the picture Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148 (285) LaI Una foto [ de Maria], (possessor) The/A picture [ of Maria] ‘Maria’s picture/ A picture of Maria’s.’ Context: Maria is the owner of the picture (286) Southern Quechua [Maduna-# ] ritratu-n. (them e) [Maduna-gen ] picture-3p ‘Madona’s picture.’ Context: The image of Madona appears on the picture (287) [Marcela-# ] ritratu-n. (agent) [Marcela-gen ] picture-3 p ‘Marcela’s picture.’ Context: Marcela took the picture (288) [Maria-# ] ritratu-n. (possessor) [Maria-gen] picture-3p ‘Maria’s picture.’ Context: Maria is the owner of the picture The examples in Spanish show nominal modifiers preceded by the preposition de ‘o f and the examples in Southern Quechua show nominal modifiers bearing genitive case expressed by the suffix -q (or its allomorphs -pa, -qpa). In the following section, the morphosyntactic properties of these modifiers will be presented. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149 3 .1.1 M orphosyntactic properties As the previous examples show, thematic modifiers of nouns (themes or agents) as well as possessors share a common syntactic feature in Spanish: they are preceded by the preposition de ‘o f as is the case in most Romance languages (cf. Ruwet 1972, Milner 1982 and Zubizarreta 1979 for French; Cinque 1980 and Giorgi an Longobardi 1991 for Italian; Torrego 1984, Mallen 1992 for Spanish among others). A preposition that has been assumed by some researchers to be a genitive case assigner (Torrego 1984 and others). In Southern Quechua, thematic modifiers and possessors share also a morphosyntactic feature: all of them are marked for genitive case by the genitive suffix -q (or sometimes the allomorphs -pa or -qpa) (cf. Weber 1976 for Huallaga Quechua).2 Thus, at a superficial level of examination, the first morphosyntactic characteristic that thematic modifiers as well as possessors seem to share is the fact that they receive genitive case in both languages. In addition to the fact that they bear some form of genitive case marker in Spanish and Southern Quechua, these modifiers share another morphosyntactic characteristic in both languages: the existence of Person features in the construction in which they appear. These features are overtly marked in Southern Quechua on the noun modified by argumental or thematic modifiers. The marking is obligatory in Southern Quechua as shown by the following contrast: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150 (289) a.*Maduna-q ritratu. (Theme) Madona-gen picture ‘Madona’s picture.’ b.Maduna-q ritratu-n. (Theme) Maduna-gen picture-3p ‘Madona’s picture.’ This contrast can also be reproduced for agents and possessors in Southern Quechua and covers all grammatical persons. The following are examples of the person agreement paradigm for first (both inclusive and exclusive) and second person all possible with theme, agent or possessor interpretations: (290) N uqa-q ritratu-^. I- gen picture- lp ‘(Of me) my picture.’ (291) Nuqa-«cA/s-pa ritratu-ncA/s. We-1 pi incl -gen picture-1 pi in cl ‘(Of us) our picture.’ (292) Nuqa-j/Aw-pa ritratu-yAw. We-1 pi excl -gen picture-1 pi excl ‘(Of us) our picture.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151 (293) Oam-pa ritratu-^. You-gen picture-2p ‘(Of you) your picture.’ Although in Spanish there is no overt marking of person agreement features on the noun, it is a very well known fact with respect to the syntax of nominals in Romance languages noted by Milner (1982), Cinque (1980) and Zubizarreta(1979) and Giorgi and Longobardi (1991) that “only genitive arguments, meaning thereby PPs of the form di-NP ( ‘of-NP’...)... can be pronominalized through a possessive” (Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, 59). In other words, pronominalization of themes, agents and possessors is possible via a possessive determiner or a possessive adjective: (294) a. La foto de M adona. (Theme, A gent or Possessor) The picture of Madona ‘Madona’s picture.’ b. La foto suy-a. The picture hers-fem-sg ‘The picture hers.’ c. Su foto. Her picture ‘Her picture.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 As in the case of Southern Quechua agreement, pronominalization in Spanish also covers the first and the second person, as shown in: (295) a. La foto m i-a / tuy-a! nuestr-a! vuestr-a. The picture mine-fem/ yours-fem/ours-fem/yours-fem ‘My / your / our picture.’ bM i / tu / nuestr-a / vuestr-a foto. My / your/ our-fem / your-fem picture ‘My / your / our picture.’ A peculiar characteristic of Spanish is that in many varieties of Spanish (mostly Latin American varieties) the same pronoun is used for second singular (formal) and third person singular and plural with no gender distinction for the pronoun itself, that is, no distinction corresponding to the her th is distinction o f English. This means that expressions such as the following may have six different interpretations as shown in the gloss: (296) a. La foto suya. The picture hers/ his/ yours (sg) / yours (2ppl) / theirs (fem) / theirs (masc) ‘Her / his / your / their picture.’ b. Su foto. Her / his / your(sg) / your (pi) / their(fem)/ (fem) picture ‘Her / his / your / their picture.’3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 It has been argued by traditional grammarians (cf. Kany (1951)) that it is this multiple ambiguity that allows for doubling of the genitive in these varieties as in: (297) Su foto de e l I de ella / de usted / de ustedes / de ellosl de ellas. 3p/ 2p picture of him/ of her / of you(sg) / of you(pl) / of them(masc) / of them (fem) ‘Her / his / your / their picture.’ Notice that in these dialects doubling is less characteristic of first person as shown by the following examples: (298) *M i casa de yo .1 ’ My house of I ‘My house.’ (299) TFlMi casa de m i.5 My house of me ‘My house.’ Thus, another characteristic that argumental modifiers share is that both in Spanish and Southern Quechua they occur in constructions involving person agreement features. In these constructions, person features may be doubled (for all persons in Southern Quechua and for third person in Latin American Spanish). In this respect, argumental modifiers differ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154 radically from non-argumental modifiers introduced by the preposition de ‘o f such as those discussed in Chapter 2 in that the latter cannot be pronominalized as shown in: (300) a. La foto depapel. The picture of paper ‘The paper picture.’ b. *Su foto. ‘Its picture.’ The possessive pronoun in (294)c. can be interpreted as either the theme, the agent or the possessor o f the noun, but that is not the case in (300)b. Notice that a crucial difference between the complements of the preposition de ‘o f in (294)a. and (300)b. is that in (294)a. the complement is a proper name M adona which in most current theories is analyzed as a Determiner Phrase and not as an NP (cf. Longobardi (1994)) whereas in (300)a. the complement of the preposition de ‘o f is a bare singular presumably an NP. In Spanish, these bare NPs may occur in singular or plural and may have a mass or count noun interpretation as shown in: (301) La/Una casa de madera. (bare singular, m ass noun) The/A house of wood ‘The/a wooden house.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 (302) ?La/Una casa de m ujer. (bare singular, count noun) The/A house of woman ‘The/A woman house.’ (303) La/ Una casa de m ujeres. (bare plural, count noun) The/A house of women ‘The/A women’s house.’ In Southern Quechua, these constructions correspond to constructions in which there is no genitive case assignment and no person agreement, that is, constructions in which there is only a bare noun preceding another: (304) K ’ u llu w a sl Wood house ‘The wooden house.’ (305) Warmi wasi. Woman house ‘The house of women.’ As it was shown in Chapter 2, the complements of the preposition de ‘o f in expressions in (301H303) do not enter any type of possession or thematic relation involving agency with the noun they modify. In feet, as already indicated in (300)a. and b. they cannot be pronominalized by a possessive: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156 (306) a.La/Una casa de m adera. (bare singular, m ass noun) The/A house of wood ‘The/A house of wood.’ b.*S« casa. ‘Its house.’ (307) a. ?La/Una casa de m ujer. (bare singular, count noun) The/A house of woman ‘The/A woman house.’ b *Su casa ‘Its house.’ (308) a. La/ Una casa de m ujeres. (bareplural, count noun) The/A house of women ‘The/A women’s house.’ b .*Su casa. ‘Its house.’ Thus, it seems that in Spanish as well as in Southern Quechua structures containing argumental modifiers involve Person Agreement (as proposed for Romance possessive constructions by Kayne (1994) and Antrim (1994); for Southern Quechua’s nominalizations by Lefebvre and Muysken (1989) and for Dutch possessive constructions by Kerstens (1993)) whereas structures containing restrictive modifiers of the type examined in Chapter 2 do not. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157 In addition to that, in Spanish argumental modifiers are not bare NPs. Instead they are DPs (under the assumption that proper names and pronouns are DPs in Spanish (cf. Longobardi 1994, for Italian) as shown by the fact that bare NPs cannot be pronominalized by a possessive, a property of argumental modifiers. The same is true for Southern Quechua where genitive marking is obligatory when pronouns and proper names behave as nominal modifiers (let us recall that we are assuming that pronouns and proper names are DPs) but not with common nouns which can be either as argumental or non- argumental modifiers as shown by the following examples: (309) a.* Pay wasi. S/He house ‘His/her house.’ b. Pay-pa wasi-«. S/He-gen house-3p ‘His/her house.’ (310) a. Sipas pullira. Girl skirt ‘A/the girly skirt.’ b. Sipas-pa pullira-n. Girl-gen skirt-3 p ‘A/The girl’s skirt.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Notice that some of the characteristics we have discussed such as bearing genitive features and being a DP correspond to the argumental modifier itself whereas others such as the existence of person features and the possibility of doubling them correspond to the structure in which argumental modifiers appear. The following tables summarize these characteristics and the morphological or syntactic encoding they receive in each language: (311) A gum ental M odifiers Spanish Genitive + (preposition) DP structure + (overt determiner) (312) Argum ental Structures Spanish Person features + (pronominalization) Doubling + (pronominalization)* Restricted to third person In this chapter an analysis will be proposed to account for the existence of these properties in terms of the syntactic structure present in the cases of argumental modification. Before presenting the analysis, I would like to present other types of semantic/thematic relations that share the properties discussed. Southern Quechua + (suffix) + (null determiner) Southern Quechua + (nominal suffix) + (nominal suffix) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159 3.1.2 O ther argum ental relations Weber (1976) notices that a syntactic structure in which a modifier bears genitive case and there is person agreement involved is not exclusive of thematic and possessive relations inside DPs in Quechua languages. In fact, he presents data from Central Quechua (Huallaga) showing that there are other semantic relations such as part-whole relations, kinship relations and certain spatial relations that can be associated with this type of structure. The same type of data can be found in Southern Quechua and in Spanish. For instance, it is possible to find genitive and person agreement in part-whole relations as shown in: (313) Southern Quechua Runtu- < 7 yuraq-ni-n. Egg-gen white-euph-3p ‘The/An egg’s white.’ (314) Spanish a. La clara del huevo. The white of the egg ‘The egg’s white.’ b. Su clara. ‘Its white.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kinship and other types of social relations are also syntactically encoded as involving genitive and person agreement: (315) Southern Quechua Juan-pa mama-n. Juan-gen mother-3ps ‘Juan’s mother.’ (316) Juan-pa masi-/?. Juan-gen mate-3psg ‘Juan’s friend.’ (317) Spanish a.La madre de Juan. The mother of Juan ‘Juan’s mother.’ b. Su madre. ‘His mother.’ (318) a. El amigo de Juan. The friend of Juan ‘Juan’s friend.’ b. Su amigo ‘His friend.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 In addition to these semantic relations, there are other semantic relations such as spatial and temporal relations, usually related to adverbial constituents, that show this pattern in Southern Quechua. For instance, spatial relations can be expressed as in: (319) Southern Quechua iuaa-pa qhipa-w Juan-gen behind-3p ‘Behind Juan.’ This expression has exactly the same structure as the thematic and possessive relations described earlier. The equivalent of (319) in Spanish is also similar to the case of possessive and thematic relations in that it requires the preposition de and allows for a possessive adjective or (in certain varieties of Peruvian Spanish) for a possessive pronoun, as shown in: (320) Spanish a. Detras de Juan Behind of Juan ‘Behind Juan.’ b. Detras suyo Behind his ‘Behind him.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162 (321) Non-standard Peruvian Spanish (En) su detras (In) his behind ‘Behind him.’ Temporal relations are also expressed through this construction in Southern Quechua as in: (322) Unquy-/*? qhipa-n Illness-gen back-3 p ‘After the illness.’ In this case, the contrast with Spanish is sharper given that Spanish requires the preposition de but does not allow person agreement6: (323) a. Despues de la enfermedad After o f the illness ‘After the illness.’ b. *Su despues ‘Its after.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163 Thus, it would seem that Spanish is more restricted than Southern Quechua in allowing person agreement as part of the syntactic encoding of semantic relations involving space and time inside the DP although some remanents o f it can be found in spatial relations. In addition to the relations previously mentioned, there are other semantic relations that are syntactically encoded in Southern Quechua in a similar fashion to thematic and possessive constructions. For instance, there are comparison relations such as absolute superlatives that show genitive marking and Person Agreement: (324) Southern Quechua Millay-kuna-< 7 millay-ni-M Ugly-pl-gen ugly-3p ‘The ugly of the ugly.’ (Calvo Perez 1993, 237) This contrasts with Spanish where this type of construction is marginal and does not involve person agreement: (325) Spanish a. ?E1 feo de los feos ‘The ugly of the ugly.’ b. *Su feo ‘Their ugly.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164 I will take these data as an indication that the particular structure involved in these cases cannot be exclusively associated with thematic relations (understood as relations involving an agent or a theme) or with possessive relations in both languages. In that respect, I would like to point out that in this chapter I will be concerned with the syntactic behavior of the traditionally called argumental and/or thematic modifiers and with the syntactic behavior of other nominal modifiers that exhibit genitive case and person agreement. 3.I.3 Argumental hierarchies Argumental modifiers such as themes, agents and possessors are hierarchically ordered with respect to each other inside DPs both in Spanish (and presumably in Romance in general as noted by Zubizarreta 1979, Cinque 1980, Milner 1982, Aoun 1985, for French, Giorgj and Longobardi 1991, for Italian, among others) and in Southern Quechua. Thus, in cases in which more than one thematic or argumental modifier is present inside the DP, their distribution shows ordering as shown by the following examples: (326) Spanish Ayer v i... ‘Yesterday I saw...’ (327) La foto de Madona. (Theme) The picture of Madona ‘Madona’s picture.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 (328) La foto de Madona de Maplethorpe. (Agent) The picture of Madona of Maplethorpe ‘Maplethorpe’s picture of Madona.’ (329) La foto de Madona de Maplethorpe de Luis. (Possessor) The picture of Madona of Maplethorpe of Luis ‘Luis’ picture of Madona by Mapplethorpe.’ The previous examples illustrate the canonical word order in Spanish in which there is a hierarchy of positions: the theme is the most embedded modifier while the agent and the possessor are less embedded. Notice that in the neutral register of the language the agent may not appear as the most embedded modifier as shown in: (330) *La foto de Maplethorpe de Madona de Luis. (Agent) The picture of Maplethorpe of Madona of Luis ‘Luis’ picture of Madonna by Maplethorpe’ (331) *La foto de Maplethorpe de Luis de Madona (Agent) The picture of Maplethorpe of Luis of Madona ‘Luis’ picture of Madonna by Maplethorpe’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. And the same is true of the possessor: 166 (332) *La foto de Luis de Madona de Maplethorpe. (Possessor) The picture of Luis of Madona o f Mapplethorpe ‘Luis’ picture of Madonna by Maplethorpe.’ (333) * La foto de Luis de Mapplethorpe de Madona. (Possessor) The picture of Luis of Mapplethorpe of Madona ‘Luis’ picture of Madonna by Maplethorpe.’ The presence of an intermediate possessor does not yield perfect grammatical results either: (334) ?La foto de Madona de Luis de Mapplethorpe. (Possessor) The picture of Madona of Luis of Mapplethorpe ‘Luis’ picture of Madonna by Maplethorpe.’ This hierarchical organization of thematic modifiers can also be found in Southern Quechua: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167 (335) Qayna Punchay ....-ta riku-rqa-ni. Yesterday..,-acc See-past-lpsg ‘Yesterday I saw ...’ (336) Maduna-q ritratu-n. (Theme) Maduna-gen picture-3p ‘Madonna’s picture.’ (337) Marcela-q Maduna-q ritratu-n. (Agent) Marcela-gen Madona-gen picture-3psg ‘Marcela’s picture of Madona.’ (338) Luchu-qpa Marcela-q Maduna ritratu-». (Possessor) Luchu-gen Marcela-gen Madona picture-3psg ‘Luis’ picture of Madona by Marcela.’ As in the case of Spanish an internal agent yields ungrammaticality: (339) *Luchu-qpa Maduna-q M arcela-q ritratu-n. (Agent) Luchu-gen Madona-gen Marcela-gen picture-3psg ‘Luis’ picture of Madona by Marcela.’ (340) *Maduna-q Luchu-qpa M arcela-q ritratu-n. (Agent) Madona-gen Luchu-gen Marcela-gen picture-3psg ‘Luis’ picture of Madona by Marcela.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and the same is true of an internal possessor: 168 (341) *Maduna-q Marcela-q Luchu-qpa ritratu-n. (Possessor) Madona-gen Marcela-gen Luchu-gen picture-3psg ‘Luis’ picture of Madona by Marcela.’ (342) *Marcela-q Maduna-q Luchu-qpa ritratu-n. (Possessor) Marcela-gen Madona-gen Luchu-gen picture-3psg ‘Luis’ picture of Madona by Marcela.’ and for an intermediate possessor: (343) *Marcela-q Luchu-qpa Maduna-q ritratu-n. (Possessor) Marcela-gen Luchu-gen Madona-gen picture-3 psg ‘Luis’ picture of Madona by Marcela.’ These examples show that there is a hierarchy in the canonical word order of thematic and possessive arguments in Southern Quechua and that this hierarchy is the mirror image of the hierarchy found in Spanish. The existence of this hierarchy of thematic modifiers in which agents and possessors are obligatorily in a less embedded position than themes has been at the center of the debate on the similarities and differences between nominal and clausal structures since Chomsky’s (1970) “Remarks on nominalizations”. The definition of what counts as an object or as a subject inside a nominal structure has since Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169 then been explored by many researchers and two main positions on the nature of the thematic structure of the noun and its syntactic encoding have evolved from this debate: one that assumes a strong parallelism between the thematic and syntactic structure of nouns or more precisely nominalizations and verbs (Anderson 1979, Chomsky 1970, Torrego 1984, Cinque 1993, Picallo 1991, Giorgj and Longobardi 1991, Valois 1991, Mallen 1992 among others). In this view, the general position (although there are variations in the formulations) has been that the argumental structure of a noun or nominalization is generated in a similar fashion to that of the verb: themes are complements of N° and possessors and agents are located in specifier positions. That is, agents and possessors may occupy the position of an external argument, a position similar to that of the subject of a main clause whereas themes occupy an internal position similar to that occupy by objects in main clauses. A second theoretical approach to the thematic relations inside nominals assumes that thematic and syntactic structure of nouns/nominalizations do not necessarily parallel that o f verbs (Zubizarreta 1979, Safir 1987, Grimshaw 1990 among others) and that this is the reason behind the differences in syntactic behavior between Noun Phrases and main clauses. The adoption of the first line of analysis however is limited by the lack of exact parallelism in the syntactic behavior of nouns and verbs even in the case of nominalizations. As noted previously in the literature, unlike verbs, nouns do not project obligatorily. This is shown in the following contrast (Grimshaw 1990): (344) a. Los europeos masacraron a los indigenas americanos. ‘The europeans massacred to the native people of the Americas.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170 b.* Los europeos masacraron. ‘The europeans massacred.’ (345) a. La masacre de los indigenas. ‘The massacre of the natives.’ b. La masacre. ‘The massacre.’ Moreover, unlike verbs, which allow extraction of complements over subjects, nouns do not allow extraction of complements in the presence of a structural subject (Cinque 1980, Milner 1982, Aoun 1985): (346) iQue, vio et Juan? What; saw e * Juan? ‘What did Juan see?’ (347) *(JDe quierij viste una foto ex de Maplethorpe? Of whonij saw a picture e; of Maplethorpe? ‘Whose did you see a picture of Maplethorpe?’ That is, even under the assumption that nouns project structures similar to those projected by verbs with themes or objects as complements and subjects as specifiers, nouns and verbs need to be differentiated in terms of their ability to allow extraction of complements. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171 I will take this to indicate that although the existence of the hierarchy requires a structural account it is not necessarily the case that such a account must be based on a strict parallelism between verbal and nominal projections. In that respect I will follow Grimshaw’s (1990) proposal that nouns are syntactically intransitive in the sense that they do not project obligatory subjects and objects. In the next section, I will make explicit the grounds for that assumption. 3.1.4 Argumental nominals and thematic relations The study of thematic relations dates back to Davidson (1967), Fillmore (1968) and Jackendoff (1972) among others but it was formally introduced as part of a sub-system of the core grammar referred to as Theta Theory in Chomsky’s (1981) LGB model. In that model thematic relations were introduced as part of an interpretive component that was responsible for the LF interpretation of a sentence. In order to provide a criterion of adequacy for the LF interpretation of clauses, Chomsky proposed the th-criterion according to which at the clausal level all arguments had one and only one th-role and each argument was assigned one and only one th-role in its D-Structure position. Thus, in a passive sentence such as: (348) The book were put t on the table. