Abstract
Chapter 6 explores the syntax-interpretation interface through phi-mismatches: arguments like French on 'we', with one set of phi-features, 1PL, for interpretation, another, 3SG, uninterpretable, for phenomena such as concord. The uninterpretable phi-features are shown to play a role in syntax, not realizational morphology alone. Therefore, the syntactic phi-specifications of some arguments and their dependencies are autonomous of interpretation, along with expletives, phi-agreement, Case and A-movement. The person of the person interactions in Chapter 4 is among them. The diachronic sources, syntactic properties, and eventual elimination of these uninterpretable phi-features are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Also illustrated in (11) is Sauerland's proposal that plural is underspecified, and so may refer to atoms to avoid the gender presuppositions associated with the more specified singular.
- 2.
These considerations seem serious obstacles to the view of grammatical gender as purely syntactic, uninterpretable, and deleted by LF (Rezac 2004a: 28, Bošković 2009). One could remove arbitrary gender from interpretation if phi-matching in anaphora were extralinguistic, of the same kind as the reference to linguistic properties in the trochaic foot ending of the last-mentioned epicene feminine noun, but that seems implausible (cf. Lewis 1972: 195). Sauerland (2007) proposes that arbitrary gender matching occurs through semantic identity conditions on the ellipsis of the definite descriptions that give rise to pronouns. This intriguing proposal would remove arbitrary gender from interpretation, provided the conditions work out. However, it seems not to allow for mismatches with arbitrary gender that go to another arbitrary gender, as for Serbo-Croatian braća ‘brothers' in Table 6.1, nor the impossibility of using the semantic gender, as for laideron in (18) or in Serbo-Croatian under the conditions discussed by Wechsler and Zlatić. The relevant ellipsis might be made sensitive to morphological identity instead, raising issues for indirect licensing (Fiengo and May 1994, Fox 2000, Sauerland 2004, 2007). Wechsler and Zlatić (1998) present evidence that arbitrary gender does matter in sloppy identity.
- 3.
Kayne reduces the set of phenomena by giving floating quantifiers a silent pronoun in this case.
- 4.
My presentation follows principally Creissels (2008b).
- 5.
Son/sa/ses is syncretic with the 3SG possessive, but on cannot otherwise antecede 3SG pronouns. The strong pronoun soi is as anaphor limited to on and arbitrary PRO for most speakers in current French; at a more literary level it can also be bound by quantifiers, older still by non-quantifiers (Zribi-Hertz 2008: 612f., Grevisse and Goosse 2008: 664, Kayne 1975: 5.1).
- 6.
Register is important; in (20) replacing nous soyons sages by nous aillions traîre les vaches ‘we go milk the cows' is ungrammatical, since aillions go.1PL.SUBJ is not found in the same register as 1PL on (it is fine with quasi-existential on).
- 7.
Creissels (2008b) describes the restriction of 1PL on to nous-type anaphora situation (cf. Taylor 2009 on Brazilian Portuguese a gente below). However, Morin (1982: 25 note 9) observes that some speakers also allow soi-type anaphora, as in (ia). I have found both grammars. Speakers with (ia) seem to permit mixing of the nous and soi-type anaphora, as in the rest of (i). The on in (i) is the 1PL on, since the quasi-universal on is incompatible with left-dislocated pronouns (cf. Morin 1982: 15 note 2) and plain episodic contexts (Creissels 2008b). Speakers with this pattern, like others, cannot use soi-anaphors for pronouns other than on, including nous. (One thinks of Cinque's 1988: 3.4 suggestions about the emergence of 1PL readings from the other readings of Italian si, but the anaphora in that case are 1PL. I am grateful to M. Jouitteau for discussion.)
(i)
a Ils ne sauraient pas revenir, mais nousi / *vousi / [lui et moi/*toi]i,
They would not know how to return, but wei / *youi / [he and I/*you]i
quand oni perd notrei/(*)soni chemin, oni finit toujours par le retrouver.
when we (on i) loses ouri/(*)son i way, we (on i) always ends up finding it again.7
b Nousi, quand oni a perdu notrei/(*)son i chemin dans le bois, on l'a retrouvé.