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172 the argument the book received the th-role assigned by the verbal head to its complement, that is the position occupied by the trace of the book. Nevertheless, in dealing with non-clausal (non- gerund) nominals Chomsky noticed that the subject of a noun is not obligatory and therefore th-marking of the position occupied by the subject of a noun could not be obligatory, that is the th-criterion was contingent on the obligatoriness or optionality of a position. If the argument position was obligatory then it required th-marking but if it was optional as in the case of the subject of NP then th- marking was optional too and would apply only to satisfy the th-criterion. This optionality in the thematic relations established by a noun has been a great source of concern for it contrasts sharply with the obligatoriness of thematic relations inside main clauses. Thus, as pointed out in the previous section whereas the complement of a transitive verb such as open is obligatory, the complement or theme of a noun such as picture is not as shown by: (349) Juan abrio la puerta. ‘Juan opened the door.’ (350) *Juan abrio. ‘Juan opened.’ (351) La foto de Juan. The picture of Juan ‘Juan’s picture.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173 (352) La foto. ‘The picture.’ In addition to the optionality of thematic complements there are other issues that obscure the relation between nouns and their complements. For instance, as noted by Grimshaw (1990) the case of nominalizations is complicated because they behave ambiguously between result nouns and process nouns as shown by her English examples: (353) John’s examination was long. (result reading) (354) John’s examination of the patients took a long time. (processreacbng) In the result reading, the relation between the possessive and the noun is vague in the sense that John can be the possessor, author or taker o f the exam whereas in the process reading John is the agent of the action, part of what Grimshaw refers to as the a-structure of the noun. Based on previous work by Anderson (1983-1984), Randall (1984), Lebeaux (1986), Roeper (1987), Zubizarreta (1987), Levin and Rappaport (1988), Rappaport and Levin (1989), Grimshaw (1990) proposes that this ambiguity should be dealt with by differentiating nouns that denote complex events such as process nominalizations from nouns that denote simple events such as result nominalizations. In Grimshaw’s proposal, both nouns and verbs have participants associated with the event denoted by the noun or the verb but only verbs and process nominalizations grammaticalize their participants as syntactic arguments. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174 Following Grimshaw’s (1990) proposal, I would like to argue that the optionality of thematic relations inside DP is related to the type of events a noun can be associated with. Let us take as an example the case of a noun such as perro ‘dog’. In the following expressions in Spanish and Southern Quechua: (355) Spanish El perro de Maria. The dog of Maria ‘Maria’s dog.’ (356) Southern Quechua Maria-q alqu-n. Maria-gen dog-3p ‘Maria’s dog.’ Maria can be understood as the owner, that is, as a possessor, or as the guardian of the dog but that is so assuming that we are referring to an animal which is alive. In that case, Maria could not have created it or be the theme of any action referred to by the noun dog. Notice however that if we think of the noun dog as referring to a sculpture, suddenly M aria can be interpreted as the person who created the sculpture, that is, as an agent o f the event of creating a sculpture that has the form of a dog. In other words, nouns such as perro ‘dog’ in Spanish or alqu ‘dog’ in Southern Quechua and genitive expressions such as de M aria ‘of Maria’ or M aria-q ‘Maria’s’ respectively may establish different relationships according Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 to the contextual interpretation of the noun. In the case of the sculpture, the idea that a sculpture has a creator gives us the possibility o f understanding Maria as an agent. It would seem odd to include as part o f the lexical entry of the stem dog the notion that it may be alive or it may be a sculpture. It seems more plausible to think that the syntactic structure is flexible enough as to include different types of semantic relations between the noun and its genitive modifier. In the next section, I would like to propose that grammaticalization of the event referred to by the noun is done through Predicate Phrase and that the thematic relation between the noun and its argumental modifier is encoded by Person Agreement Phrase. 3.1.5 Predicate Phrase and Person Agreement Phrase In Chapter 2 , it was proposed that in the cases of restrictive modification the projection Predicate Phrase mediated between the noun and the restrictive modifier. One of the main properties of the head of this projection is that it allows for the licensing of null nominals. This is also the case with argumental modifiers as shown in the following examples in Spanish and Southern Quechua (which may receive the possessor, agent or theme interpretations): Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (357) Spanish Ayer vi la [foto]; de Maria y la [e]j de Pedro. Yesterday saw the [picture]; o f Maria and the [e]s of Peter ‘Yesterday I saw Maria’s picture and Pedro’s (picture).’ (358) Southern Quechua Qayna p’unchaw [Maduna-q [ritratu-n]J-ta-pas [Pidru-q [e]j ]-ta-pas riku-rqa- ni. Yesterday [Maria-gen [picture-3psg]; ]-acc-add [Pidru-gen [e]J-acc- add see- past-Ipsg ‘Yesterday I saw Maria’s picture and Pedro’s (picture).’ Based on this syntactic fact, I believe that it seems reasonable to propose that what allows the flexibility o f interpretation of the type of event being referred to by the noun is the existence of a projection that is the syntactic encoding of the event proposed by Grimshaw (1990) (based on Higginbotham 1985). In other words, Predicate Phrase is the syntactic encoding of nominal events and it mediates between a noun and its modifier . But as we saw in chapter 2, Predicate Phrase alone does not account for the argumental status of a modifier. Notice that, whether a possessor, a theme or an agent the syntactic appearance of the genitive phrase is the same in all cases for both languages. Thus, whereas in Spanish the genitive is preceded by the preposition de ‘o f in Spanish , in Southern Quechua it is followed by a genitive marker - q . The question is what assigns this genitive case. One could Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177 argue that in Spanish it is the preposition that assigns genitive case to the argumental modifier but this could not be the case in Southern Quechua because there is no preposition available. Following Lefebvre and Muysken’s (1989) proposal for nominalizations, I would like to argue that what assigns genitive case to the argumental modifier in Southern Quechua is Person Agreement and that Person Agreement is a projection internal to the DP. Notice also that in all these cases the noun must be marked for person features in Southern Quechua. We saw before that these person features are also present in Spanish when pronominalization of the argumental modifier takes place and that in some cases doubling of the argumental modifier by the pronoun may take place. This is reminiscent of the behavior of argumental clitics and suggests that these features are not just morphologically encoded but that they play a role in the syntax o f constructions containing argumental modifiers. Thus, the existence of a DP-intemal Person Agreement category that projects seems to be supported both by genitive case and pronominalization. This projection has the argumental modifier in its specifier position where it assigns it genitive case and has the modified NP in its complement position7 . That what is modified is an NP or an XP projection and not a N° seems to be confirmed by the existence of constructions such as: (359) La [foto bonita]; de Maria y la [e]; de Teresa. The [picture beautiful]; of Maria and the [e]; of Teresa ‘Maria’s beautiful picture and Teresa’s.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178 (360) Maria-q [sumaq ritratu]r n-pas Marcela-q [e]r pas. Maria-gen [beautiful picture]j-3p-add Marcela-gen [e]r add ‘Maria’s beautiful picture and Teresa’s.’ where what is being licensed is a Predicate Phrase and not an N °. Thus, I would like to propose that argumental modification both in Spanish and Southern Quechua for expressions such as La casa de Juan ‘Juan’s house’ in Spanish and Juan-pa wasi-n ‘Juan’s house’ in Southern Quechua is base generated as in: (361) DP D’ D° PredP 0 La Pred’ Pred0 P AgrP (Person Agreement Phrase) Juan-pa PA gr’ de Juan PA gr0 NP wasi-n casa In this structure the Genitive is generated in Spec of PArgP where it receives case and the modified NP (or PredP) is generated as a complement of PAgrP. In the case of Spanish the NP (or PredP) raises to Spec of PredP where it is licensed when it is null as in: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. casaj / \ pro; Pred0 P AgrP (Person Agreement Phrase) de Juan P Agr’ P Agr° NP e; This yields the canonical post-nominal ordering of argumental modifiers in Spanish. As in the case of restrictive modification, I will assume that PAgr0 incorporates to Pred0 making it possible to avoid the specifier occupied by the genitive phrase. I will also assume that the preposition de ‘o f in Spanish corresponds to the genitive case marker of Southern Quechua. This means that it is not the preposition that assigns genitive case to the DP but Person Agr0. As we mentioned before, the preposition de in Spanish appears also in the context of non-argumental modifiers but it does not seem to assign genitive case in that case. The assumption adopted here does not suppose a radical departure from traditional views that considered the preposition de in Spanish as ambiguous between a genitive case assigner and something else. It simply shifts the ambiguity o f the preposition de as a case assigner to its ambiguity as a genitive case marker and something else. In this structure pronominalization is the result of the subsequent incorporation of an abstract PAgr0-Pred0 -to-D°. This accounts for the determiner-like behavior o f the possessive Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pronoun in Spanish. The following structure illustrates pronominalization and doubling of the genitive: (363) DP D’ Pred°+ P Agr°+D° PredP S u j X X casaj Pred’ t j PAgrP (Person Agreement Phrase) de Juanj P Agr’ tj NP With respect to possessive adjectives, I would like to propose that although they may be generated in the specifier of a lower Gender Number Agreement projection, their final position is the same position as the genitive. This is supported by the unavailability of doubling of a genitive by an adjective in doubling dialects as shown in: (364) *La casa [ suya ] [de el/ella/ellos/ellas/ usted/ustedes]. The house[ 3p-fem] [of him/her/them-masc/them-fem/yousg/youpl] ‘His/her/their/your house.’ which indicates they are in complementary distribution. Notice that any explanation that would attribute the doubling of possessives to a pragmatic condition imposed to avoid Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ambiguity would have to account for why is it that this condition is annulled in the case of adjectives. Thus, I would like to propose the following structure in the case of adjectives: (365) DP D’ D° PredP La casa* Pred’ P Agifl+ Pred” PAgrP (Person Agreement Phrase) suya j PAgr’ de Juan tj NP e; This structure however raises the issue of the unavailability in most dialects of Spanish of doubling of the type: (366) *Su casa suya. His/her /their/your house his/hers/theirs/yours ‘His/ her/their/your house.’ given the incorporation analysis. It is not clear why should this structure not be available. It is interesting to note that it does exist in certain dialects of Latin American Spanish (Chilean and Guatemalan) as noted by Kany (1951) even for first person: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182 (367) Chilean Hablo con m i lenguaje mio. I speak with my language mine ‘I speak with my language.’ (Kany 1951, 44) (368) Guatemalan M i casa mia esta muy lejos de aqui. My house mine is very far from here ‘My house is very far from here’ (Kany 1951, 44) Thus, it seems to be the case that there are dialects that allow doubling of a genitive DP by a possessive pronoun and dialects that allow doubling of a possessive adjective by a possessive pronoun but I have found no evidence of dialects that allow the type of doubling observed in (364). I will take this to suggest that the possessive adjective and the genitive DP are in complementary distribution. As for the degree of variation among dialects with respect to doubling, I will assume it parallels the degree of variation of clitic doubling in the main clause. Let us now see what is the situation in Southern Quechua. First, in Southern Quechua there is a null determiner that needs to be licensed. It can be licensed either through the process of incorporation previously proposed for pronominalization in Spanish or by movement of the genitive phrase to Spec of DP where it enters a Spec-Head Agreement Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183 relationship with the D° .In the structure proposed both possibilities are available. Second, two possibilities are open with respect to the position Spec of PredP: it can be occupied by a pro licensed by PredP and coindexed with the NP or by the NP itself. As we saw in the previous Chapter, the case of non-argumental modifiers shows that Southern Quechua does not favor movement of the NP. Thus, let us assume that there is a pro in Spec o f PredP. Third, the agreement features on the NP need to be checked at some point in the derivation. Notice that in hierarchical structures such as: (369) Southern Quechua Nuqa-(\ Marcela-q ritratu-^. I-gen marcela-gen picture-lp ‘My picture of Marcela.’ Person agreement always corresponds to the higher argument in the structure. (A well known fact that correlates with Cinque’s generalization according to which only the highest argument in the structure can be extracted). Thus, in both sentences first person agreement may correspond to the agent of the event or to a possessor but not to a theme, that is , the expressions cannot be interpreted as having a first person argument as the theme of the event. This peculiar property of agreement needs to be accounted for under the analysis proposed. In addition to this property, we need to account for the fact that when all the possible participants in the event denoted by PredP are present, there is a hierarchical Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. organization of them in both languages. In order to provide an account for the last two issues, I would like to propose that Predicate Phrase may project as something similar to a larsonian shell (cf. Larson 1988) in which incorporation of PAgr°-to-Pred° is responsible for the fillin g o f the thematic structure, and incorporation of the higher Person Agr0 to the higher Pred0 is responsible for the agreement facts. 3.1.6 Predicate Phrase shell in Southern Quechua Before presenting the structure, I would like to point out that one advantage of a Predicate Phrase shell is that it allows flexibility in the projection of thematic structures and it also allows us to refer to a same event in the case in which a theme and an agent are projected. The structure is the following: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. D° PredP pro^ Pred’ Pred0 P AgrP (Possessor) Nuqa-q P Agr’ I-gen P Agr° PredPk prOj Pred’ Pred0 P AgrP (Agent) Marcela-q PAgr’ Marcela-gen / \ PAgr0 PredPj prOj Pred’ Pred0 P AgrP (Theme) Maduna-q P Agr’ Maduna-gen P Agr0 NPj ritratu-(n)r (n)j -yk In this structure, agreement on the NP is checked through coindexation with pro. Let us recall that we are assuming that in each layer PAgr0 incorporates to Pred0 . In the lower layer this yields morphological third person agreement on the NP. In the intermediate layer, there is coindexation of a pro with the lower PredPhrase itself and as incorporation proceeds this yields again third person agreement on the NP. In the higher layer, incorporation of PAgr0 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186 to Pred0 results in first person agreement on the pro which reflects on the NP. What is puzzling is the fact that the inner agreement markers are deleted. This impossibility is also observed in the case o f pronominalization in Spanish: (371) *Mi [foto de Madona de Marcela] y tu su su foto. My [picture of Madona of Marcela] and your her her picture ‘My picture of Madona by Marcela and your her her picture.’ For Spanish the explanation could be that only one of the PAgr0 + Pred0 incorporates to D° and it is the higher one. Unfortunately this process does not take place overtly in Southern Quechua and the explanation for the deletion of the inner agreement markers could be strictly morphological or even phonological. However, the saliency or predominance of the higher agreement marker corresponds in this analysis to the Spec-Head relationship between the highest pro and the highest PAgr0 + Pred0 . This layered structure allows to account for the fact that it is possible to license null PredPhrases in expressions such as: (372) Nuqa-q [ritratu]i-y-pas qam-pa [pro]r pas. I-gen [picture]j-lsg-add you-gen [pro]r add ‘My picture and yours.’ (373) Nuqa-q [Madona-q ritratu]r y-pas qam-pa [pro];- pas. I-gen [Madona-gen picture];-lsg-add you-gen [pro]r add ‘My picture of Madona and yours.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187 (374) Nuqa-q [Marcela-q Madona-q ritratu];-y-pas qam-pa [pro]r pas. I-gen [Marcela-gen Madona-gen picture]i-lsg-add you-gen [pro]r add ‘My picture of Madona by Marcela and yours.’ 3.1.6 Predicate Phrase shell in Spanish In the case of Spanish, the PredP shell supposes overt movement to Spec of PredP yielding the mirror image of Southern Quechua as shown in: (375) DP D’ D° PredP La PredPk Pred’ PredPj Pred’ Pred0 PAgrP fotOj Pred’ Pred0 PAgrP deLuis PAgr’ Pred0 PAgrP de Ana PAgr’ PAgr0 ek de Madona PAgr’ PAgr0 ej PAgr0 NP Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This structure also allows to account for the possibility of: 188 (376) La [pro] de Madona de Ana de Luis. The pro of Madona of Ana of Luis ‘Luis’ picture of Madona by Ana.’ where pro=picture (377) La [pro] de Ana de Luis. The [pro] of Ana de Luis ‘Luis’ picture of Madona by Ana.’ where pro= picture of Madona (378) La [pro ] de Luis. The [pro] of Luis ‘Luis’ picture of Madona by Ana.’ where pro=picture of Madona de Ana 3.1.8 Wh-extraction In addition to the fact that these constructions share genitive marking and person agreement marking, it is interesting to note that they share other syntactic characteristics. One of them that has been frequently used in the literature (Valois 1991, Giorgi and Longobardi 1991) to test the argumental nature of thematic modifiers of nouns versus the adjunct nature of non-thematic modifiers is that they can be extracted in wh- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. constructions. The following are examples of wh-extraction of the genitive phrase in Spanish8 : (379) Spanish a. i[D e quien ]; viste una foto [e];?9 [Of whom]; see-2ppast a picture [e];? ‘Of whom did you see a picture?’ b. De Madona ‘Of Madona.’ c. De Mapplethorpe ‘Of Mapplethorpe.’ d. De Luis ‘Of Luis.’ Notice that extraction is not limited to themes, agents or possessors and that it is possible in the case of kinship relations and part-whole relations in Spanish: (380) a. [De quien\ conoces al hermano [e ];? (kinship relation) [Of whom]; do you know the brother [e ];? ‘Whose brother do you know?’ b. De Juan ‘Of Juan.’ (theme) (agent) (possessor) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 (381) a. i\D e que\ viste el interior [e]£ ? (Part-whole relation) [Of what]; did you see the interior [e ];? ‘What did you see the interior of?’ b. De la nave espacial. Of the space ship ‘The space ship’s.’ Similar facts can be found in Southern Quechua: (382) Southern Quechua a\P i-qpa-ta\ riku-rqa-nki [e]; ritratu-n-to? [Who-gen-acc]; see-past-2psg [e]; picture-3p-acc? ‘Whose did you see a/the picture?’ b. Maduna-q-ta-n. (theme) Maduna-gen-acc-val ‘Madona’s.’ c. Marcela-q-ta-n. (agent) Marcela-gen-acc-3p-val ‘Marcela’s.’ d.Luchu-qpa-ta-n. (possessor) Luchu-gen-acc-val ‘Luis’s.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191 (383) a. [ Pi-qpa-ta ]; riqsi-rqa-nki [e]£ tura-n-ta? (kinship relation) [Who-gen-acc]j know-past-2p [e]; brother-3p-acc Whose do you know the brother? b. Maria-q-ta-n. Maria-gen-acc-val ‘Mary’s.’ I will take these facts as an indication that what is wh-extracted is not necessarily an argument of the noun in the sense in which only themes, agents and possessors are arguments of a noun but that what is extracted is a genitive that is the subject of Person Agreement. O f course there are several factors restricting the possibility of extraction out of DP s containing genitive phrases. One of these factors is the level of embedding of the argumental modifier (Giorgi and Longobardi 1991 based on Cinque 1980) in the presence of other argumental modifiers. Specifically, wh-extraction of thematic modifiers has been used in the literature (cf.Torrego 1988 and Mallen 1992 and others for Spanish) as a syntactic test to show that themes are more embedded than agents or possessors and that agents are more embedded in the structure of DPs than possessors. The facts in Spanish are as follows : Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (384) Spanish a. £[De quien]; viste una foto [e]; ? 1 0 [Of whom]j see-past a picture [e];? ‘Of whom did you see a picture?’ b. De Madona. O f Madona ‘Madona’s.’ (385) a.*^[De quienjj viste una foto [ e ]j de Maplethorpe? [Of whom]; see-past a picture [e]; of Maplethorpe? ‘O f whom did you see a picture?’ b. De Madona. O f Madona ‘Of Madona.’ (386) a.*£[De quien]; viste una foto [e ]; de Maplethorpe de Luis? [Of whom]; see-past a picture [e]; of Maplethorpe? ‘Of whom did you see a picture?’ These examples show that in the absence of an agent or a possessor it is possible to extract a theme but this is not the case when an agent and/ or a possessor are present. Similar facts are found in Southern Quechua: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193 (387) Southern Quechua a.* [Pi-qpa-ta\ riku-rqa-nki [e]; Marcela-q ritratu-n-to? [Who-gen-acc]; see-past-2psg [e]s picture-3p-acc? ‘Whose did you see a/the picture?’ b.Maduna-q-ta-n. Maduna-gen-acc-val ‘Madona’s.’ In our analysis, as in previous analysis, it is also the case that in the presence of an agent or a possessor themes are the most embedded elements and therefore do not have access to the specifier of DP which is a position available only to the genitive in spec of the higher PAgrP through incorporation of PAgr0 to Pred0 . Notice however that the embedded position of themes does not follow from their being complements of nouns but from being in the specifier position of the lower PredPhrase shell. This analysis avoids the asymmetry resulting from assuming that nouns and verbs project in a similar fashion but only verbs allow for the extraction of their complements. 3.2. Possessive structures in Bilingual Spanish Until now we have analyzed possessive constructions as one of the argumental modifiers o f the noun. In this section, I will apply the analysis proposed in the previous section to two syntactic phenomena affecting possessive constructions in Bilingual Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Spanish. The first one is the gradual shift in word order from a possessor- possessed word order to a possessed-possessor word order in Bilingual Spanish. The second is a genitive clitic in Bilingual Spanish that contrasts with the dative clitic used in inalienable constructions in standard Spanish. The analysis of the latter phenomenon will be based on previous work by Camacho, Paredes and Sanchez (1995). 3.2.1 Word order shift in Bilingual Spanish Traditionally languages have been divided in two types: languages with possessor-possessed word order and languages with a possessed-possessor word order. As shown in the previous section, Spanish has a possessed-possessor word order inside DP whereas Quechua has a possessor-possessed word order as illustrated in: (388) La mano de Juan. The hand of John ‘John’s hand.’ (389) Juan-pa maki-n. Juan-GEN hand-3ps ‘Juan’s hand.’ This difference in word ordering has been correlated with other syntactic and morphological properties. Greenberg (1966) correlates the existence of a a possessed- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. possessor word order in a language with the existence of prepositions in that language. He also correlates the opposite word order possessor-possessed with the existence of post-positions in a language. In that respect, both Spanish and Southern Quechua are well-behaved languages. Nevertheless, in the acquisition of Spanish by Southern Quechua speakers the correlation breaks and in earlier stages of Bilingual Speech one finds possessive structures o f the type (Cerron-Palomino 1972, Lozanol975 and more recently by Escobar 1994 among others; cf. Escobar 1994 for a detailed list of references): (390) Del joven su pantalon. Of the youth his pants ‘The youth’s pants.’ At intermediate stages of acquisition the order reverts and one finds expressions such as: (391) Su pantalon del joven. His pants of the youth ‘The youth’s pants.’ and only at later stages is it possible to find expressions such as: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196 (392) El pantalon del joven. The pants of the youth ‘The youth’s pants.’ (Paredes 1994) Several authors have argued that the word order in sentences like (390) (possessor-possessed) is related to the order in the corresponding structures in Quechua. However, Quechua is a head-final language, whereas Spanish is head-initial, so how is this influence to be represented? Based on the analysis presented previously and on previous work by Camacho, Paredes and Sanchez (1995), I will propose to give the same structural analysis to the order possessed-possessor in later stages of Bilingual Spanish and Standard Spanish on the one hand, and the order possessor-possessed in Quechua and in the early stages of acquisition of Spanish by Quechua speakers. Thus, in the earlier stages o f Bilingual Spanish, there is still a pro in spec of PredP and the pronominal clitic su is treated as an agreement marker. The corresponding structure is: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. D° PredP proj Pred’ Pred0 P AgrP GENP P Agr’ del joven / \ P Agr0 NP su pantalon; At the intermediate stages overt raising of the NP takes place but still the pronoun is interpreted as an agreement marker as in: (394) Stage 2 DP D’ PredP Su pantalonj Pred’ Pred0 P AgrP GENP PAgr’ del joven PAgr0 NP e ; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. However it is still an open issue why is it the case that when the overt determiner appears the agreement features become covert in Spanish: (395) Stage 3 DP D El D’ PredP pantalorij Pred’ Pred0 P AgrP GENP PAgr’ del joven PAgr0 NP e ; 3.2.2 Cliticization 3.2.2.1 Inalienable possession There are at least two types of inalienable possession constructions in Romance as observed by Kayne (1975): (396) a. Le toque la mano al nifio. CL-touch-pastlpsg the hand to the boy ‘I touched the boy’s hand.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199 b.Toque la mano del nino. Touch-past lpsg the hand of the boy ‘I touched the boy’s hand.’ Following Vergnaud and Zubizarreta (1992), I will refer to the first construction as the External-Possessive Construction (Ext-Poss) and to the second as the Internal-Possessive Construction (Int-Poss). In the Ext-Poss Construction the possessor a l nino ‘to the boy” is an independent argument, distinct from the possessed element la mano ‘the hand’, and presumably an indirect object. In the Int-Poss Construction, the possessor and the possessed form a constituent. This is shown by the fact that clefting is allowed only in the second case as illustrated by the following contrast: (397) *Fue la mano al nino lo que le toque. Was the hand to the boy that CL-touch-pastlpsg ‘It was the boy’s hand that I touched.’ (398) Fue la mano del nino lo que toque. Was the hand of the boy the that touch-past lpsg ‘It was the boy’s hand that I touched.’ As noted by Camacho, Paredes and Sanchez (1995) unlike other varieties of Romance, Bilingual Spanish has only one inalienable possession construction. This Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 0 construction has similarities with the two Romance constructions, as shown by their examples: (399) a. Lo amarran [su pata del condor] como si estuviera montando. CL-tie [his leg of the condor] as if was riding ‘They tie the condor's leg as if it was riding.’ b. Lo meten una aguja [al cuero del toro], CL-insert a needle into [the skin of the bull] ‘They insert a needle into the bull’s skin.’ On the one hand, the possessor and the possessed appear to form a constituent that is the direct complement of the verb in (399)a.and the indirect complement of the verb in (399) b. This is similar to the Int-Poss construction in Romance. On the other hand, there is a clitic on the verb (as in the Ext-Poss construction in Romance). The corresponding version of the sentences in (399) is ungrammatical in Standard Spanish, as we see in : (400) *Lo/*le toque la mano del nino. Acc cl- /Dat cl- touched the hand o f the boy ‘I touched the hand of the boy.’ It seems then that Bilingual Spanish allows a clitic in a configuration in which Standard Spanish does not. Camacho, Paredes and Sanchez (1995) show that in the examples in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 1 (399), the clitic is not doubling the direct object. They show that in spite of the fact that the clitic system in Bilingual Spanish is simpler than that o f Standard Spanish in the sense that gender and number are not strictly marked and that a clitic such as lo, which in Standard Spanish is masculine, could refer to a feminine NP in Bilingual Spanish, as shown in1 1 : (401) [La costumbre]; no lo; olvidan aca. [The tradition]; not CL,-forget-3ppl here ‘The tradition, they do not forget it here.’ there is evidence that shows that lo and the direct object are not coindexed. The evidence comes from wh-extraction. In all dialects of Spanish, a wh-argument cannot be doubled by a clitic as shown in (402) which corresponds to (399)b. with extraction of the direct object la aguja ‘the needle’: (402) *<,Que, la; metes al cuero del toro? What; CL,-insert-2psg into the skin of the bull? ‘What do you insert into the bull’s skin?’ This is also a feature of Bilingual Spanish, where the complete Possessive Construction in object position cannot be extracted and coindexed with a clitic as the following question and its corresponding answer show: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 2 (403) a. *iQu®i I°i amarran t/? Whatj CL-,-tie-3ppl tj? ‘What do they tie?’ b. Su pata del condor His leg of the condor ‘The condor’s leg.’ Nevertheless, it is possible to extract su pata ‘his leg’ and have the clitic coindexed with the constituent del condor ‘of the condor’: (404) ^Qudj loj amarran tj [del condor]/? What; CLj-tie-3ppl ^ [of the condor]/? ‘What do they tie of the condor?’ This shows that the clitic is coindexed with the genitive phrase in the inalienable construction and not with the whole possessive construction nor with a direct object. The main difference between both dialects is the presence of the clitic lo in Bilingual Spanish. This clitic can be construed as coindexed with the Genitive Phrase, and not necessarily as coindexed with the direct object. In the Ext-Poss Construction in Standard Spanish the subject (the possessor) is not a Genitive Phrase but a Dative Phrase and it can be coindexed with the clitic le. In the Int-Poss Construction in Standard Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203 Spanish the possessor is a Genitive Phrase but it cannot be coindexed with any clitic. The contrast is summarized in: (405) Bilingual Spanish a. LOj amarraron su pata [del condor];. Cli-tie-past3ppl its leg [of the condor]; ‘They tied the condor’s leg.’ (406) a. Standard Spanish Le-, toque la mano [al nino];. CL-touch-pastlpsg the hand [to the boy] ‘I touched the boy’s hand.’ b. *Lo;/*lej amarraron la pata [del condor];. Cl;-tie-past3ppl the leg [of the condor]; ‘They tied the condor’s leg.’ They assume, following Franco (1993), that clitics in Spanish are heads of agreement phrases, and that the corresponding arguments move to the specifiers of those projections to check their phi-features (as in Chomsky, 1993). In Bilingual Spanish, del condor ‘of the condor’ is generated in the specifier of a Person Agreement Phrase. At intermediate stages of acquisition, su pata ‘his leg’ moves to the specifier position of PredP deriving the order su pata del condor ‘his leg of the condor’. At LF, the Genitive Phrase moves through Spec of DP to the verbal agreement Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204 projection, where the phi-features are checked with the clitic. Notice that the relevant features to be checked are those of the Genitive head1 2 . In Standard Spanish, if the second movement happens, the derivation crashes. Following Camacho, Paredes and Sanchez (1995), I will argue that the reason why it crashes is that the features of the clitic which heads the agreement projection are different in both dialects. In Standard Spanish the clitic does not have genitive features, whereas in Bilingual Spanish it does. The corresponding (partial) structures are represented below: (407) a.Standard Spanish AgrP GenP Agr' Gen0 DP Agr0 ........ de el condor le [-Gen] b. Bilingual Spanish AgrP GenP Agr’ Gen0 DP Agi° .... de el condor lo [+Gen] This analysis amounts to saying that in Bilingual Spanish, the clitic can double a genitive nominal, but in Standard Spanish this is not possible. This has the following Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205 consequences. The first one is that it is possible to clitic-left-dislocate the doubled element, in the same way that Standard Spanish does with datives and accusatives. The following example from Paredes (1994) corpus confirms the prediction (let us recall that subjects o f spatial relations bear genitive features both in Southern Quechua and Spanish): (408) [De toda clase de verduras]; LO; amarran al costado. [Of every type of vegetables]; CL-,-tie-3ppl to the side ‘They tie a part (side) of the vegetables.’ This sentence is ungrammatical in Standard Spanish. The second prediction is that it should be possible to extract the doubled element, which is confirmed: (409) ^De quien lo viste su pata? Of whom CL-see-past2psg its leg ‘What did I see the leg of?’ This is also true for kinship relations. In fact for some informants doubling in the case of social relations is obligatory as shown by the following contrast: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206 (410) *<£)e quien viste a su hermano? O f who did you see his brother? ‘Whose did you see his brother?’ (411) ^De quien lo viste a su hermano? O f who did you CL-see his brother? ‘Whose did you see his brother?’ (409) and (411) are ungrammatical in Standard Spanish, but the Ext-poss version, in which the second argument is a dative, is perfect in this dialect: (412) < j,A que/quien le viste la pata? To what/whom CL-see-past2psg the leg? ‘What did you see the leg of?’ 3.2.2.2 The Categorial Nature o f the Clitic We have said that the clitic lo can check a GEN feature. An alternative would be to say that the clitic has no categorial feature, and it can check both an NP and a PP. There is no evidence that this is the case, and sentences such as the following are judged ungrammatical by speakers of Bilingual Spanish: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207 (413) * LO ; hablan de elj. CL-talk-3ppl of him ‘They talk about him.’ where the clitic and the PP are coindexed1 3 . If that is the case, then the correct way to view the issue is arguing for an underspecification of the Case feature, not of the categorial feature. Thus, there seems to be enough evidence to claim that there is a genitive clitic in Bilingual Spanish. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208 Notes 1. Parts of this chapter are based on Camacho, Paredes and Sanchez (1995) and were presented at the First Round table o f Spanish Linguistics at the UAM (1994) Ixtalapalapa, Mexico , Linguistic Association of the Southwest LASSO XII meeting (1994) and the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association meeting in Saint-John, New Brunswick (1995) Canada. 2 . A peculiar fact about the constructions in which thematic modifiers appear in Southern Quechua is that in addition to the modifier being marked for genitive case the noun appears marked for person agreement features. Later in this section we will see that person features are also present in these constructions in Spanish although they do not appear overtly. 3. Kany (1951) notes a preference in certain varieties to avoid the use of su for third person. 4. Similar facts have been noticed for Dutch by Kerstens (1993). Kerstens notices that double possesaves are possible only with third person in Dutch but not with first and second persons as shown in his examples: (1) a. Jan zijn breeder. Jan his brother ‘Jan’s brother.’ b.Jane haar zus. Jane her sister ‘Jane’s sister.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209 c. Mijn ouders hun ouders. My parents their parents ‘My parents their parents.’ d. *Mij m’n broer. Me my brother ‘My brother.’ e.* Jullie/jouw je ouders. You your parents ‘Your parents.’ 5. Kany (1951) notes that in certain dialects such as those spoken in Guatemala and Chile On areas of close contact of Spanish with Mapuche) doubling of first person by an adjective can be found as in: (1) Guatemala M i casa mia. My house mine ‘My house.’ (Kayne 1951, 44) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 1 0 (2) Chile (Chiloe) Hablo con mi lenguaje mio. (Pro) speak-Ip with my language mine ‘I speak with my language’ (Kayne 1951, 44) or even doubling with the nominative pronoun: (3) Este es mi sombrero yo. This is my hat I ‘This is my hat.’ (Kayne 1951,44) The existence of doubling in these languages is similar to certain cases of doubling registered in Bilingual Spanish that will be discussed later in this chapter. 6 . This contrasts with expressions such as: (1) Entro despues de Pedro. Enter-3 ppast after o f Pedro ‘(She/He) entered after Pedro.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (2) ?Entro despues suyo. Enter-3ppast after his ‘(She/He) entered after him.’ 7. Kerstens (1993) also proposes the existence of an Agreement Phrase for Dutch possessives. His analysis differs from the one that will be presented here in that he proposes the existence of an abstract preposition whose complement is Agreement Phrase. The structure he proposes is the following: (1) AGRP PP AGR AGRP | Spec AGR’ | AGRP AGR e de man zijn e the man his In this structure the DP receiving genitive case is in Spec of AgrP. AgrP which is headed by the possessive pronoun is the complement of the abstract preposition. Although in our analysis the DP receiving genitive will be in Spec of AgrP it will not form a constituent with the possessive as to be the complement of another head. As we will see later such a structure would make it difficult to account for extraction of the genitive in Southern Quechua. 8 . Thanks to Claudia Sibila and Jose Camacho for providing judgements on extractions of genitive phrases in Spanish. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 1 2 9. It has been noted since Torrego (1984) that extraction of the possessor is affected by the definite versus indefinite nature of the determiner: ( 1) ^De quien has visto urn foto? Of whom have seen a picture ‘Of whom have you seen a picture?’ (2) *iDe quien has visto la foto? Of whom have seen the picture? ‘Of whom have you seen the picture?’ In the case of kinship and other social relations the situation is the opposite: (3) ?? ^De quien has visto a un hermano? Of whom have seen to a brother ‘Of whom have you seen a brother?’ (4) ^De quien has visto a/ hermano? Of whom have seen the brother ‘Of whom have you seen the brother?’ 10. The issue of w/j-extraction of thematic modifiers will be briefly referred to in the next section of this Chapter. At this point however, I think the grammaticality status of extraction out of DPs in Spanish is a matter of debate. First, intuitions on extraction of thematic modifiers out of DPs are not uniform or homogenous among speakers of Spanish even Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213 among speakers of a same dialect. For the sake of exposition, let us constrain the examples to extractions of themes out of DP s headed by an indefinite article in the object position of transitive verbs. Certain speakers of my dialect o f Spanish accept as fully grammatical the extraction of a theme as in the example in the text (repeated here): ( 1) a. ^De quien viste una foto? O f whom see-past-2p a picture? ‘Of whom did you see a picture?’ b. De Madona. ‘OfMadona.’ This is consistent with Torrego’s (1988) observation that genitives that are thematically associated with the head noun as objects can be wh-extracted. My own intuitions as well as the intuitions of speakers of other dialects of Spanish pattern differently in that (l)a. is odd or at least not fully grammatical: (2) a. ? ^De quien viste una foto? Of whom see-past-2p a picture? ‘Of whom did you see a picture? b. De Madona. ‘OfMadona.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214 Speakers for whom (2)a. is not fully grammatical have a strong preference for pied-piping: (3) i,Una foto de quien viste? A picture of whom see-past-2p? ‘A picture of whom did you see?’ For them (3) is not interpreted as an echo-question. In fact, for those speakers there is a contrast between extraction of a verbal complement and extraction of a theme modifier out of a DP: (4) JQ ue] viste [ej? What see-past-2p ‘What did you see?’ (5) ? ^De quien viste una foto? O f whom see-past-2p a picture? ‘Of whom did you see a picture?’ (4) is fully grammatical but (5) is not. I will take this contrast along with other peculiarities of extraction in Spanish as an indication that wh-extraction alone cannot be used as a crucial test for the internal position of theme modifiers of nouns. 11. For other cases of gender neutralization in the use of clitics in Andean Spanish cf. Goddenzi (1991). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215 12. This explains why (403)a. is not grammatical. In (403)a. the verb selects the XP as its complement. It is phonologically null. In order for the clitic to check the GenP features one would have to further assume that a null GenP moves out of the null XP. There is no evidence for such type of movement. 13. Esther Torrego (p.c.) points out that this was possible in Old Spanish. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216 CHAPTER FOUR; SCOPAL MODIFIERS IN DP1 4.0 Introduction In Chapter 2, a distinction was presented between extensional and intensional adjectives based on (Kamp 1975). Following previous observations by Bolinger (1967) for English, Ronat (1977) for French and Bernstein’s (1993a) proposal for several Romance languages, it was argued that intensional and extensional adjectives can be distinguished not only on the basis of their semantics but also on the basis of their syntactic distribution both in Spanish and in Southern Quechua. In the case of Spanish, in addition to the feet that intensional adjectives appear in pre- nominal positions in the neutral register of the language whereas extensional adjectives appear in post-nominal positions other syntactic characteristics were mentioned. Following Bernstein’s (1993a) observation, it was pointed out that intensional adjectives unlike extensional adjectives do not license a null nominal in Spanish as shown by the following contrast from Spanish2 : (414) Spanish Ayer vi a la mujer alta y a 1-a [e] baj-a. (extensional) Yesterday see-past-Ip the tall woman and the-fem [e] short-fern ‘Yesterday I saw the tall woman and the short one.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217 (415) * Ayer vi a la verdadera terrorista y a 1-a supuest-a [e]. (intensional) Yesterday see-past-lp the true terrorist and the-fem alleged-fem[e] ‘Yesterday I saw the real terrorist and the alleged one.’ Following Bolinger’s (1967) observation for English, it was also pointed out that intensional adjectives unlike extensional adjectives cannot be the complements of copulative verbs. In the particular case of Spanish, they cannot be complements of either of the two copulative verbs: (416) *Maria es supuesta. Maria be-3p alleged ‘Maria is alleged.’ (417) *Maria esta supuesta. Maria be-3p (aspect) alleged ‘Maria is alleged.’ In addition to intensional adjectives, there is also another class of adjectives in Spanish that has a similar distribution to that o f intensional adjectives. These adjectives (more precisely their English counterparts) are usually referred to as distributive or collective operators in the semantic literature (Lasersohn 1995, Moltmann 1994, Schwarzchild 1993, among others). As noted in Sanchez (1995), they are adjectives such as mismo ‘self (lit. ‘ same’) , juntos ‘together’, solo ‘alone’. The fact that these are nominal modifiers is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218 illustrated by the fact that they agree with the noun they modify in gender and number features; like intensional adjectives, these do not license null nominals: (418) Spanish a. Una mujer escribio la carta. La mujer m ism -a la llevo al correo3 . A woman wrote the letter. The woman self-fern took it to the post office ‘A woman wrote the letter. The woman herself took it to the post office.’ b.* Una mujer escribio la carta. La [e] m ism -a la llevo al correo. A woman wrote the letter. The [e] self-fern took it to the post office ‘A woman wrote the letter. The one herself took it to the post office.’ (419) a. Una mujer trajo el piano. La mujer sol-a lo cargo. A woman brought the piano. The woman alone-fem lifted it ‘A woman brought the piano. The woman alone lifted it.’ b.* Una mujer trajo el piano. La [e] sol-a lo cargo. A woman brought the piano. The [e] alone-fem lifted it. ‘A woman brought the piano. The one alone lifted it.’ (420) a. Los muchachos ju n t-o -s construyeron la torre. The boys together -masc -pi built the tower ‘The boys together built the tower.’ b.