Wei, when on i lost ouri/son i way in the woods, on i found it again.
c [Toi et moi]i, oni s i 'écoute nousi-mêmes/(*)soii-même.
[You and me]i, on i se i listens.to ouri-selves/(*)soi i-self.
d Nousi, oni finira notrei/(*)sai vie dans notrei lit.
Wei, wei (on) will finish ouri/(*)son i life in ouri bed.
- 8.
Quasi-universal on can relate to other quasi-universal pronouns at a distance, as in English (i); in French they are nous ‘we', vous ‘you(PL)', but not te ‘you(SG)', suggesting a basic plurality to on (Morin 1978: 364, 1982: 14 note 1, Oukada 1982: 103, 105, Creissels 2008b: 5.4, Kayne 1975: 172 note 123, 2000: 184 note 50, Grevisse and Goosse 2008: §574(e)). In ‘simulations' of the type (ii), both the 1PL and quasi-universal on appear in French, as can be seen from the linked pronouns (cf. Morin 1978: 4.2, 1982: 14f., Oukada 1982, Creissels 2008b: 6.2.3).
(i)
We all have to adjust to a new culture. At first you really have to watch yourself/*oneself. You/one can easily get in trouble.
(cf. Wechsler and Zlatić 2000: 804)
(ii)
a Alors, oni ne pense qu' à soii/nousi/*toii?
So, we/onei (on) think(s) only about oneselfi/ourselvesi/*yourselfi?
b (*Et toii/vousi,)
oni sei croit
loyal
(*And you(SG/PL),) onei (=you) believes oneselfi/oneselvesi loyal.SG
à sesi/leurs*i/*vosi principes?
to onei's/their*i/*youri principles?
- 9.
- 10.
There exist similar phi-feature transmissions that are candidates for morphology, as in (i), where the plural object clitic anomalously controls subject agreement (a grammaticality judgment for some, although usually a production error, as in Franck et al. 2010; for similar phenomena, see Harris and Halle 2005, Kayne and Pollock 2008).
(i)
Le professeur les prend/(*)prennent pour de cons!
The professor them.ACC (les) take.SG/PL (prend/prennent) for idiots!
- 11.
The nous object clitic is fine if disjoint to a quasi-universal/existential rather than 1PL on controller, as expected. It also improves under deeper embedding even for 1PL on, as Kayne (2007) points out for (23)c, perhaps to be related to partial control discussed in Landau (2000) or the je…nous phenomenon discussed in Rooryck (2006). It seems wholly unavailable for certain interpretation (On va se/* nous suivre ‘We are going to follow each other’) and for inherent se (On a essayé de s´/* nous attaquer au probléme ‘We tried to attack the problem’)Uncontrolled arbitrary PRO appears to have the same possibilities as in English, e.g. Before PRO arb descending oneself/yourself/ourselves, it is necessary to inspect the rope (oneself = French se/soi-type).
- 12.
The mechanism may appear to be counter-cyclic: the matrix T-subject Agree determines the value of T-PRO Agree that determines the value of PRO-T and T-se Agree. That need be no more than appearance. Under the proposal of Frampton and Gutmann (2000) and Pesetsky and Torrego (2006), Agree collapses the phi-sets it relates into a single multiply linked object. Embedded T-PRO and T-se Agree links the features of T, PRO, se into a single object; Agree between the matrix T and PRO adds to it the phi-features of matrix T; and finally matrix T-subject Agree values the phi-features of this single object at all the positions to which it is linked.
- 13.
The same facts hold of expletive constructions, see Fauconnier (1974: 214).
- 14.
The same is true of overlapping reference, ruling out 1SG local object clitics in *On m'a tous choisi pour nous réprenter ‘We (on) all chose me to represent us'; see Section 4.4.
- 15.
- 16.
The number of on also suggests an uninterpretable SG value. 1PL on necessarily includes more than one entity. However, it controls plural or singular participles and predicate adjectives agreement in (i), reminiscent of The committee i has i / % have i made its i /their i choice (Sauerland and Elbourne 2002), or Someone i said % he i / % they i saw her (Sauerland 2008). However on can have singular adjectives in (i), (ii) with all or with be similar/equal, where plural agreement is required for committee and someone (cf. Winter 2002: 500 note 6, Kayne 2007: note 5) (so Grevisse and Goose 2008: §438b; many speakers do then require plural, cf. (ii)). Yet participle and predicate adjective number/gender agreement in French is ordinarily semantic rather than syntactic, e.g. singular for 2PL as 2SG polite and 1PL for 1SG authorial (Wechsler 2004, Corbett 2000; Grevisse and Goosse 2008: §438a).