* Los [e] ju n t-o -s construyeron la torre. The [e] together-masc-pl ones built the tower ‘The ones together built the tower. ’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219 Like intensional adjectives these may not appear as complements of the non- aspectual copula: (421) *Las personas son m ism -a-s. The persons are self-fem-pl ‘The persons are themselves.’ (422) *Las casas sonju n t-a -s. The houses are together-fem-pl ‘The houses are together.’ (423) * Las mujeres son sol-a-s. The women are alone-fem-pl ‘The women are alone.’ Although they share some syntactic properties such as the impossibility of null nominal licensing and the impossibility of appearing as complements of a non-aspectual copula, there are two crucial differences between them. The first one is that unlike intensional adjectives, these adjectives occur in post-nominal position in Spanish in the neutral register of the language as shown in (418)a-(420)a. The second property that differentiates them is that distributive or collective adjectives may appear as complements of the aspectual copula (with the exception of mismo ‘self’ whose distribution is slightly different for independent reasons that will be examined later): Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 0 (424) Las casas estan ju n t-a -s. The houses are (asp) together-fem-pl ‘The houses are together.’ (425) Las mujeres estan sol-a-s. The women are (asp) alone-fem-pl ‘The women are alone.’ I will take the common syntactic characteristics of these adjectives to indicate that they are not directly associated with Pred0 , the functional category that we argued was responsible for null nominal licensing. This fact paired with their impossibility to appear as complements of the non-aspectual copula will be taken as indication o f their lack of predicative content and of their association with other non-predicative functional categories inside DPs in Spanish. Notice that in addition to the properties just mentioned intensional adjectives and distributive/collective adjectives share another important syntactic property: they have at least one reading in common with clausal modifiers such as adverbs, that is, with elements that have modal or aspectual interpretations at the clausal level. The following examples illustrate this. Let us take a sentence such as: (426) Los ingenieros supuestam ente construyeron varias casas. ‘The engineers allegedly built several houses.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 1 Depending on international factors, the adverb supuestam ente ‘allegedly’ in that position can be interpreted as having scope over the whole V P, over the determiner or over the noun: (427) a. Los ingenieros supuestam ente [construyeron varias casas], pero en verdad [nohicieron nada]. The engineers allegedly [built several houses], but actually they [did not do anything] ‘The engineers allegedly built several houses, but actually they did not do anything.’ b. Los ingenieros supuestamente construyeron varias [casas], pero en verdad solo construyeron varios [edificios]. The engineers allegedly built several [houses], but actually they only built several [buildings] ‘The engineers allegedly built several houses , but actually they only built several buildings.’ The interpretation of (427) b. is very close to the interpretation o f: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 2 (428) Los ingenieros construyeron varias supuestas [casas] que en realidad eran [edificios]. The engineers built several alleged [houses] but actually they were [buildings] ‘The engineers built several alleged houses but actually they were buildings.’ In this chapter, I will propose that both the adverb supuestam ente ‘allegedly’ and the adjective supuesto ‘alleged’ are elements with modal content in Jackendoffs (1972) sense of modality. I will use the term m odal adjectives introduced by Bernstein (1993a) to refer to adjectives with modal content. I will propose that their syntactic behavior distinguishes them from extensional adjectives (Bolinger 1967, Bernstein 1993a) because they are the heads of a DP-intemal Mode Phrase (hence ModP) even in cases in which the noun being modified is not a deverbal nominal (cf. Crisma 1993). In other words, I will propose that modality does not operate exclusively at the clausal level and that it is not an exclusive property of verbs or deverbal nominalizations. I will propose that modality can also be found inside DPs containing non-deverbal nouns (cf. Crisma 1993 for eventive or deverbal nominals) and that it interacts with modality at the clausal level. In the case of adjectives such as mismo, ju n to s or solo, it is also possible to show that they share the interpretation of certain adverbial modifiers. The following examples show the adverbial interpretations of these adjectives4: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223 (429) Juan m ism -o abrio la puerta. Juan self-masc opened the door ‘Juan opened the door himself (430) Juan sol-o abrio la puerta. Juan alone-masc opened the door ‘Juan opened the door alone’ Both (429) and (430) have informally a meaning similar to that of: (431) Juan abrio la puerta sin ayuda. ‘Juan opened the door without help.’ And (432) can informally be interpreted as in (433): (432) Los estudiantes ju n t-o -s arreglaron su impresora. The students together-masc-pl fixed his/their printer ‘The students fixed their printer together.’ (433) Los estudiantes arreglaron su impresora colectivam ente. ‘The students fixed the same printer collectivelly.’ The existence of this adverbial-like type of interpretation along with their syntactic distribution (impossibility to license null nominals and to appear as the complement of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224 non-aspectual copula) indicate that these are not predicative adjectives and that they are related to a functional projection different from PredP. Their syntactic effects can be seen in that, in their adverbial interpretations, these adjectives interact with the aspectuality of higher clauses. Thus, they do not occur with an adverbial collective interpretation in the context of non-aspectually marked statives as in: (434) *Los estudiantes ju n to s son altos. The students together are tall ‘The students are tall together.’ (435) * Los estudiantes son altos colectivam ente. ‘The students are tall collectively.’ But they do co-occur with an adverbial collective interpretation in the context of non-stative VP predicates as in (432). Whatever the analysis provided to this contrast, it must acknowledge the distributional fact that interpretation of these adjectives is dependent on the stativity or non-stativity of the main clause. That is, the interpretation of these adjectives depends on some form of aspectuality in the main clause. In this chapter, I will propose that these adjectives are the heads of a nominal aspectual functional projection that is located in a position higher than DP in Spanish (Sanchez 1995) and in Southern Quechua. The existence of modal and aspectual functional projections that are associated to nominals is not exclusive of Spanish. In fact, it is possible to find in Southern Quechua nominal and cross-categorial morphemes as well as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225 independent functional heads that are associated with nouns that have modal and aspectual content and whose syntactic behavior differs from that of extensional adjectives. For instance, in Chapter 2 it was pointed out that adjectives in Southern Quechua which appear always in pre-nominal positions and allow both intensional and extensional readings do not allow null nominal licensing in the intensional reading: (436) Nust’a-kuna-q musuq wasir n yanapa-q-kuna-q mawk’a-fej-n-pas rawra-ri- pun. Lady-pl-gen new houser 3ps-ag help-agent-pl-gen o!d-[q]-3psg- add bum- inchoative-trans-3psg ‘The ladies’ new house; and the helpers’ old (one) burned.’ (Calvo Perez 1993, 278) (437) ?? Huch'uy runa;-ta-pas hatun-[e]-ta-pas reqsini. Small man-acc-add big-[e]-add know-lpsg ‘I know a small man and a great (one).’ As in Spanish, in Southern Quechua predicative uses of extensional adjectives are possible but that is not the case with intensional adjectives as illustrated in: (438) Juan-nw hatun. Juan-FOC big ‘Juan is big/*great.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226 This last fact indicates that also in Southern Quechua the distribution of intensional adjectives is sensitive to the syntax of main clause. In this chapter, propose that the intensional and the extensional interpretations o f adjectives such as hatun ‘big’ in Southern Quechua have a different syntactic representation and I will argue that as in the case of Spanish, intensional adjectives in Southern Quechua are the associated to a DP-intemal modal projection. I will also discuss the suffixal counterpart of adjectives such as alleged in Southern Quechua. These are epistemic-focalizing (Wolck 1972) suffixes that can be attached to nominals but are clearly are part of the modal structure of the clause. For instance, in an expression such as: (439) [Tayta-n]-si qu-n wasi-ta churi-n-man. [Father-3p]-rep give-3p house-acc son-3p-dative ‘Allegedly, it is his father (who) gives the house to his son.’ (Wolck 1972, 5) the suffix -si attached to the argument tayta-n ‘his father’ focalizes that argument and at the same time conveys the information that the epistemic value of the sentence is that of second-hand information. This contrast with a sentence in which the verb is focalized by the same epistemic-focalizing particle: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227 (440) Tayta-n [qu-ri]-si wasi-ta churi-n-man. Father-3p [gjve-3p]-rep house-acc boy-3p-dative ‘Allegedly, his father gives the house to his boy.’ (Wolck 1972, 5 ) In (440) the suffix -si focalizes the verb and establishes that what is second-hand information is the information conveyed by the verb. The feet that epistemic particles can be attached to nominals is not an exclusive feature of Southern Quechua. It is possible to find modal modifiers that are cross-categorial (nominal or verbal modifiers) in different varieties of Latin American Spanish. These are elements such as the particle dizque. (441) Los arquitectos dizque [construyeron varias casas]. The architects said-that [built several houses] ‘The architects allegedly built several houses.’ (442) Los arquitectos construyeron dizque [varias casas]. The architects built said-that [several houses] ‘The architects built allegedly several houses.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228 (443) Los arquitectos construyeron varias dizque [casas]. The architects built several said-that [houses] ‘The architects built several alleged houses.’ Again the distribution of elements such as dizque ‘said-that’ and the fact that they have immediate scope over the constituent they are adjacent to require an account of their categorial and syntactic status. At the same time, the fact that they interact with the focus- topic structure o f the sentence indicates that their interpretation is done at the clausal level. In addition to modal modifiers, it is possible to find aspectual modifiers in Southern Quechua as in the case of Spanish. In fact, there is a class of nominals in Southern Quechua whose interpretation depends also on the stative versus non-stative nature of the clause. They are inflected for Person Agreement and for this reason Muysken (1993) classifies them as obligatorily inflected quantifiers. They are kiki ‘self and sapa ‘alone’ along with llip i ‘each and all’. The following sentences exemplify their distribution: (444) [Kiki-w-mi] punku-ta kicha-n. [Self-3p-foc] door-acc open-3p ‘(Pro) opens the door by himself / herself. ’5 (445) [Kiki-«Aw-n] punku-ta kicha-n&z/. Self-3ppl-foc door-acc open-3ppl ‘(Pro) open the door by themselves.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229 (446) *[Kiki -0 -n] punku-ta kicha -nku. [Self-0 - foe] door-acc open-3p ‘(Pro) open the door by himself / herself. ’ (447) [Sapa-lla-n-mi] punku-ta kicha-n. [Alone-lim-3psg-foc] door-acc open-3psg ‘(Pro) opens the door alone.’ (448) [Sapa-lla-ziAw-n] punku-ta kicha-nAw. [Alone-lim-3ppl-foc] door-acc open-3ppl ‘(Pro) open the door alone.’ (449) *[Sapa-lla-0 -n] punku-ta kicha-nAw. [Alone-lim-0 -foc] door-acc open-3ppl ‘(Pro) opens the door alone.’ Although not discussed by Muysken (1993) kuska ‘together’ belongs to the class of obligatory inflected quantifiers (at least for the Ayacucho dialect): (450) Southern Q uechua (Ayacucho) [Kuska-nAw-m] punku-ta kicha-raAw. [Together-lim-3ppl-foc] door-acc open-3ppl ‘(Pro) open the door together.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230 (451) * [Kuska-a-n] punku-ta kicha-nAu. [Together-lim-0 -foc] door-acc open-3ppl ‘(Pro) open the door together’ As in the Spanish examples, the distribution of these quantifiers is affected by the stative or non-stative nature of the VP. This is shown by the following contrasts: (452) [??Sapa-lla-«] sumaq-mi. Alone-lim-3p Maria beautiful-foc ‘(Pro) is beautifiil alone.’ (453) Sapa-lla-n-mi punku-ta kicha-n. Alone-lim-3psg-foc door-acc open-3psg ‘(Pro) opens the door alone.’ The analysis that will be presented in this chapter aims to provide a structural representation that allows to account for the interaction of modal and aspectual nominal modifiers with the modality and aspectuality of the main clause. That is, it aims to show that modality and aspectuality operate on the main clause but they also operate on smaller syntactic constituents and that these different levels of modality and aspectuality interact. In order to provide a unified denomination for these nominal modifiers, whose interpretation is related to the interpretation of the clause, I will refer to them as scopal nominal modifiers. The term scopal is used to refer to the fact that these modifiers are Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231 interpreted as restricting or specifying in some sense the interpretation o f the nominal they modify with respect to the aspectual or modal structure of the clause. It is used to avoid the term quantifier for which the semantic and syntactic literature are abundant in characterizations. It is precisely this variety of characterizations that could create confusion in the sense that these elements do not belong to a single syntactic category (they are not all determiners in the languages under study) and they do not observe all o f the semantic properties associated with quantifiers (conservativity for instance). As we will see later, the idea o f treating some of these modifiers as quantifiers is present both in the literature on Spanish (cf. C. Sanchez 1993 for aspectual adjectives and Bosque and Picallo 1993 for modal adjectives) and on Southern Quechua (cf. Wolck 1987 for aspectual nominal suffixes, Lefevbre and Muysken 1989, Muysken 1993 for distributive and collective quantifiers) and even on the literature on German selbst ‘self (see Primus 1991). I would like to point out that in the sense in which the term quantifier refers to the basic characteristic of these modifiers to have scope over nominals and at the same time to interact with the modal and aspectual structure o f the clause it is not crucially different from the term scopal modifier that will be used in this chapter. 4 .1. M odal adjectives and M ode Phrase inside DP In Chapter 2, we provided the basis for distinguishing extensional adjectives from intensional adjectives in terms of their syntactic behavior in Spanish and in Southern Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Quechua. In this section, I will provide a structural representation that accounts for the differences in the distribution of extensional and extensional adjectives. 4.1.1 The distribution o f m odal adjectives in Spanish As noted by Ronat (1977) for French and Bernstein (1993a) for several Romance languages among them Spanish, intensional adjectives appear in pre-nominal position in the neutral register o f Spanish, as shown in: (454) Spanish Ayer vi a la supuest-a terrorista. (intensional) Yesterday see-past-lp the alleged-fem terrorist ‘Yesterday I saw the alleged terrorist.’ (455) *Ayer vi a la terrorista supuest-a. Yesterday see-past-lp the terrorist alleged-fem ‘Yesterday I saw the alleged terrorist.’ Unlike post-nominal adjectives, these do not license null NPs and they do not appear as predicates (cf. Cinque 1993 for Italian, Bernstein 1993a for Spanish)6 . This is shown in: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233 (456) *Ayer vi a la verdadera terrorista y a 1-a supuest-a [e]. Yesterday see-past-lp the true terrorist and the-fem alleged-fem[e] ‘Yesterday I saw the real terrorist and the alleged one.’ (457) *Maria es supuesta. Maria be-3p alleged ‘Maria is alleged.’ (458) *Maria esta supuesta. Maria perfective be-3p alleged ‘Maria is alleged.’ The question in these cases is whether a PredP can be posited as the complement of D°. Given that these adjectives lack the ability to license a null NP, a property we assigned to Pred0 in Spanish, it seems unlikely that such a structure could be posited for pre-nominal adjectives. If this is so and given that these adjectives have gender and number markers, the structure found in these cases would involve only (Gender/Number ) Agreement. There is evidence that this is not the case. It has been noticed in the literature since Bolinger (1968) and recently for Romance (Valois 1991 and Crisma 1993), that the intensional nature of pre-nominal adjectives affects the modality of the NP in the same fashion that certain adverbs affect the modality of the main predicate. Thus the pre-nominal adjective affects the modality of the noun in (454) in a similar fashion to the way intensional adverbs affect the modality of the VP. For instance, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 234 in the following examples we see that both the adverb and the adjective affect the modality of the constituent they modify: (459) Los ingenieros supuestam ente [ construyeron varias casas]. The engineers allegedly [built several houses] ‘The engineers allegedly built several houses.’ (460) Los ingenieros construyeron varias supuestas [casas]. The engineers built several alleged [houses] ‘The engineers built several alleged houses.’ Both the adverb supuestam ente ‘allegedly’ and the adjective supuestas ‘alleged’ affect the modality of the constituent they modify by casting doubt on the reference of these constituents. Both are modal operators in JackendofFs (1972, 292-293) definition of what a modal operator is: “Each modal operator M (which may appear as a semantic marker in a variety o f lexical items) has an associated m odal condition Q , which may be placed on the identifiability of noun phrase referents within the scope of M ” This is also the case with adjectives that may appear in pre or post-nominal position when they appear in pre-nominal position. Thus, there is a similarity in the type of modification found in the following sentences: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235 (461) La immobiliaria nuevam ente adquirio una casa. The real state agency newly acquired a house ‘The real state agency acquired a house again.’ (462) The immobiliaria adquirio una nueva casa. The real state agency acquired a new house ‘The real state agency acquired an additional house.’ Notice also that the same adjective in post-nominal position lacks this interpretation: (463) *Hoy la immobiliaria adquirio una casa nueva. Today the real state agency acquired a house nueva ‘Today the real state agency acquired an additional house.’ This sentence can only be interpreted as: (464) The real state agency acquired a recently built house. Notice also that an adjective such as new cannot be the complement of a copulative verb when it has an intensional interpretation: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236 (465) La casa es nueva. The house is new ‘The house is *additionaT Assuming that what is a crucial property of modal operators is that they place a condition on the identifiability of the referent of a constituent be it a VP (in which case the referent can be though of as a complex event) or a noun phrase (in which case the referent can be thought of as a simple event), then both the adverb and the pre-nominal adjective are modal operators. Given these similarity in semantic properties between modal adverbs and these adjectives, the term m odal adjectives (recently adopted by Bernstein 1993a) seems an appropriate term to refer to these adjectives7 . Notice that what is being modified in the case of the adjectives presented is a simple noun that in no obvious way is related to a nominalization or to a deverbal noun. I will take this to indicate that modality affects not only deverbal nouns or eventual nominals (cf. Valois 1991, Crisma 1993 for modal adjectives that modify deverbal or eventual nouns) but that it also affects non-deverbal nouns and that the relevant position for modal adjectives is the prenominal position. Now the question is what is this pre-nominal position associated to modality. Bosque and Picallo (1995) propose that adjectives such as rnevo ‘new’ in pre- nominal position should be treated as quantificational adjectives (Q-adjectives in their terminology) and taking one of the established views on adjective position in the generative literature on Romance (see Chapter 2) that they are adjoined to NP. Following Bernstein (1993a) , I would like to propose that modal adjectives are not adjoined to NP. In fact, I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237 would like to argue that they are either the heads (as in Bernstein’s proposal) or the specifiers of a DP-internal Mode Phrase. The existence of adjectives as modal operators indicate that modality operates not only on clauses but also on nominals. The question is what is the syntactic representation of modality inside DP. If modal modification both at the clausal and at the nominal level is syntactically achieved through adjunction one theoretical question arises: Is it possible for modality at the clausal level and at the nominal level to interact? Under a theory in which nominal modality and clausal modality result from adjunction o f the modal operators to a VP or NP projection, the interaction of the two types of modality could proceed only as a case of adjunction of the lower operator to the higher one. In fact, the existence of modality in nominals places the question of whether modality at the nominal level interacts at all with modality at the clausal level. One case in which it is possible to find some interaction is the case of association of modal adverbs to focalized nouns.8 Notice that an adverb may place a condition on the identifiability of a noun phrase when it interacts with focus. Thus, in a sentence with a canonical pattern of stress in Spanish a contrastive context shows that the adverb has scope over the entire VP: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238 (466) Los ingenieros supuestamente [construyeron varias casas], pero en verdad no hicieron nada. The engineers allegedly [built several houses], but actually they did not do anything ‘The engineers allegedly built several houses, but actually they did not do anything.’ but when a nominal element internal to the VP is focalized via stress it is possible for the adverb to have scope only over that element: (467) Los ingenieros supuestam ente construyeron varias [CASAS], pero en verdad solo construyeron varios EDIFICIOS. The engineers allegedly built several [HOUSES], but actually they only built several BUILDINGS ‘The engineers allegedly built several houses, but actually they only built several buildings.’ Notice that the interpretation of (467) is very close if not the same as as the interpretation of: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239 (468) Los ingenieros construyeron varias supuestas [casas] que en realidad eran [edificios]. The engineers built several alleged [houses] but actually they were [buildings] ‘The engineers built several alleged houses, but actually they were buildings.’ Both in (467) and (468) doubt is being cast on the referent of the noun casa ‘house’ not on the referent of the VP. That is, both the adverb supuestam ente ‘allegedly’ and the adjective supuestas ‘alleged’ may place a condition on the identifiability of the noun. This can be seen more clearly by looking at the cleft construction. Both (467). and (468) can be paraphrased as: (469) Fueron supuestamente/ supuestas [casas] lo que los arquitectos construyeron. Be-past-3ppl allegedly /supuestas [houses] the that the architects built ‘It was alleged houses that the architects built.’ but not as: (470) Fueron [casas] lo que los arquitectos supuestam ente construyeron. Be-past-3ppl [houses ] the that the architects allegedly built ‘It was houses that the architects allegedly built.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 240 as if, when the nominal element is focalized, the interpretation of the adverb takes place internally to the DP. Notice also that not all adverbs can be associated with a focalized element. For instance, in Spanish manner adverbs do not pattern with modal adverbs in this respect: (471) Los arquitectos rapidam ente construyeron varias [CASAS]. The architects quickly built several [HOUSES] ‘The architects quickly built several houses.’ In this sentence the adverb rapidam ente ‘quickly’does not modify the noun casas ‘houses’ as shown by the fact that the interpretation of this sentence is not the one in ( to the extent this sentence is possible): (472) ??? Los arquitectos construyeron varias rapidas [CASAS]. The architects built several fast [HOUSES] ‘The architects built several fast houses.’ and in the case of clefting the pattern is just the opposite. The paraphrase is not: (473) Fueron [*rapidamente/??? rapidas casas] lo que los arquitectos construyeron. Be-past-3ppl [rapidly /fast houses] the that the architects built ‘It was quickly / quick houses that the architects built.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241 but: (474) Fueron [casas] lo que los arquitectos rapidamente construyeron. Be-past-3ppl [ houses ] the that the architects rapidly built ‘It was houses that the architects built rapidly.’ That is, association with focus does not apply to all types of modifier. In (471) , it is sensitive to the fact that the adverb in question is not modal. Notice also that there is no pre- nominal adjective corresponding to the adverb in (471). That is, there seems to be a correlation between three different factors: modality, pre-nominal position and focus9. Moreover, there are some intervention effects of negation in the interpretation of the focalized noun. Thus, an example such as: (475) Los arquitectos supuestam ente no construyeron una [CASA], The architects allegedly did not built a [HOUSE] ‘The architects allegedly did not built a house.’ cannot be interpreted as: (476) Fueron [supuestas casas] lo que los arquitectos no construyeron. Be-past-3ppl [alleged houses] the that the architects did not built ‘It was alleged houses that the architects did not built.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242 Assuming that adverbs and adjectives are mere adjuncts to VP and NP respectively, how could we distinguish between those adverbs that interact with focus and receive an interpretation similar to that of modal adjectives and those that do not? A possible answer would be to say that modal adverbs are marked for certain features that render them available for association with focus whereas other adveibs are not. Then the question is: How could we predict the existence o f pre-nominal adjectives adjoined to the left of the NP in the same cases when association with focus (that is when modality is involved) is possible and predict the lack of pre-nominal adjectives adjoined to the left of the NP when association with focus is not possible (that is when manner is involved)? And how could we explain the intervention effects of negation? 4.1.2. M ode Phrase in Spanish DPs In order to account for that correlation, I would like to propose, following Bernstein’s (1993), that in the cases in which a noun is modified by an intensional (pre-nominal) adjective in Spanish, the modal adjective is not adjoined to NP. Bernstein proposes that these adjectives are functional heads in a structure such as: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243 (477) DP D’ D° AdjP Adj’ Adj° NP Bernstein’s proposal differs from Cinque’s analysis in which pre-nominal adjectives are in the specifier position of a higher functional projection. The proposal I present is not committed to one or the other position, that is, these adjectives may very well be heads or specifiers of a higher functional projection, what the present proposal is committed to is that this projection is a Mode Phrase. In other words, I would like to propose that the adjectives are embedded under a Mode Phrase that takes AgrP as its complement as shown in: (478) DP D’ D° ModP APj Mod’ Mod0 AgrP e, Agr° NP Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244 On the basis of the feet that they agree with the noun, I prefer to treat these adjectives as originating in the specifier position of AgrP. Adjectives marked as [+strong] for a modal feature such as supuesto ‘alleged’, raise from their original Spec of AgrP position and discharge their feature against the functional head Mod0 . This yields the pre-nominal order of intensional adjectives. As in the case o f PredP there is Agr° incorporation to Mod , therefore the adjective checks its gender number features in spec of ModP. The impossibility of null NPs is due to the absence of Pred0 the only functional category capable of identifying a null NP. In this structure both types of adjectives (intensional or extensional) originate in Spec of AgrP and they receive an intensional or an extensional interpretation depending on the functional category they are embedded under and the type of features they satisfy in the structure. Thus, in the case of adjectives that may appear in pre- or post- nominal position, what is crucial in determining their interpretation is the existence of Predicate Phrase or Mode Phrase. Let us return to the case of association with focus. Assuming the existence of a DP- intemal Mode Phrase in Spanish allows us to provide a possible line of explanation for why is it that focus is sensitive to modality of simple non-eventual nouns but not to other adverbial types of modification such as manner. In fact, simple non-eventual nouns may not be modified by manner adjectives in Spanish. Thus, an expression such as: (479) * Los arquitectos construyeron unas rapidas casas. The architects built some quick houses ‘The architects built some quick houses.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. is ungrammatical in Spanish.10 If what focus does is to allow for the noun to be modified by the lower modal operator inside Mode Phrase, then it is not surprising that the association of the adverb with the focalized noun takes place only in cases in which there is a modal position internal to the DP and not in cases in which that position does not exist. As for the impossibility of intensional adjectives to occur as complements o f the copula, it can be understood as a selectional restriction of the copulative verb. Copulative verbs do not take projections of ModP as their complements; instead they require projections o f Predicate Phrase. 4.1.3 The distribution o f m odal adjectives and m odal suffixes in nom inals in Southern Quechua As in the case of Spanish, intensional adjectives in Southern Quechua do not license null nominals as shown in: (480) Nust’a-kuna-q musuq was/j-n yanapa-q-kuna-q mawk’a-OJ-n-pas rawra-ri- pun. Lady-pl-gen new h o u se^s-ag help-agent-pl-gen old-[e]7 3psg-add bum- inchoative-trans- 3psg ‘The ladies’ new house; and the helpers’ old (one) burned.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246 (481) ?? Huch’uy runaj-ta-pas hatun-fo ]-ta-pas reqsi-ni. Small man-acc-add big-[e]-add know-1 psg ‘I know a small man and a great (one).’ As in Spanish, in Southern Quechua predicative uses of extensional adjectives are possible but that is not the case with intensional adjectives as illustrated in: (482) Juan-mj hatun. Juan-FOC big ‘Juan is big/*great.’ Given this distribution, an analysis for intensional adjectives similar to the one introduced in the previous section could be easily available for Southern Quechua. Nevertheless, the situation seems a little more complex in Southern Quechua than in Spanish. In addition to the restricted distribution of intensional adjectives, Southern Quechua has a peculiar syntactic characteristic that relates the modality of a nominal argument to the modality of the clause. In Southern Quechua there is a class of morphemes that can co occur with both nominal and verbal stems. These are called validators or epistemic particles (Wolck 1972, Cerron-Palomino 1987, Wolck 1987) . Wolck (1972) notes the existence in Southern Quechua of three suffixes that can be attached to nominals or verbs. Wolck points out that these suffixes determine whether a sentence is declarative, reportative or dubitative and determine also what the focus of the sentence is. That is, these suffixes provide Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 247 information on the epistemic attitude of the speaker towards the sentence and on the focus structure of the sentence. What is relevant for our analysis is that one of the suffixes when it is attached to a nominal yields an interpretation similar to that of the adjective alleged. The following examples illustrate the use of the declarative suffix: (483) Tayta-n-/»/ qu-n wasi-ta churi-n-man. Father-3p-decl give-3p house-acc boy-3p-dative ‘It is truly the father (who) gives a house to the boy.’ (484) Tayta-n qu-n-wn wasi-ta-qa churi-n-man. Father-3p give-3p-decl house-acc boy-3p-dative ‘It is truly give what the father (did) a house to the boy.’ In both sentences an element is focalized and at the same time an assertion about the certitude of the speaker towards the dement is made. The case of the reportative is strikingly similar to that of the alleged / allegedly modal operators discussed previously for Spanish: (485) Tayta-n-s/ qu-n wasi-ta churi-n-man. Father-3p-decl give-3p house-acc boy-3p-dative ‘It is allegedly the father (who) gives the house to the boy.’ (486) Tayta-n qu-n-57 wasi-ta-qa churi-n-man. Father-3p give-3p-decl house-acc boy-3p-dative ‘It is allegedly give what the father (did) a house to the boy.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248 Notice however, that in this particular case doubt is not being cast on the noun but on the whole DP as if modality could affect either a noun as in the previous examples in Spanish or the whole DP. Curiously enough, in certain varieties of Latin American Spanish there are certain peculiar modal modifiers that are cross categorial in the sense that they may modify VPs, DPs or NPs: (487) Los arquitectos dizque [construyeron varias casas] The architects said-that [built several houses] ‘The architects allegedly built several houses’ (488) Los arquitectos construyeron dizque [varias casas]. The architects built said-that [several houses] ‘The architects built allegedly several houses.’ (489) Los arquitectos construyeron varias dizque [casas]. The architects built several said-that [houses] ‘The architects built several alleged houses.’ 4.1.4 Mode Phrase in Southern Quechua DPs The existence of this type of modifier poses the question of the location of Mode \ Phrase in Southern Quechua. As we said before, the case of intensiona! adjectives can be handled by a structure such as the one in (478) but the case of these suffixes would require a projection higher than DP. There are however certain features of these elements that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. indicate that they must be treated as some sort o f polarity items rather than as independent heads. The first interesting characteristic that they share is that there must be only one of them per sentence. The following sentence shows the ungrammaticality of: (490) *Tayta-n-s/' qu-n-s/' wasi-ta churi-n-man. Father-3p-rep gjve-3p-rep house-acc boy-3p-dative ‘It is allegedly the father (who) allegedly gives a house to the boy.’ This contrasts with: (491) Los arquitectos supuestamente construyeron una supuesta casa ‘The architects allegedly built an alleged house.’ I will take this to indicate that the suffixes of Southern Quechua are not independent functional heads that may take scope over different types of predicates but instead some sort of polarity item in agreement with a clause-level modal operator. I will take the existence of intensional adjectives in the language with the same syntactic and semantic properties as those o f Spanish as evidence of the existence of a DP-intemal modal position both in Spanish and in Southern Quechua . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250 4.2 Aspectual Adjectives In this section, I will provide an account for the behavior of a very specific class of adjectives and quantifiers in Spanish and Southern Quechua whose main characteristic is the fact that depending on the stadve or non-stative nature of the main clause receive distributive or predicative interpretations. 4.2.1 The distribution o f aspectual adjectives in Spanish inside DP As noted in Sanchez (1995), there is a class of adjectives in Spanish that may occur as DP modifiers or as VP modifiers. This class is formed by the intensifier mismo ‘self and by certain adverbial adjectives such as solo ‘alone’ and juntos ‘together’ as illustrated in examples in (492) and (493): (492) a .[dp Maria sola / misma] respondio el examen. [dp Maria alone /herself ] answered the exam ‘Maria answered the exam alone/ by herself b. Maria [vp respondio el examen (ella) sola/ ella misma], Maria [ ^ answered the exam (her) alone/herself] ‘Maria answered the exam alone/herself.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251 (493) a. t p Maria y Juan juntos] respondieron el examen. ( d p Maria and Juan together] answered the exam ‘Maria and Juan answered the exam together.’ b. Maria y Juan [vprespondieron el examen juntos], Maria and Juan [vpanswered the exam together] ‘Maria and Juan answered the exam together.’ These adjectives have been treated extensively in the semantic literature (cf. Lasersohn 1995, Moltmann, 1994 and Schwarzschild 1993) due to their special property of behaving as distributive or collective operators with respect to certain verbal predicates as shown in (494)b.: (494) a. Los ninos levantaron el piano ‘The boys lifted the piano.’ b. Los ninos levantaron el piano solos / ellos mismos / juntos. ‘The boys lifted the piano alone/ themselves/ together’ The presence of the adjectives determines the distributive nature (in the case of solos ‘alone’ and ellos mismos ‘themselves’) or the anti-distributive nature of the predicate (in the case of juntos ‘together’). In this section, I will propose an analysis of these adjectives as functional heads, more precisely as aspectual heads, that take a DP as their complements.1 1 The novelty of the proposal resides in the idea that nominals have an aspectual projection Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252 and that this aspectual projection interacts with the higher aspectual projection that selects VP. Syntactically, this accounts for the fact that there is a class of elements that appear to be nominal and verbal modifiers. Semantically, this proposal shows that a very important factor in the interpretation of distributivity and non-distributivity markers is the interaction of nominal aspectuality with verbal aspectuality. Another important feature o f this proposal is that aspectuality is understood as related to event modification. I will propose that the type of modification obtained varies according to the eventual complexity of the predicate. Like other adjectives in Spanish, these adjectives agree in gender and number with the DP they modify and they may appear inside DP or VP. In this section, I will show that there is evidence for treating them as DP modifiers in Spanish. Later, I will derive their adverbial interpretation from complex predicate formation. One basic feature of these adjectives is that they form a constituent with the DPs they modify. This can be shown by fronting the whole constituent in a cleft construction: (495) Fueron las chicas mismas / solas / juntas las que levantaron el piano. (Pro) were the girls themselves / alone / together who lifted the piano ‘It was the girls themselves / alone / together who lifted the piano.’ Another source of evidence for the constituency of the adjective and the DP is the modification of non-subject arguments such as direct objects in (496) and (497), indirect objects in (498) and even oblique constructions in (499): Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253 (496) L-a-s nin-a-s levantaron 1-o-s pian-o-s junt-o-s. The-^e/w-pl girl-/e/w-pl lifted the-/nasc-pl piano-masc-pl together-masc-pl ‘The girls lifted the pianos together.’ (497) L-o-s padre-s baiiaron a l-a-s nin-a-s junt-a-s. The-masc-pl parent (masc)-pl bathed to the girl-fem-pl together-fem-pl ‘The parents bathed the girls together.’ (498) Les di l-a-s carta-s a tod-o-s 1-o-s ninos junt-o-s. CL gave the-fem-pl letter (fem)-pl to all-masc-pl the- masc-pl boys together- rcasc-pl ‘(I) gave the letters to all the boys together.’ (499) Lo asesino con el cuchillo y el punal junt-o-s. CL assassinated with the (masc. sing.) knife and the (masc. sing.) dagger together-masc-pl ‘(He/She) assassinated him with the knife and the dagger together’1 2 4.2.1.1 Licensing and interpretation o f null NPs Unlike other adjectives in Spanish, these lack a very important property: they do not license null nominals. As shown in chapter 2, the licensing of null nominal heads is a feature that characterizes most predicative adjectives in Spanish as illustrated in: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254 (500) La casa nueva es muy bonita. La [e] vieja en cambio es fea. The house new is very pretty. The [e] old instead is ugly ‘The new house is very pretty. The old one instead is ugly.’ In that respect, aspectual adjectives exhibit an unusual behavior illustrated in the following contrasts where the b. sentences show the inability of the adjectives to license null heads: (501) a. Una mujer escribio la carta. La mujer misma la llevo a-1 correo. A woman wrote the letter. The woman self it took to-the post office ‘A woman wrote the letter. The woman herself took it to the post office.’ b.*Una mujer escribio la carta. La [e] misma la llevo al correo. A woman wrote the letter. The [e] self took it to the post office ‘A woman wrote the letter. The herself one took it to the post office.’ (502) a. Una mujer trajo el piano. La mujer sola lo cargo. A woman brought the piano. The woman alone it lifted ‘A woman brought the piano. The woman lifted it alone.’ b.*Una mujer trajo el piano. La [e] sola lo cargo. A woman brought the piano. The [e] alone lifted it ‘A woman brought the piano. The alone one lifted it.’ (503) a. Los muchachos junt-o-s construyeron la torre. The boys together-masc-pl built the tower ‘The boys built the tower together.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255 (504) b. * Los [e] junt-o-s construyeron la torre. The [e] together-masc-pl built the tower ‘The together ones built the tower.’ In this section, I will present evidence that the adjectives under study are heads, more exactly, functional heads. 4. 2.1.2. Specificity effects Edmondson and Plank (1978), Browning (1993) Sanchez Lopez (1993) and Sanchez (1995) have noticed that these adjectives do not modify indefinites as illustrated in the following contrasts: (505) a. *Una president-a mism-a hablara. A president-fem self-fem will speak-fut3p ‘A president herself will speak.’ b. *Una mism-a president-a hablara. A self-fem president-fem will speak-fut3p ‘A president herself will speak.’ (506) La president-a mism-a hablara. The president-fem self-fem will speak-fut3p ‘The president herself will speak’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256 (507) *Un-o-s hombre-s junt-o-s levantaron el piano. A-masc-pl man-pl together-masc-pl lifted the piano ‘Some men lifted the piano together’ (508) L-o-s hombre-s junt-o-s levantaron el piano. The-masc-pl man-pl together-masc-pl lifted the piano ‘The men lifted the piano together.’ Sentence (508) is grammatical with a specific reading of the indefinite. Information on the specificity of the NP modified can only be part of the syntactic representation of the DPs containing the adjectives if these adjectives are capable of selecting DPs or specific NPs as their complements.1 3 4.2.J.3 Position inside DP Notice also that they are the outermost adjective in any DP and that they cannot appear between a noun and a predicative adjective: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (509) a. El [hombre viqo) mismo. The [man old] self ‘The old man himself.’ b.* El hombre mismo viejo (without pause between the adjectives) The man self old ‘The old man himself.’ (510) a. Los estudiantes extranjeros junt-o-s. The foreign students together-masc-pl ‘The foreign students together.’ b * Los estudiantes junt-o-s extranjeros. The students together-masc-pl foreign ‘The foreign students together.’ Unlike other adjectives they can modify proper names and pronouns: (511) a. Maria mism-a / sol-a / *inteligente. Maria self-fem / alone-fem / intelligent ‘Maria herself / alone / intelligent.’ b. Ella mism-a / sol-a / *inteligente. She self-fem / alone-fem / intelligent ‘She herself / alone / *intelligent.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258 (512) a. Juan y Maria junt-o-s / *inteligente-s. Juan and Maria together-masc-pl / intelligent-pl ‘Juan and Maria together / intelligent.’ b. Ellos junt-o-s / *inteligentes. They together-masc-pl / intelligent ‘They together- masc-pl /*intelligent.’ All these facts indicate that these adjectives are DP modifiers. Given that they form a constituent with the DP, they must be higher elements in the structure. One could treat them either as adjuncts to DP (cf. Browning 1993 and Bernstein 1993a) or as heads selecting DPs as their complements. The second possibility appears as a more plausible explanation of the facts in (511)-(512). If these adjectives are adjuncts then the question arises of why pronouns and proper names accept certain adjuncts and not others. Any theory that treats these adjectives as adjuncts must explain why is it the case that the class of adjuncts to DP is so restricted. On the other hand, if they are heads that belong to a special class then it could be the case that they select DPs and that they have a bearing on the specificity of the NPs they select as their complements. In fact, I would like to argue that these adjectives are functional heads that select DPs as their complements1 4 . They are functional heads that take DPs as their complements and as such could, not appear embedded under PredP whose head is responsible for null nominal licensing. The structure proposed for the constituent headed by these adjectives is the following: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This proposal has two advantages over any analysis that would consider these adjectives as adjuncts. It takes care of the selectional properties of the adjectives (the obligatory specificity of the complement) and it accounts for the existence of agreement between the adjective and the DP. The adjective agrees with the DP in gender and number because it is a head and the DP is its complement in Spec position. 4.2.1.4. Predicative complements Until now, I have concentrated on the arguments favoring the treatment of these adjectives as higher functional heads. I will present now the arguments in favor of considering them as aspectual heads. The main argument comes from the impossibility of these adjectives to occur as complements of the copulative verb ser ‘to be’: (514) *L-a-s person-a-s son mism-a-s. The-fem-pl person-fem-pl are self-fem-pl ‘The persons are themselves.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260 (515) *L-a-s casa-s sonJunt-a-s. The-fem-pl house-pl are together-fem-pl ‘The houses are together.’ (516) * L-a-s mujeres son sol-a-s. The-fem-pl women are alone-fem-pl ‘The women are alone.’ It has been noticed in the literature (Lujan 1980, Lema 1992 among others)) that the copulative verb ser ‘to be’ in Spanish lacks an aspectual lexical value. On the other hand, the copulative verb estar ‘to be’ has been claimed to be an aspectual head. Curiously enough, this verb allows for the occurrence of the adjectives: (517) L-a-s casa-s estan junt-a-s. The-fem-pl houses are together-fem-pl ‘The houses are together.’ (518) L-a-s mujeres estan sol-a-s. The-fem-pl women are alone-fem-pl ‘The women are alone.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261 4.2.1.5 Aspect Phrase in DP This is not strange if one thinks that the adjectives are also aspectual heads that can be interpreted as forming a complex predicate with the aspectual verb. For the moment, I will present the hypothesis that the adjective heads a nominal aspectual projection. In the next sections, it will be shown that this hypothesis about the nature of the functional head o f the adjective explains the specific behavior of these adjectives and accounts for their interaction with the aspectuality of the main clause. Thus, the structure for the constituent headed by these adjectives and their respective DP complements is the following: (519) AspP DP; Asp’ Asp0 e; 4.2.2. The interpretation o f Aspectual Adjectives as DP and VP modifiers 4.2.2.1 The Adnominal Interpretation As it was mentioned before, aspectual adjectives can be interpreted as purely adnominal modifiers or as adverbial modifiers. The first type o f modification is illustrated by: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262 (520) Ana y Juan junt-o-s tomaron la medicina. Ana and Juan together-masc-pl took the medicine ‘Ana and Juan together took the medicine.’ (520) has a reading in which the adjective modifies exclusively the DP and does not relate to the main event referred to by the VP. The reading is the following: (521) Ana and Juan, being together, took the medicine. The existence of this reading shows that there is an interpretation of the adjective that is independent of the modification of the main event. This can be seen more clearly when the main verb is negated: (522) Ana y Juan junt-o-s no tomaron la medicina. Ana and Juan together-masc-pl did not take the medicine ‘Ana and Juan (being) together did not take the medicine.’ In this sentence the adjective is outside the scope of the negation and it lacks an interpretation related to the main event.This is also true of DPs in positions other than the subject position. (523)a. has an interpretation of the adjective that is also independent of the main verb event illustrated in (523) b.: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263 (523) a. Los padres banaron a las nin-a-s junt-a-s. The parents bathed the girl-fem-pl together-fem-pl ‘The parents bathed the girls together.’ b.The parents bathed the girls that were together Notice that the interpretation in (523)b. is present when the constituent is dislocated showing that the purely adnominal reading is possible: (524) Fue a las ninas juntas a las que los padres banaron. It was the girls together that the parents bathed ‘It was the girls that were together that the parents bathed.’1 5 In our analysis, this interpretation arises when the adjective is a predicate o f DP. That is, DP raises to Spec of the projection headed by the adjective and there is no direct relation between the aspectuality of the main verb and the aspectuality of the DP. In other words , no complex predicate formation between the adjective and the main verb takes place and the adjective is understood only as a predicate of the DP. 4.2.2.2. The Adverbial Interpretation There is also an adverbial or VP-intemal interpretation of these adjectives that has concentrated most of the attention in the semantic literature (recently, Lasersohn 1990, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 264 Mohmann 1994, Schwarzchild 1993). One of the main reasons for the importance assigned to this interpretation lies in its relationship with the eventual structure of the predicates it modifies. In other words, VP-internal adjectives may modify the VP as an adverb. Thus, a sentence such as (525) is interpreted as (526) and (527) can be interpreted as in (528) or (529): (525) Juan abrio la puerta sol-o. Juan opened the door alone-masc ‘Juan opened the door alone.’ (526) Juan abrio la puerta sin qyuda. ‘Juan opened the door without help.’ (527) Los estudiantes arreglaron su impresor-a junt-o-s. The students fixed his/their printer-fem together-masc-pl ‘The students fixed his/their printer together.’ (528) The students fixed the same printer collectivelly. (529) The students fixed one printer each at the same time (528) implies spatio-temporal proximity of the agents with respect to a single event of fixing the same printer (cf Lasersohn 1990 and Mohmann 1994) whereas (529) implies a proximity in time with respect to the fixing of one printer by each o f the agents. In both interpretations, the adjective juntos ‘together’ behaves as modifier of the DP but it also modifies the main event. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 265 4.2.2.3 Stafives These interpretations do not arise with stative verbs. The reading obtained with statives is not equivalent to that of the adverbials collectively or at the same time: (530) Juan y Maria son idiotas junt-o-s Juan and Maria are idiots together-masc-pl ‘Juan and Maria are idiots together.’ (530) cannot be interpreted as in (531). Instead it has the interpretation in (532): (531) Juan and Maria are idiots collectivelly/ at the same time. (532) Juan and Maria are idiots that are close to each other This is not an adverbial reading in the sense that the interpretation of the adjective is independent from the main event denoted by the VP. Notice that with statives we never obtain adverbial readings for the other adjectives either. Thus, (533) corresponds to (534) not to (535): (533) Ana es inteligente sola / ella misma. ‘Ana is intelligent alone/herself.’ (534) Ana is intelligent when she is alone. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (535) Ana is intelligent without help. 266 These facts indicate that the interpretation of the adjective inside VP as related to the main event is dependent on the stative/non-stative nature of the main VP. In the following section, I will propose that the interpretation of the adjectives depends on the eventual structure of the VP. 4.2.2.4 Incorporation o f Nominal A spect to Verbal A spect The interpretations o f the adjectives with stative VPs seem to parallel that of the adnominal occurrences of the adjective. This is not strange if one thinks that both stative VPs and DPs have the same level of complexity with respect to the events they denote. By having the same level of complexity, I mean that, even deverbal nominals must be understood as denoting non-complex events at the point in the derivation in which the nominalization of the verb takes place. At that point, no access to the internal event structure of the verb is possible. This does not mean that deverbal nouns do not have a complex eventual structure at a level that is previous to the nominalization (cf. Grimshaw 1990). This can be seen in the following contrast: (536) La ingestion de las medicinas por los pacientes mismos es peligrosa. ‘The ingestion of the medicines by the patients themselves is dangerous.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (537) La ingestion misma de las medicinas por los pacientes es peligrosa. ‘The ingestion itself of the medicines by the patients is dangerous.’ In (536) the adjective mismos ‘themselves’ is as a modifier of the external argument of the nominalized verb and an adverbial reading of the type: the patients are the only agents involved in the event o f ingesting the medicine is available. At this point in the derivation, access to the eventual structure of the verb is possible. Nevertheless, as shown in (537) when the by-phrase has already modified - setting surface order aside - and completed the eventual structure o f the DP, no adverbial interpretation of the adjective misma ‘itself may arise. In other words, although nominals may have a complex eventual structure at the NP level, at the DP level they have a ample eventual structure that is modified without reference to the internal structure of the verb they originated from. Let us assume along with the current literature (cf. Travis 1992 and Zagona 1994) the existence of an Aspectual Phrase that selects a VP as its complement and is responsible for the aspectuality of the VP. Let us also assume that stative and non-stative VPs have a different eventual structure (Zagona 1994). For an aspectual adjective to interact with the aspectuality of a non-stative main verb it would have to raise from its argument-internal position to that higher head. In the case in which the adjective and the DP it modifies are in subject position the situation would be the following: (538) U p AsPi° +Asp° [„ U p t, DP] V [NP ]]] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268 First, the adjective raises to the higher aspectual head and incorporates.1 6 Then the DP raises for Case checking. Once this raising takes place the adjective is left stranded by the DP as in Sportiche’s (1988) treatment of floated quantifiers1 7 . Movement of the whole VP to Spec of AspP yields the surface word order in which the adjective appears in final position in parallel fashion to what occurs with DPs. The Spec-Head Agreement relation between the VP in Spec of AspP and the Asp0 derives the adverbial reading of the adjective. In the case of stative VPs, even though there is complex predicate formation, the eventual structure of the predicate that is complement of the stative verb is a simple one (that of an AP) and no adverbial reading arises through Spec-Head Agreement. When the adjective modifies the direct object as in (539): (539) Los padres banaron a las ninas junt-a-s. The parents bathed the girls together-fem-pl ‘The parents bathed the girls together.’ the movement of the adjective to the higher aspectual head takes place at LF to form a complex predicate that modifies the eventual structure of the main verb. The overt version of incorporation exists in Spanish: (540) Los padres banaron junt-a-s a las ninas. The parents bathed together-fem-pl the girls ‘The parents bathed the girls together.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269 Notice that this incorporation to the higher aspectual head is blocked by the presence of an intervening head both in syntax and at LF: (541) Los padres banaron hasta a las ninas junt-a-s. The parents bathed even to the girls together-fem-pl ‘The parents bathed even the girls together.’ can only mean: (542) The parents bathed even the girls that were together, but cannot mean: (543) The parents bathed together even the girls. that is an intervening functional head of a modal type such as hasta ‘even’ blocks the incorporation. This analysis has an advantage over other analysis that have proposed to treat these adjectives as generalized quantifiers (C. Sanchez Lopez 1993). It alllows to account for the co-occurrence of aspectual adjectives with other quantifiers as in: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270 (544) Tod-o-s 1-o-s estudiantes junt-o-s cargaron el piano. All-masc-pl the-masc-pl students together-masc-pl lifted the piano ‘The students all lifted the piano together.’ or more crucially in: (545) L-o-s estudiantes cargaron el piano tod-o-s junt-o-s. The-masc-pl students lifted the piano all-masc-pl together-masc-pl ‘The students lifted the piano all together.’ Thus, this analysis accounts for the syntactic similarity of these adjectives and floated quantifiers in the sense that they can be separated from the DP they modify, it also accounts for the fact that these adjectives do co-occur with other quantifiers. 4.2.2.S The Conditional Reading There is, in addition to the purely adnominal interpretation and the adverbial reading, a conditional reading of the adjectives that arises when the adjective is focalized and the verb in the main clause is in the future tense or in conditional mood: (546) Los chicos JUNTOS tomaran la medicina, separados no. ‘The boys TOGETHER will drink the medicine, separated they will not.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271 which has the interpretation: (547) The boys, if together, will take the medicine, if separated, they will not. (cf. Moltmann 1994 for similar facts in English) This reading is shared by other adjectives that may function as secondary predicates: (548) Los estudiantes BORRACHOS tomarian el examen, en condiciones normales no. The students DRUNKEN would take the exam, under circumstances normal not ‘Drunken, the students would take the exam, under normal circumstances, they would not.’ Notice that in these contexts an adjective such as borracho ‘drunken’ may modify a proper name: (549) Juan BORRACHO se atrevio a entrar a la habitation. Juan DRUNKEN dared to enter the room ‘Drunken, Juan dared to enter the room.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272 Focalization of the adjective alone is not responsible for the conditional reading. Notice that an adjective such as intelligent does not allow for such an interpretation: (550) ?Juan INTELIGENTE se atrevio a resolver el problema. Juan INTELLIGENT dared to solve the problem ‘Intelligent, Juan dared to solve the problem.’ It is not either a case of stage-level vs. indidivual-level distinction as shown by the fact that (551) is ungrammatical although the adjective disponible ‘available’ is a stage-level predicate: (551) * Juan DISPONIBLE habria hecho eso. Juan AVAILABLE would have done that ‘Available, Juan would have done that.’ Given that the conditional interpretation of the adjectives in these constructions does not seem to correspond to any plausible interpretation of incorporation of the lower Asp0 to the the main clause Asp0 ,1 would like to propose that in these cases the structures involved are slightly different from those of the purely adnominal and the adverbial readings. Let us assume that what focalization does in this cases is locate the adjectives in a higher position in the clause at LF. In fret this is a position available to them in the overt syntax: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273 (552) Juntos, Juan y Maria no habrian hecho eso. ‘Together, Juan and Maria would have not done that.’ In that higher position pressumably Spec of Focus Phrase, the adjective is still interpreted as an Aspectual Phrase with a pro-DP in its Specifier position. Under such interpretation what the adjective is doing is introducing a proposition which is dependent on the main clause for its interpretation. If the verb in the main clause has conditional or future inflection then the adjective is interpreted as introducing a subordinate //-type clause. 4.2.3 The distribution o f aspectual quantifiers in Southern Quechua inside DP Southern Quechua has a class of distributive and collective modifiers that have been classified as quantifiers by Muysken (1993). Unlike the aspectual adjectives of Spanish, these quantifiers are obligatorily inflected for Person agreement features and they trigger obligatory subject agreement on the verb: (553) Kiki-n-mi punku-ta kicha-n. Self-3p-foc door-acc open-3p ‘(Pro) opens the door (by him/her)-self ’ (554) Kiki-nku-n punku-ta kicha-nku. Self-3ppl-foc door-acc open-3ppl ‘(Pro) open the door (by them)-selves.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274 (555) Sapa-\\a.-n-xm punku-ta kicha-n. Alone-lim-3psg-foc door-acc open-3psg ‘(Pro) opens the door alone.’ (556) Sapa-Yiarnku-n punku-ta ldcha-nAw. Alone-lim-3ppl-foc door-acc open-3ppl ‘(Pro) open the door alone.’ Although not discussed by Muysken (1993) kuska ‘together’ belongs to the class of obligatory inflected quantifiers (at least for the Ayacucho dialect): (557) Southern Quechua (Ayacucho) Kuska-nku-m punku-ta kicha-nAw. Together-lim-3ppl-foc door-acc open-3ppl ‘(Pro) open the door together.’ 4.2.3.1 Pro-DP licensing One of the most salient characteristics of these adjectives is that they do not overtly modify proper names as shown by the impossibility of: (558) *Kiki Juan punku-ta kicha-n. Self Juan door-acc open-3p ‘Self Juan opens the door.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 275 (559) *Juan kiki punku-ta kicha-n. Juan self Juan door-acc open-3 p ‘Juan self opens the door.’ (560) *Sapa Maria punku-ta kicha-n. Alone Maria door-acc open-3 p ‘Alone Maria opens the door.’ (561) *Maria sapa punku-ta kicha-n. Maria alone door-acc open-3p ‘Maria alone opens the door.’ Apparently this means that unlike their counterparts in Spanish these quantifiers do not take a DP as their complement. Notice however that their interpretation is crucially dependent on that of the empty pronoun (pro) in the sentence1 8 as shown by the fact that they show agreement in Person features with the verb. Moreover they may appear as modifiers of pronouns as shown in: (562) Pay kiki-n-mi punku-ta kicha-n. He self -3p-foc door-acc close-3p ‘He opened the door himself.’ The question is why are these quantifiers only possible with pronouns (overt or covert) and what is the source for their Person Agreement features. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276 4.2.3.2 Person Agreement As mentioned before, aspectual quantifiers in Southern Quechua must be inflected for Person features as shown by the ungrammaticality of the following sentences: (563) *Kiki-0 -n punku-ta kicha-nku. Self-e- foe door-acc open-3p ‘(Pro) open the door (by him/her)-self.’ (564) *Kuska-0-n punku-ta kicha-nku. Together-lim-e-foc door-acc open-3ppl ‘(Pro) open the door together.’ (565) *Sapa-lla-0-n punku-ta kicha-nku. Alone-lim-0 -foc door-acc open-3ppl ‘(Pro) opens the door alone.’ Muysken (1993) notices that Person Agreement in this case is not the type of person agreement triggered by a genitive as in the case of: (566) [Nuqa-nch/s-pa mama-nc/i/s] hamu-n. [I-plincl-gen mother-lpplincl] come-3p ‘My mother comes.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 277 In fact as this sentence shows, agreement on the verb is triggered by the fact that the noun mama-nchis ‘our mother’ is interpreted as a third person plural. This means that the quantifier kikittan ‘alone’ agrees not with the DP-intemal person agreement projection posited in Chapter 3 but with the agreement features of the argument of the verb. Notice also that a non-quantificational DPs is not marked by such agreement as shown by: (567) *Juan-ni-n hamu-w. Juan-euph-3p come-3p ‘Juan comes.’ I will take these facts to indicate that agreement the agreement marker on the quantifier is the reflex of a relation o f the quantifier with a pro or an overt pronoun which triggers verbal agreement. Before attempting to provide an account for the nature of the relation between the quantifier and pro, let us see if these quantifiers share with the aspectual adjectives of Spanish the same contrast in interpretation with stative and non-stative VPs. 4.2.3.3 Predicative complements As expected the distribution of these quantifiers is affected by the stative or non- stative nature of the VP. This is shown by the following contrast: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 278 (568) *Sapa-Ila-« sumaq-mi. AIone-lim-3p Maria beautiful-foc ‘(Pro) is beautiful alone.’ (569) Sapa-lla-n-mi punku-ta kicha-n. Alone-lixn-3psg-foc door-acc open-3psg ‘(Pro) opens the door alone.’ (570) *Kiki-n-mi tiya-n. Self-3p-foc stay-3p ‘(Pro) stays himself.’ (571) Kiki-n-mi paria-n. Self-3p-foc speak-3p ‘(Pro) speaks himself’ The quantifier lacks a viable interpretation if the the VP it modifies is stative and acquires an adverbial interpretation if it is non-stative. 4.2.3.4 Coordination More interestingly the distribution of these quantifiers correlates with the distribution of different types of coordination in Southern Quechua. There are three coordination suffixes in Southern Quechua -wan , -pas and -nti. They differ in interpretation as shown in: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279 (572) Wiraqucha-kuna-m yana-kuna-wow llaqta-man puri-rqa-nku. Lord-pl-foc servants-pl-with town-dat walk-past-3ppl ‘The lords and the servants marched to town (in two separate groups).’ (573) Wiraqucha-kuna-m yana-kuna-«ri-» llaqta-man puri-rqa-nku. Lord-pl-foc servants-pl-with-3p town-dat walk-past-3ppl ‘The lords and the servants marched to town (in a mixed group).’ (574) Wiraqucha-kuna-p/s yana-kuna-/?/s llaqta-man puri-rqa-nku. Lord-pl-with servants-pl-with-3p town-dat walk-past-3ppl ‘The lords as well as the servants marched to town.’ (in separate groups even in separate events) In terms of their semantic content -wan behaves as a distributive coordinator, whereas -nti behaves as a collective coordinator and -pas usually refered to in the grammars as an additive suffix as precisely an additive coordinator in the sense that it groups the referents of two DPs but it does not imply that both DPs share a common th-role in a particular event. 4.2.3.4.1 Stative coordination The distribution of these suffixes is also sensitive to the stative or non-stative nature of the VP. Thus, coordination of statives is grammatical with with -wan and marginal with -pas but definitely ungrammatical with -nti as shown in: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 280 (575) Wasi-y wasi-yki-warc sumaq ka-nku. House-lp house-2p-with beautiful be-3ppl ‘My house and your house are beautiful.’ (576) Wasi-y wasi-yki-pas sumaq ka-nku. House-lp house-2p-with beautiful be-3ppl ‘My house and your house are beautiful.’ (577) *Wasi-y wasi-yki-«ft-(n) sumaq ka-nku. House-lp house-2p-with-(3p) beautiful be-3ppl ‘My house and your house are beautiful.’ I will take this distribution to show that coordination as well as quantification is sensitive to the stativity of the VP. That is both the aspectual quantifier and the collective coordinator are not grammatical as modifiers of stative VPs. 4.2.3.4.2 Non-stative distributive coordination Notice also that it is possible to have the aspectual quantifier kuska ‘together’ as associated to a distributive coordination that is the subject of a non-stative VP as in: (578) Juan Maria-wan kuska-nku puri-nAw. Juan Maria-with together-3p walk-3ppl ‘Juan and Maria walk together.’