Similar issues may arise for plural predicate adjective agreement with quasi-universal se/si, optional in French, obligatory in Italian, impossible in Spanish (Mendikoetxea 2008: 296), as well as 1PL a gente in (29), agreeing optionally for plural in BPP' and not at all in BPP. In a syntactic solution, D'Alessandro (2004) proposes a syntactic PL phi-specification dedicated to concord for Italian si, cf. the work of Wechsler and Zlatić in Section 6.2. However, there are diverse types of interpretive plurality to be considered (Corbett 2000; Kratzer 2009, Sauerland 2008, Heim 2008, Harbour 2008, Rullmann 2004, Chierchia 1998, forthcoming). Particularly relevant may be 1st/2nd vs. 3rd splits for number agreement, for object clitics in Romance (optional vs. obligatory in Italian, Belletti 2005: 2.2, impossible vs. optional in Catalan, Muxí 1996), and for subject-verb agreement (obligatory vs. impossible across Basque dialects, Rezac 2006: 1.2.2.3).
(i)
Oni est (tousi) égal/égaux (à nosi rois).
on is all equal.SG/PL to our kings
We are (all) equal.SG/PL (to our kings)
(ii)
Toi et moi, on se croit égaux / égal.
You and I, we believe ourselves equal.PL/SG
((ii): from the questionnaire of Chapter 4, égal (SG) for 4/11, égaux (PL) 11/11)
- 17.
For contentless expletives such as there or the it of seem, (i), see Abney (1987: 209 note 58), Chomsky (1986b: 92); cf. Kayne (1979, 2008: 202), Safir (1982: 2.4.2), Ruwet (1991: 3.6.2). The behaviour of idiom chunk DPs is complex, subtle, and varied (Ruwet 1991, Nunberg, Wasow and Sag 1994, Schenk 1995, Horn 2003). The pertinent class participates in Agree/Case, often in A-movement, but not even in relativization, pronominal anaphora, or control of PRO within the same idioms, as in (ii, iii). In English these include also make short work of, take the rap, throw cold water on; see e.g. Postal (1974: 34f., 2003: 52, 127–132), Lasnik and Fiengo (1974: 540–2), Fiengo (1974: 51–7), Chomsky (1981: 223f. n. 20, 309, 327, 345 n. 5), Bresnan (1982: 46–49), Davison (1984: 815f.), Sailer (2003: 6.2), Horn (2003: 261f.). This class of idioms belies attempts to link EPP/A-movement to ‘referential autonomy' or other independently detectable notion of content on part of the idiom chunk. (The tag hasn't it in (i) illustrates that a pronoun may stand for the idiom chunk, but perhaps through repetition + ellipsis: cf. There is a book on the table, isn't there?).
(i)
It was likely/*seemed, without PRO being obvious, that Kate won.
(ii)
Muchi seems to have been made of the inscription, hasn't iti, without *PROi/*iti/much being made of the context.
(iii)
[The ice that was easy to break last week] will not be (easy to break) this week. (literal only)
- 18.
Section 6.5 returns to lo (*…a usted) of (37)b.
- 19.
There are differences, for instance in the use of se for or in combination with 1st/2nd person reflexives (Bonet 1991: 119f., 138f. on Catalan varieties). They do not appear to correlate with variation for the PCC which segregates systems superficially similar to French.
- 20.
Strictly, we should like to examine contexts with a PCC repair, such as those in Section 4.5.
- 21.
For the present discussion, it seems immaterial whether there are to be distinguished middle and impersonal passive constructions. In both prototypical middle and impersonal passive uses (They always sell easily, One sold them yesterday), the French mediopassive appears to have an impersonal arbitrary human agent (Zribi-Hertz 2009), and in both the person restriction holds and is obviated as described below. It only disappears once one moves to the purely intransitive (anticausative) or transitive reflexive readings of se-constructions.
- 22.