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281 but not in the case of a stative: (579) ???Wasi-y wasi-yki-wan kuska-nku sumaq Vi-nku. House-lp house-2p-with together beautiful be-3ppl ‘My house and your house are beautiful.’ This indicates that the quantifier is sensitive to the stativity of the VP and cannot be associated with a conjunction that is permitted with statives. 4.2.4 Aspectual Phrase in Southern Quechua Given its sensitivity to the stative versus non-stative nature of the VP, I would like to propose that the quantifiers under study are aspectual in nature. They are not directly related to the DP they modify; instead they seem to be licensing a pro-DP that is coindexed with the DP in the argument position that they are associated with (cf. Muysken 1993 and Lefebvre and Muysken 1989). These quantifiers are nominal Aspectual projections with a pro-DP in their specifier position. Unlike the aspectual adjectives of Spanish these do not leave their complements stranded. I would like to argue that these nominal Aspectual Phrases are base generated in the specifier position of a clausal level Aspect Phrase and establish a relation with the DPs they are assoicted with through coindexation of these DPs with a pro-DP in their Specifier position. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Notes 1. Parts of this chapter have appeared in Sanchez (1995). 2. Spanish has two copulative verbs. One that lacks aspectual features and another that is marked for aspectual features (Lujan 1980, Camacho 1994). The aspectuality distinction is based on the fact that their syntactic distribution shows specialization of one of the copulas to aspectually marked constructions such as the progressive. Thus, only one type of copula can be used in progressive constructions: (1) * Juan es corriendo. ‘Juan is running.’ (2) Juan esta corriendo. ‘Juan is running.’ 3. There are certain meanings of these adjectives that should be disregarded to obtain a uniform analysis. Thus, although it is the case that these adjectives may appear to license null nominal heads if preceded by indefinite articles (or even definite articles), this is the case only when mismo means ‘same’, alone means ‘without company’ and juntos means ‘ joint’ or ‘next to each other’: (1) a. ^Era la misma persona? Was the same person ‘Was it the same person?’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. b. Si, la misma. Yes, the same ‘Yes, the same one.’ (2) a. ^Habia una persona sola? Have a person alone ‘Was there a person alone?’ (without company) b. Si, una sola y otra acompanada. Yes, one alone and other accompanied ‘Yes, one without company and another with company.’(Bernstein p.c.) (3) a.^Habia unas mesas juntas? Have some tables together ‘Were there some tables next to each other?’ b. Si, habia una juntas y otras separadas. Yes, have some together and some separated ‘Yes, there were some joint/next to each other and some separated.’ In this section, I will not be concerned with these meanings. 4. The adverbial reading has been noticed for English self by Moravsic (1972), Edmondson and Plank (1978), Browning (1993), Safir (1995) and for Spanish mismo ‘same/self by Sanchez, C. (1993), Sanchez, L. (1995). Lasersohn (1990), Moltmann (1994), Schwarzchild (1993) among others discuss together and/or alone in English. 5. Although it would be very easy to classify an item with a se lf meaning as an anaphor, it Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 284 has been shown by Safir (1995) that anaphors differ in semantic content across languages. In this case the word kiki ‘self has an adverbial interpretation in the same fashion other quantifiers do in Southern Quechua. It means: ‘by him/her-self 6. Bernstein (1993a) provides other syntactic tests that distinguish intensional form extensional adjectives in Romance. 7. For a different use of the term modal adjectives see Riviere (1983). 8. The recent semantic literature is abundant on proposals that account for the phenomenon of association with focus (Rooth 1985 among others). It is not the purpose of the analysis provided here to account for it. The reason why it is relevant for our analysis is because it shows that when it takes place the semantic interpretation resulting from it is very similar to the semantic interpretation of a modal adjective, suggesting that the DPs containing modal adjectives are syntactic analogues to expressions containing modal adverbs at the clausal level (Jackendoff 1972). 9. Notice that the phenomenon of association with focus ( see Jakendoff 1972 for early references to it as a syntactic phenomenon, Rooth 1985 for semantic references) affects crucially clause-level operators such as negation, quantifiers such as only, even, or ju st or as noted by Jackendoff adverbs such as merely, simply, truly, hardly, whose relation with the adjectives mere, simple, true and hard is also noted by Jackendoff. 10. The English counterpart of this example is grammatical: (1) We drank a quick cup of coffee. This difference may be due to parametric variation on the type of DP-intemal functional Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 285 projections allowed in Spanish and in English. The proposal made here is concerned with showing that there is a correlation between availability of a DP-internal position and association with focus. 11. The idea that an adjective takes a DP as its complement was already present in Abney’s (1987) proposal. In order to make clear my assumptions about that let me explain that by assuming that an adjective takes a DP as its complement a pattern o f lexical selection is not established. This is a syntactic description that corresponds to the syntactic properties of the adjective. It does not imply in any respect that the noun is an argument of the adjective in the traditional sense although the DP enters a configuration in which it is the subject of the adjective. 12.The same is true of the other two adjectives. 13. It is also the case that certain weak determiners allow for modification by these adjectives: (1) Muchos estudiantes juntos levantaron el piano. Many students together lifted the piano ‘Many students lifted the piano together.’ (Moltmann p.c.) with a specific interpretation. The choice of tense and mood of the main verb makes it possible for the adjective to modify a weak NP with no specific interpretation: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 286 (2) Muchos estudiantes juntos podrian abrir la puerta. Many students together could open the door ‘Many students could open the door together.’ Notice that here the indefinite has a generic interpretation and perhaps this case can be assimilated to: (3) Una mujer sola podria abrir la puerta. A woman alone could open the door ‘A woman could open the door alone.’ In this case, the indefinite has a generic interpretation (Maria Luisa Zubizarreta pc). Following Vergnaud and Zubizarreta (1992), I will assume that generics behave as definites. 14. For a similar analysis of self across langauges see Sola (1993). Our analysis differs from Sola’s in that in his analysis self projects as an abstract SELF Phrase whose head could host a diversity of elements which Sola (1992) dubbs FOCUS, TOPIC, EVEN and ONLY . For a semantic analysis of the atoms conforming expressions such as el mismo ‘himself, see Safir (1995). 15. Notice that the clefting in English yields an ungrammatical sentence: (1) * It was the girls together that the parents bathed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This shows that no adnominal interpretation arises with objects in English. 16. A similar proposal for adverbs that agree with subjects has been proposed by Antrim (1994). 17. Sanchez Lopez (1993) has proposed to treat these adjectives as floated generalized quantifiers. That line of analysis would not be able to account for their coexistence with quantifiers and for the peculiar aspectual restrictions that these adjectives exhibit. 18. Southern Quechua is a subject/object pro-drop language. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 288 References Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Anderson, M. 1979. Noun Phrase Structure. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. Anderson, M. 1983-1984. Pre-nominal genitive NPs. Linguistic Review 3: 1-24. Antrim, Nancy. 1994. Italian adverbial agreement. In Issues and Theory in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Language XXIII. Ed. Mike Mazzola. 129-140. Antrim, Nancy. 1995. AP possessives in Romance, ms. USC. Aoun, Joseph. 1985. The syntax of anaphora. Cambridge, Massachusetts. :MIT Press. Authier, Jean-Marc. 1988. The syntax of unselective binding. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Bernstein, Judy. 1991. DP’s in French and Walloon: Evidence for Parametric Variation in Nominal Head Movement. Probus'i, 2 : 101-126. Bernstein, Judy. 1993a. Topics in the syntax of nominal structure across Romance. Ph.D. Dissertation, CUNY. Bernstein, Judy. 1993b. The syntactic role of word markers in null nominal constructions. Probus5: 5-38. Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and Predication. Lingua 18: 1-34. Bosque, Ignacio. 1992. Sobre las diferencias entre los adjetivos relacionales y los calificativos. Ms. Universidad Complutense. Madrid, Spain. Bosque, Ignacio and Carme Picallo.1994. Postnominal adjectives in Spanish Indefinite DPs. Ms. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Spain. Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 4: 591-656. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Browning, M.A. 1992. Adverbial Reflexives in Proceedings o f the 23 North East Linguistic Society 1: 83-94. University of Ottawa. Calvo Perez, Julio. 1993. Pragm aticay gramatica del Quechua Cuzqueho. Cuzco, Peru.: Centro de estudios rurarles andinos Bartolome de Las Casas. Camacho, Jose, Liliana Paredes and Liliana Sanchez. 1995. The genitive clitic and the genitive construction in Andean Spanish. Probus 7: 133-146. Camacho, Jose. 1994. Aspectual licensing of predication in Spanish. Proceedings o f WECOL 26-38. ed. Vida Samian, California State University Fresno. Cerron-Palomino, Rodolfo. 1987. Linguistica Quechua. Cuzco, Peru.: Centro de estudios rurales andinos Bartolome de las Casas. Cerron-Palomino, Rodolfo. 1979. La ensenanza del castellano: deslindes y perspectivas. In E l reto del multilingiiismo en el Peru. 147-166. Lima, Peru.: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Syntactic Structures.The Hague.: Mouton & Co. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on Nominalizations. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, ed. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum, 184-221. Waltham, Mass.-.Ginn. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, Holland.: Foris Publications. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In The View from Building 20 1-52. Ed. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Kayser. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. M IT occasional working papers in linguistics 5. MIT. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Cinque, Guilielmo.1993. On the evidence for partial N movement in the Romance DP. Ms.Universita degli studi di Venezia. Cinque, Guilielmo.1980. On extraction from NP in Italian. Journal o f Italian Linguistics 5:47- 99. Cole, Peter, Wayne Harbert and Gabriella Hermon. 1982. Headless relative clauses in Quechua. IJAL 48, 2: 113-124 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 290 Cole, Peter.1987. The structure o f internally headed relative clauses. NLLT 5 : 277-302 Contreras, Heles. 1989. On Spanish empty N’ and N*. In Studies in Romance Linguistics 83-95 ed. by Carl Kirschner and Janet De Cesaris. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Crisma, Paola. 1993. On adjective Placement in Romance and Germanic Event Nominals. In R ivistadi Grammatica Generativa 18: 61-100. Cusihuaman, Antonio. 1976. Gramatica Quechua:Cuzco-Collao. Lima, Peru.: Ministerio de Education. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Davidson, David. 1967.The logical form of action sentences. In The logic o f Decision and Action 81-95 Pittsburgh.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Demonte, Violeta.1982. El falso problema de la position del adjetivo; dos analisis semanticos. Boletin de la Real Academia Espahola 62: 453-485. Edmondson, Jerold and Frans Plank. 1978. Great Expectations: An Intensive Self Analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 373-413. Escobar, Alberto. 1978. Variaciones sociolinguisticas del castellano en el Peru. Lima, Peru.: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Escobar, Anna Maria. 1994. Andean Spanish and Bilingual Spanish: Linguistic Characteristics. In Language in the Andes. 51-73. Ed. Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, Mario Daniel Martin. University of Delaware. Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory.l-%%. Ed. E. Bach and R. Harris. New York.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Franco, Ion. 1993. On object agreement in Spanish. Doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California. Giorgi Alessandra. and Giusseppe Longobardi .1991. The Syntax o f Noun Phrase: Configuration, Parameters and Empty Categories. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press. Goddenzzi, Juan Carlos. 1991. Discordantias gramaticales del castellano andino en Puno. Lexis 14: 107-118. Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements.73-113. In Universals o f Language, ed. J. Greenberg. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 2nd ed. 1966 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts.: MIT Press. Gueron, Jacqueline. 1985. Inalienable Possession, PRO-Inclusion and Lexical Chains. In Grammatical Representation. 43-86. ed. J.Gueron, H.-G Obenauer, and J.-Y Pollock, Dordrecht,Holland.: Foris. . Harris, James. 1991. The exponence of gender in Spanish. L I 22:27-62 Higginbotham, James. 1985. On Semantics, L I 16: 547-593. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts.: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X Syntax: A study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT Press. Kamp, J. A.W. 1975. Two theories about adjectives. In Formal Semantics o f Natural Language 123-154. Ed. Edward Keenan. London,UK.: Cambridge University Press. Kany, Charles. 1951. American-Spanish Syntax. University of Chicago Press.2nd.ed. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts.: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47:3-31. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry o f Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts.: MIT Press. Kemstens, Johan. 1993. The syntax o f number, person and gender. New Y ork.: Mouton de Gruyter. Kuno, Susumu. 1974. The position of relative clauses and conjunctions, L I 5,1: 117-136. Lamarche, Jacques. 1991. Problems for N°-Movement to NumP. Probus 3,2: 215-236 Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. L I 19: 335-391. Lasersohn, Peter. 1990. Group action and spatio-temporal proximity. Linguistics and Philosophy13, 2: 179-206. Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, Conjunction and Events. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 292 Lebeaux, David. 1986. The interpretation of derived nominals. In CLS 22: 231-247. Lefebvre, Claire. 1980. Cases of lexical complementizers in Cuzco Quechua and the theory of COMP. Journal o f Linguistic Research 1:91-112. Lefebvre, Claire and Pieter Muysken.1989. M ixed Categories. Nominalizations in Quechua. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, Holland. Lema, Jose. 1992. Licensing Conditions on Head Movement. Ph.D.Thesis. University of Ottawa. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport. 1988. Non-event -er nominals: a Probe into Argument Structure. Linguistics 26: 1067-1083 Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and Proper Names. L I 25,4: 609-666. Lozano, A. G. 1975. Syntactic borrowing in Spanish from Quechua: the noun phrase. In Lingiiistica e Indigenismo M odemo de America. Actas y Memorias del XXXIX Congreso Intem acional de Americanistas 5, 297-305. Lima, Peru. :Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Lujan, Marta. 1980. Sintaxisy Semantica delAdjetivo Madrid, Spain.: Catedra. Mallen, Enrique. 1992. The internal structure of Determiner Phrases. Doctoral dissertation. Cornell University Mannheim, Bruce. 1991. The language o f the Inka since the European Invasion. Austin, Texas. :University of Texas Press, Me Cubbing de Kindberg, Mary. 1989. Oraciones relativas y correlativas con el pronombre CHAY en el quechua de Cailloma (Arequipa). In Temas de Lingiiistica Amerindia. 57-67. Ed. Rodolfo Cerron-Palomino, Gustavo Solis Fonseca. Lima, Peru.: CONCYTEC, GTZ. Milner, Jean-Claude.1982. Ordres et raisons de langue, Seuil, Paris. Moltmann, Friederike. 1992. Parts and Wholes in Semantics. Ms. University of California Los Angeles. Moltmann, Friederike. 1994. Together and alone. Ms. University of California Los Angeles. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 293 Morato Pena, Luis. 1981. Runa Simi Basico Qosqo Qollaw. Cusco, Peru.: Instituto de Pastoral Andina. Moravsic, Edith. 1972. Some crosslinguistic generalizations about intensifier constructions. CLS, 8: 271-277. Muysken, Pieter. 1993. Inflection and agreement properties of Quantifiers in Quechua. In Language in the Andes. 190-204. Ed. by Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon and Mario Daniel Martin. University of Delaware. Paredes, Liliana. 1994. Andean Spanish corpus. Ms. University of Southern California. Paredes, Liliana. 1996. Clitics in Andean Spanish. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Southern California. Picallo, M. Carme. 1991. Nominals and Nominalization in Catalan. Probus 3,3: 279-316. Plann, Susan. 1980. Relative Clauses in Spanish without overt antecedents and related constructions. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. Primus, Beatrice. 1991. Selbst-Variants of a scalar adverb in German. Linguistiscke Berichte 54-88. Randall^ J. 1984. Grammatical information in word structure. Roundtable on Word Formation and Meaning II. Quademi di Semantica 5: 313-330. Rappaport, Malka and Beth Levin. 1989. -Er Nominals: Implications for the theory of Argument structure. In Syntax and the Lexicon. Syntax and Semantics 24: 127- 153. Ed. E. Wherli and Tim Stowell. New York.: Academic Press. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1988. A head-movement approach to construct-state noun phrases. Linguistics 26: 909-929. Rivero, Maria Luisa. 1982. Las relativas restrictivas con OUE. Nueva Revista de Filologia Hispanica. TomoXXXI,2: 195-234. Riviere, Claude. 1983. Modal Adjectives: Transformation, synonymy and complementation. Lingua 59:1-45. Ronat, Mitsou .1977. Une contrainte sur Feffacement du nom. In Langue:Theorie generative etendue. 153-169. ed.M. Ronat. Paris.: Collection Savoir. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 294 Rooth, Matt. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Rothstein, Susan. 1983. The syntactic forms of predication. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1972. Theorie syntaxique et syntaxe du franfais. Paris.: Seuil. Safir, Kenneth. 1987. The syntactic projection of lexical thematic structure. NLLT 5 :561- 601. Safir, Kenneth. 1995. Semantic Atoms of Anaphora. Ms. Rutgers University. Sanchez, Liliana. 1994. On the interpretation of intensified DPs and Emphatic Pronouns. In Issues and Theory in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIII. 479-491. Ed. M.Mazzola. Georgetown University Press. Sanchez, Liliana. 1995. Aspectual adjectives and the structure of DP and VP. Probus 7.167- 180. Sanchez, Liliana. In Press. Word Order, Predication and Agreement in DPs in Spanish, Southern Quechua and Southern Andean Bilingual Spanish. In Current issues in Linguistic Theory.Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXV. John Benjamins. Sanchez Lopez, Cristina. 1993. La cuantificacion flotante y estructuras conexas. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Schroten, Jan. 1987.Gramatica generativa y gramatica estructural en el analisis de las clausulas relativas en espahol. Nueva Revista de Filologia Hispanica. 35,1: 37- 110 Schwarzchild, Roger. 1993. Plurals, Presuppositions and the Sources of Distributivity. Ms. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Siegel, Muffy. 1976. Capturing the adjective. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts. Sola, Jaume. 1993. A uniform analysis for SELF elements. Ms. Rijkuniversiteit Groningen. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 295 Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425-450. % Sportiche, Dominique. 1994. Adjuncts and adjunctions. Paper presented at the 24th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. USC-UCLA, Los Angeles, 1994. Suner, Margarita. 1983-1984. Free relatives and the matching parameter. The Linguistic Review 3: 363-387. Szabolsci, Ana .1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3, 89-102. Torrego, Esther. 1984. Determinerless NPs. Ms. University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts. Torrego, Esther. 1988. Evidence for Determiner Phrases.Ms. University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts. Travis, Lisa .1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Travis, Lisa. 1992. Derived objects, inner aspect, and the structure of VP. Paper presented at 21 Conference of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. 1991. Valderrama, Ricardo and Carmen Escalante. 1982. Autobiografia de Gregorio Condori Mamani.Cuzco, Peru.: Centro de estudios rurales andinos Bartolome de las Casas. Valois, Daniel.1991. The internal syntax of DP. Doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger.1974. French relative clauses. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 595- 692. Weber, David. 1976. Los sufijos posesivos en el quechua del Huallaga (Huanuco). Documentos de trabajo 12. Yarinacocha, Peru.:Instituto Linguistico de Verano. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Weber, David. 1983. Relativization and Nominalized Clauses in Huallaga (Huanuco) Quechua. UC Publications in Linguistics, 103. Berkeley, California.: University o f California Press. Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic Structure in Syntax.Cambridge, Massachusetts.: MIT Press. Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. U 11.1: 203-238. Wolck, Wolfgang. 1969. Especificacion y Foco en Quechua. Lima, Peru.:Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Centro de Investigation de Lingiiistica Aplicada. Wolck, Wolfgang. 1987. Pequeho Breviario Quechua. Lima, Peru.: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Zagona, Karen. 1994. Perfectivity and Temporal Arguments.523-546. In Issues and Theory in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIII. Ed. M.Mazzola. Georgetown University Press. Zamparelli, Roberto. 1993. Pre-nominal Modifiers, Degree Phrases and the Structure of DP. University o f Venice Working Papers in Linguistics. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1979. Extraction from NP and a reformulation of subjacency. Ms. MIT, Cambridge, Masachussets. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1987. Levels o f Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax Dordrecht, Holland.: Foris. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Definiteness types in Spanish: A study of natural discourse