However, D'Alessandro and Mendikoetxea are discussing impersonal passives where se/si remains invariable regardless of the person of the subject, unlike reflexive se/si that varies according to the person of the subject, e.g. 3rd se/si but 1st me/mi (R. D'Alessandro p.c.). The obviation of the person restriction in French below must use the agreeing reflexive form. For similar mediopassive restrictions and exceptions, see Fried (2004: 634), Medová (2009: 7.5, 9.3) on Czech, Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 4.7.4) on Basque, and Section 5.6 on Finnish.
- 23.
Postal (1989: 104) reports (47)c to be “extremely strained” beside the counterfactual and dream contexts, but some find the former easy, and some find the latter quite difficult.
- 24.
Ruwet (1990: 52) proposes that French impostors may cede control of the centre of consciousness, explaining why in (i) the impostor votre serviteur but not the 1st pronoun can be picked up by a genitive clitics. However, apparently, idiot, left/right are controllable by the impostor in mediopassives (49)c and in (i) (cf. Collins and Postal (2008) for impostors anteceding the self-type pronouns that Zribi-Hertz 1989 shows to depend on the centre of consciousness in English). I am grateful to A. Zribi-Hertz for making available to me the draft of Ruwet's article which contains the footnotes removed in the published version, and for discussion.
(i)
{Le précepteur de votre serviteuri} / {*Moni précepteur} croit que Sophie en i est amoureuse.
{The tutor of yours trulyi} / {*Myi tutor} believes that Sophie is enamoured of.him i.
(Ruwet 1990: 52 note 31; “moderately acceptable”, unclear for Bibi ‘number one')
- 25.
All participants in the questionnaire of Chapter 4 found (54)b sharply ungrammatical, while the status of (54)a ranges from the same scores (most speakers) to perfect.
- 26.
Rezac and Jouitteau (in prep.) find that 7/15 speakers find amelioration from 0 to 5–8 on a 10-point scale in (55)a by adding the dream context, others (virtually) none. Further inquiries suggest that speakers who find improvement in (53)a also find good (53)b and have easier access to 1/2.ACC 3.DAT clitic clusters in the ECM constructions discussed Chapter 4, Appendix 1.
- 27.
An example not mentioned in the references is overlapping reference. We elected me is relatively acceptable in English under the group reading of we, but not to most French speakers when we and me are replaced by subject and object clitics (Section 4.4), and not at all to Basque speakers when we and me are replaced by agreement morphemes (cf. Rhodes 1993).
- 28.
Other PF channels of phi-reanalysis exist, e.g. French laideron 'ugly woman', originally feminine but apparently turned masculine by the pressure nouns ending in -(er)on.
References
Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Aissen, Judith. 1997. On the syntax of obviation. Language 73: 705–750.
Albizu, Pablo. 1997a. Generalized Person-Case Constraint: A case for a syntax-driven inflectional morphology. In Theoretical issues on the morphology-syntax interface, ed. Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Amaya Mendikoetxea, 1–33. Donostia: UPV/EHU.
Albizu, Pablo. 1997b. The syntax of person agreement. Los Angeles, CA: Ms., University of Southern California.
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, and Wendy Sandler. 2005. The paradox of Sign Language morphology. Language 81: 301–44.
Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, ed. Anna-Teresa Pérez-Leroux and Yves Roberge, 49–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35–73.
Belletti, Adriana. 2005. (Past) participle agreement. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, vol. 3, case 48. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bever, Thomas G. 2009. Remarks on the individual basis for linguistic structures. In Of minds and language, ed. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Juan Uriagereka, and Pello Salaburu, 278–298. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 1978. A propos des traits sémantiques utilisés en syntaxe: Critique du trait ‘+/−humain'. Cahier de linguistique 8: 1–15.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky Agreement. Studia Linguistica 54: 354–380.
Bonami, Olivier, Danièle Godard and Jean-Marie Marandin. 1999. Constituency and word order in French subject inversion. In Constraints and resources in natural language syntax and semantics, ed. Gosse Bouma, Erhard Hinrichs, Geert-Jan M. Kruijff and Richard Oehrle, 21–40. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Bonami, Olivier, and Danièle Godard. 2001. Inversion du sujet, constituance et ordre des mots. In Cahier Jean-Claude Milner, ed. Jean-Marie Marandin, 117–174. Paris: Verdier.
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1995a. Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 607–647.
Boroditsky, Lera, Lauren A. Schmidt, and Webb Phillips. 2003. Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Language in mind, ed. Gentner, Dedre, and Susan Goldin Meadow, 61–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 455–496.
Brandt, Patrick. 2003. Constructing cipient predication. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht: LOT.
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63: 741–782.
Burston, Jack L. 1983. Clitic object sequences and cooccurrence restrictions in French. Linguistic Analysis 11: 247–75.
Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia. 2003. Arbitrary readings of third person plural pronominals. In Proceedings of the conference ''sub7 - Sinn und Bedeutung, ed. Matthias Weisgerber, 81–94. Konstanz: Konstanz University.
Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia. 2008. Les pronoms impersonnels humains - syntaxe et interprétation. Modèles Linguistiques XXIX–1, 57: 35–56.
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2008. On different types of clitic clusters. In The Bantu-Romance connection, ed Cécile De Cat and Katherine Demuth, 41–82. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. In Natural Language and Semantics 6: 339–405.
Chierchia, Gennaro. forthcoming. Mass nouns, vagueness, and semantic variation. Synthese.
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Questions of form and interpretation. In Scope of American linguistics, 159–196. Lisse: The Peter De Ridder Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. Essays on form and interpretation. New York: North Holland.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000a. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000b. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521–581.
Collins, Christopher, and Paul Postal. 2008. Imposters. Ms., New York University.
Corbett, Greville. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creissels, Denis. 2008a. Impersonal and related constructions: a typological approach. New York: Ms., Université de Lyon.
Creissels, Denis. 2008b. Impersonal pronouns and coreference: The case of French on. Lyon: Ms., Université de Lyon.
Cysouw, Michael. 2005. Honorific uses of clusivity. In Clusivity, ed. Elena Filimonova. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
D'Alessandro, Roberta. 2004. Impersonal si constructions. Doctoral dissertation, Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
D’Alessandro, Roberta, and Artemis Alexiadou. 2006. The syntax of the indefinite pronoun nome. Probus 18: 189–218.
Davison, Alice. 1984. Syntactic markedness and the definition of sentence topic. Language 60: 797–846.
Egerland, Verner. 2003. Impersonal pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71: 75–102.
Espinal, M. Teresa. 2007. Clitic incorporation and abstract semantic objects in idiomatic constructions. Spain: Ms., Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1974. La coréference: Syntaxe ou sémantique? Paris: Seuil.
Fiengo, Robert. 1974. Semantic conditions on Surface Structure. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frampton, John, and Sam Gutmann. 2000. Agreement is feature sharing. Ms. Northeastern University. Boston. On-line: http://www.math.neu.edu/ling/pdffiles/agrisfs.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2010.
Franck, Julie, Gabriela Soare, Ulrich H. Frauenfelder, and Luigi Rizzi. 2010. Object interference in subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 62: 166–182.
Fried, Myriam. 2004. Czech reflexivization and the invariance principle revisited. The Slavic and East European Journal 48: 627–653.
Fuß, Eric. 2005. The rise of agreement. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
García, Erica C. 2002. Deconstructed morphology vs. con-structive syntax. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 103: 73–101.
Gentner, Dedre, and Susan Goldin Meadow. 2003. Language in mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grevisse, Maurice, and André Goosse. 2008. Le bon usage. 14th edition. Bruxelles: De Boeck & Larcier.
Harbour, Daniel. 2008. Morphosemantic number. Dordrecht: Springer.
Harris, James, and Moris Halle. 2005. Unexpected plural inflection in Spanish: Reduplication and metathesis. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 195–222.
Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenossischen Forschung, ed. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 487–535. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Heim, Irene. 2008. Features on bound pronouns. In Phi theory, ed. Daniel , David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 35–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heim, Irine, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–593.
Higginbotham, James. 1991. The autonomy of syntax and semantics. In Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language, ed. Jay L. Garfield, 119–131. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hinzen, Wolfram. 2006. Mind design and minimal syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmberg, Anders. forthcoming. The null generic subject pronoun in Finnish. In Passives and impersonals in European languages, ed. Elsi Kaiser, Satu Mannien, Katri Hiietam, and Virve Vihman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horn, George M. 2003. Idioms, metaphors, and syntactic mobility. Journal of Linguistics 39: 245–273.
Hualde, José Ignacio, and Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1992. Mme. Tussaud meets the Binding Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 1–31.
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard. 1979. Rightward NP movement in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 710–719.
Kayne, Richard. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 2007. Some silent first person plurals. MS., New York University.
Kayne, Richard S. 2008. Expletives, datives, and the tension between morphology and syntax. In The limits of syntactic variation, ed. Teresa Biberauer. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kayne, Richard, and Jean-Yves Pollock. 2008. Toward an analysis of French hyper-complex inversion. In Functional heads, ed. Laura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro and Cecilia Poletto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 187–237.
Laenzlinger, Christopher. 1993. A syntactic view of Romance pronominal sequences. Probus 5: 241–270.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, antitopic, and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 877–924.
Larrivée, Pierre. 1994. Quelques hypothèses sur les structures syntaxique et sémantique de Ce fripon de valet. Revue québécoise de linguistique 23: 101–113.
Lasnik, Howard, and Robert Fiengo. 1974. Complement Object Deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 535–572.
Lehmann, Christian. 2002. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, University of Erfurt.
Lewis, David. 1972. General semantics. In Semantics of natural language, ed. Gilbert Harman and Donald Davidson, 169–218. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Maier, Emar. 2006. Belief in context. Doctoral dissertation, Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.
McGilvray, James. 1998. Meanings are syntactically individuated and found in the head. Mind and Language 13: 225–80.
Medová, Lucie. 2009. Reflexive clitics in the Slavic and Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 2008. Clitic impersonal constructions in Romance. Transactions of the Philological Society 106: 290–336.
Moltmann, Friederike. 2006. Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. Natural Language Semantics 14: 257–281.
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1978. Interprétation des pronoms et des réfléchis en français. In Cahier de linguistique 8: 337–76.
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1982. De quelques [l] non étymologiques dans le français du Québec: notes sur les clitiques et la liaison. Revue québecoise de linguistique 11: 9–47.
Muxí, Isabel. 1996. Optional participial agreement with direct object clitics in Catalan. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 127–145.
Nichols, Lynn. 2001. The syntactic basis of referential hierarchy phenomena. Lingua 111: 515–537.
Noyer, Rolf R. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics 12: 109–113.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 2004a. Descriptive indexicals and indexical descriptions. In Descriptions and beyond, ed. Marga Reimer and Anne Bezuidenhout, 261–279. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 2004b. The pragmatics of deferred interpretation. In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 343–364. Oxford: Blackwell.
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70: 491–538.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2007. Object agreement restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 315–347.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2009. Problems in microvariation in the clitic system. Handout from European Research Nets in Lingusitics - 3rd workshop, Basque: University of the Basque Country, Oct. 29–30 2009.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2010a. Object clitics and agreement. Ms., University of the Basque Country and Universidad de Extremadura. On-line: ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001013. Accessed on September 9, 2010.
Oukada, Larbi. 1982. On on. The French Review 56: 93–105.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2006. Probes, goals and syntactic categories. Boston: Ms., MIT and the University of Massachusetts.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. forthcoming. Case. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic Minimalism, ed. Cedric Boeckx. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pietroski, Paul. 2005. Meaning before truth. In Contextualism in philosophy, ed. Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peters, 253–300. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Postal, Paul M. 1989. Masked inversion in French. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Postal, Paul M. 2003. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17: 409–441.
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reuland, Eric. 2006. Agreeing to bind. In Organizing grammar, ed. Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, and Ursula Kleinhenz, 505–513. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rezac, Milan. 2004a. Elements of cyclic syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Toronto, ON: University of Toronto.
Rezac, Milan. 2006. Agreement displacement in Basque. Ms., University of the Basque Country. On-line: www.umr7023.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article675. Accessed on September 9, 2010.
Rezac, Milan. 2008c. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and Absolutive Displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 61–106.
Rezac, Milan. 2010a. Ineffability through modularity: Gaps in French clitic clusters. In Defective paradigms, ed. Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett and Dunstan Brown, 151–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rezac, Milan. 2010b. Phi-Agree vs. movement: Evidence from floating quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 496–508.
Rezac, Milan. forthcoming. Person restrictions in Basque intransitives. Lapurdum.
Rezac, Milan, and Mélanie Jouitteau. in prep. Animacy and the Person Case Constraint. Ms., UMR 7023 CNRS/Université de Paris 8 and UMR 7110 CNRS/Université de Paris 8.
Rhodes, Richard. 1993. Syntax vs. morphology: A chicken and egg problem. Proceedings of BLS 19, Special session on syntactic issues in Native American languages, 139–147. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Rivero, María Luisa. 2004. Spanish quirky subjects, person restrictions, and the Person-Case Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 494–502.
Rivero, Maria Luisa. 2008. Oblique subjects and person restrictions in Spanish: A morphological approach. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Roberta D'Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 215–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.
Rooryck, Johan. 2006. Binding into pronouns. Lingua 116: 1561–1579.
Rullman, Hotze. 2004. First and second pronouns as bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 159–68.
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1990. En et y: deux clitiques pronominaux anti-logophoriques. Langages 97: 51–81.
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1991. Syntax and human experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Safir, Kenneth. 1982. Syntactic chains and the Definiteness Effect. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Sailer, Manfred. 2003. Combinatorial semantics and idiomatic expressions in Head-Drive Phrase Structure Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Tübingen: Universität Tübingen.
Sandfeld, Kristian. 1970 [1928]. Syntaxe du francais contemporain I: les pronoms. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.
Sauerland, Uli. 2004. The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics 12: 63–127.
Sauerland, Uli. 2007. Flat binding. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, ed. Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 197–253. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sauerland, Uli. 2008. On the semantic markedness of phi-features. In Phi Theory, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger and Susana Béjar, 57–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sauerland, Uli, and Paul Elbourne. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319.
Schenk, André. 1995. The syntactic behavior of idioms. In Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives, ed. Martin Everaert et al., 253–71. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2005. Person and binding (A partial survey). Los Angeles, CA/Paris: Ms., University of California and Institut Jean-Nicod.
Seuren, Pieter. 2005. Meaning: Cognitive dependency of lexical meaning. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, ed. Keith Brown, 575–577. Oxford: Elsevier.
Sigurðsson, Halldór A´rmann. 2004. The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 219–251.
Speas, Margaret, and Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In: Asymmetry in grammar, vol 1: Syntax and Semantics, ed. Anna-Maria Disciullo, 315–343. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Taylor, Michael. 2009. On the pronominal status of Brazilian Portuguese a gente. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 2. On-line: linguistics.as.nyu.edu/object/linguistics.grad.nyuwpl.
Wanner, Dieter. 1977. On the order of clitics in Italian. Lingua 43: 101–128.
Ward, Gregory. 2004. Equatives and deferred reference. Language 80: 262–289.
Wechsler, Stephen. 2004. Number as person. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 5, ed. Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, 255–274. On-line: www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss5/ Accessed on September 9, 2010.
Wechsler, Stephen, and Larisa Zlatić. 1998. Agreement in discourse. Proceedings of the Conference on the Structure of Non-narrative Texts. Austin: University of Texas.
Wechsler, Stephen, and Larisa Zlatić. 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language 76: 799–832.
Wechsler, Stephen, and Larisa Zlatić. 2003. The many faces of agreement. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Wiltschko, Martina. 2003. On the interpretability of Tense on D and its consequences for Case theory. Lingua 113: 659–696.
Winter, Yoad. 2002. Atoms and sets: A characterization of semantic number. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 493–505.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1982. La construction ‘se moyen' du français et son statut dans le triangle: Moyen-passif-réfléchi. Lingvisticae Investigationes 6: 345–401.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1989. Anaphor binding and narrative point of view. Language 65: 695–727.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2009. Syntax at the interfaces: On the restricted productivity of the French mediopassive within the Romance family. Ms., Université de Paris 8 / UMR 7023.
Zweig, Eytan. 2008. Dependent plurals and plural meaning. Doctoral dissertation, New York: New York University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rezac, M. (2010). Phi in Syntax and Phi Interpretation. In: Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of Language. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 81. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9698-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9698-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9697-5
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9698-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)