PDF

The Spanish continuum in Peruvian bilingual speakers: A study of verbal clitics

PDF

A comparative study of focus constructions

PDF

Encoding of politeness in Spanish and Polish: a cross-linguistic study

PDF

Causativity in Korean: Syntactic causative, control, and purpose

PDF

Representation of focus and presupposition in Japanese

PDF

On the syntactic structure of Spanish noun phrases

PDF

Rhetorical abstraction as a facet of expected response: A structural equation modeling analysis

PDF

The syntax of focus and topic in Mandarin Chinese

PDF

The accidence and syntax in john Wallis' 1653 "grammatica linguae anglicanae": a translation and a commentary on its alleged relationship to the 1660 port-royal "grammaire generale et raisonnee"

PDF

The syntax of the Chinese BA-constructions and verb compounds: A morphosyntactic analysis

PDF

Morpheme recognition in prosodic morphology

PDF

The syntax of clitic doubling in modern Greek

PDF

A critical edition of the Escorial manuscript of 'historia de los indios de la neuva espana' of fray toribio de benavente (motolinia) (spanish text)

PDF

Emotions: Linguistic representation and cultural conceptualization

PDF

Morphology and the lexicon: Exploring the semantics-phonology interface

PDF

On the status of possessives

PDF

Language services planning in the banking industry: An example of unplanned language policy

PDF

A variationist study of relative clauses in Spanish

PDF

Intra-lexical noun-verb dissociations: Evidence from Chinese aphasia

Asset Metadata

Creator Sanchez, Liliana (author)

Core Title Syntactic structures in nominals: A comparative study of Spanish and Southern Quechua

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Linguistics

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag language, linguistics,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-506372

Unique identifier UC11350188

Identifier 9636744.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-506372 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9636744.pdf

Dmrecord 506372

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Sanchez, Liliana

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA