Choosing Goals Javier Ormazabal 1 2 & Juan Romero 3 2

BCGL6: Configurations of Agreement Brussels, December 19-20, 2011 Choosing Goals Javier Ormazabal 1 2 & Juan Romero 3 2 1. Introduction Syntactic approaches to agreement constitute a challenge to the current minimalist assumption that syntactic relations are organized around the feature requirements of an attracting head. This challenge has two different sides. On the one hand, defective intervention in contexts such as (1) (1) [X... [Z... [Y ]]] For the purposes of this talk we are going to let this issue aside. The second side constitutes the main topic of this talk. We are concerned here with cases where there is no grammatical output because some interpretable features seem to require entering into an agreement relation, as stated, for instance in Bejar & Rezac's Person Licensing Condition: (2) Person Licensing Condition (PLC): Interpretable 1 st /2 nd person features must be licensed by entering into an Agree relation with an appropriate functional category. 2. Different Goals, Different Results. Preminger s (2011) theory of agreement: (3) i. relativized probing: the φ-probe only searches for a goal with certain features ii. feature valuation relativized to different feature geometric configurations iii. no multiple agreement with the same probe [independently argued for] Kaqchikel (Kichean language; data from Preminger 2011, ch. 2. and references therein): a) Regular transitive (ergative-absolutive) pattern: (4) a. rat x- - - -aw- -axa-j ri achin you(sg) PRFV-3sgABS-2sgERG-hear-ACT the man You heard the man b. ri achin x- -a- -r -axa -j rat the man PRFV-2sgABS-3sgERG-hear-ACT you The man heard you [Preminger 2011, ex. (16)] - Two agreement markers (ergative and absolutive) two agreement positions two verb-argument relations; 1 Dept. of Linguistics and Basque Studies (HEIS), University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), javier.ormazabal@ehu.es 2 Group of Theoretical Linguistics (HiTT) 3 Dept. of Spanish Philology, University of Extremadura (UNEX), juantxoromero@gmail.com

BCGL6: Configurations of Agreement 2 b) Agent-Focus Construction (omnivorous agreement): (5) a. ja rat x- -at /*Ø -axa-n ri achin FOC you(sg.) prfv-2sg/*3sg.abs-hear-af the man It was you(sg.) that heard the man. b. ja ri achin x- -at /*Ø -axa-n rat FOC the man prfv-2sg/*3sg.abs-hear-af you(sg.) It was the man that heard you(sg.). a single agreement marker (absolutive series; see Preminger 2011:28 and references) a single probe a single agreement relation [property (3.iii)]; In (5), the verb carries the 2 nd -person agreement marker (-at-), regardless of whether this agreement stands for the Agent (5a) or for the Patient (5b); [participant] in the feature specification of 1 st and 2 nd person DPs; not 3 rd person [particular case of (3.ii)]; The probe v in Kichean seeks for a [participant] goal [specific case of (3i)] 3 rd person arguments not targeted 2.1. A Case for Move Impossiblity of some person combinations in Kichean AFC: (6) AGENT-FOCUS PERSON RESTRICTION (AFPR): At most one of the two arguments can be 1/2 person. (7) * ja rat x-in/at/ø-axa-n yin FOC you(sg.) prfv-1sg/2sg/3sgabs-hear-af me Intended: It was you(sg.) that heard me. (8) * ja yin x- -in /at /Ø -axa-n rat FOC me prfv-1sg/2sg/3sgabs-hear-af you(sg.) Intended: It was me that heard you(sg.). - Preminger s explanation: (9) PERSON LICENSING CONDITION (PLC): Interpretable 1 st /2 nd person features must be licensed by entering into an Agree relation with an appropriate functional category. [Béjar & Rezac 2003: 53] - Person Case Constraint: (10) Je le /*te leur ai presenté I 3sgAcc /*2sgAcc 3plDat have introduced I introduced him/*you to them [Béjar & Rezac 2003, ex. (7)] The Person Licensing Condition may be extended to all AFC cases in general: (11) a. ja rat x-- -at /*Ø -axa-n ri achin (cfr. (5)) FOC you(sg.) prfv-2sgabs-hear-af the man It was you(sg.) that heard the man.

BCGL6: Configurations of Agreement 3 b. ja ri achin x- -at /*Ø -axa-n rat FOC the man prfv-2sg/*3sg.abs-hear-af you(sg.) It was the man that heard you(sg.). - a single agreement marker a single probe a single agreement relation [property (1i)]; - Interpretable 2 nd -person features must be licensed by an Agree relation with a functional head, regardless of whether Agent (2a) or Patient (2b)) [Person Licensing Condition] - If agreement with ri achin ( the man ) violation of the PLC Conclusion: relativized probing [1a] fully redundant <= empirical effects derived from the Person Licensing Condition, independently needed. The Person Licensing Condition is a condition on the goal. Corollary: 3 rd person absolutive objects do not need to enter into an agreement relation with v: (12) a. rat x- -[ ]-aw- -axa-j ri achin [cfr. (4)] you(sg) PRFV-NO 3sgABS-2sgERG-hear-ACT the man You herd the man b. ri achin x- -a- -r -axa -j rat the man PRFV-2sgABS-3sgERG-hear-ACT you The man heard you - See Ormazabal & Romero (1998, 2007), Baker (2008, 2011), among others, for arguments in the same direction and some refinements (see also section 4.1, below): (13) a. Hi-k gizon-a entzun d- [ ]-u -k [Basque] 4 you(sg)-erg man-the(abs) hear You herd the man PRFV- NO 3sgABS -AUX ROOT-2sgERG- b. Gizon-a -k entzun h(a)- -u -[ ]/ man -the- ERG hear 2sgABS -AUX ROOT-(NO) 3sgERG The man heard you 2.2. Competing Goals Agreement restrictions: competition between non-identical goals (14) Person-Case Constraint (PCC): if DATIVE, then ACC/ABS=3rd person. [Bonet 1991] (15) a. * Zuk etsaiari ni saldu na -i -o -zu [Basque] You-ERG enemy-dat me-abs sell 1ABS-Aux-3DAT-2ERG You sold me to the enemy 4 Note: the preverbal affix d- in (11a) is a temporal marker that changes according to tense and mood when absolutive is third person, that is, according to us when there is no absolutive agreement; there is clear evidence, both diachronic and syncronic, that it is not a 3 rd person agreement marker (see Trask 1997, Gómez 1994, Gómez & Sáinz 1995, Ormazabal & Romero 2001, and references there).

BCGL6: Configurations of Agreement 4 b. * Pedro te me envía [Spanish] Peter 2DAT 1ACC send-3subj Peter sends me to you Note that (13a) is ungrammatical in spite of the fact that the 1st person argument does establish an agreement absolutive relation with the verb in a regular fashion. Note, furthermore, this kind of ungrammaticality is completely independent of the features involved as shown in the following examples, where the applicative/dative agreement stands for an inanimate argument, the table. (16) Since I had broken the leg... a.... me puso (de pata) en la mesa... 1sO placed.he (as a leg) in the table b.... *me le puso (de pata) a la mesa... 1sO 3sD placed.he (as a leg) to the table (17) Since he only had an encyclopaedia at hand... a. la puso (de pata) en la mesa 3sfO placed.he (as a leg) in the table b. se la puso (de pata) a la mesa. 3sD 3sO placed (as a leg) to the table 3. A look back... A. Asymmetric Agreement-system, based on the feature specification or the configurational context of the moving element: ECM-subjects show obligatory Raising-to-O/Agreement - Evidence for movement: Postal (1975), Lasnik & Saito (1989), Chomsky & Lasnik (1995), Lasnik (1995, 1999), Bošković (1997, 2003), among others. - Evidence that they participate in Agreement Restriction configurations: Ormazabal & Romero (2002, 2010), Boeckx & Hornstein (2003). Applied arguments (DOCs, Dative (Clitic) Constructions, Applicatives) show obligatory Raising-to- O/Agreement - Evidence for a derivational analysis: Larson (1988; 1990), Baker (1988), Ormazabal & Romero (2010) - Evidence that they participate in Agreement Restriction configurations: Perlmutter (1971), Hale (1973), Bonet (1991), Albizu (1996), Ormazabal & Romero (1998, 2002, 2007), Anagnostopoulou (2002), Béjar & Rezac (2003), etc. In many languages, [1 st and 2 nd ] person features induce obligatory Raising-to-O/Agreement with [V+v] - Evidence for movement/agreement: Anagnostopoulou (2002); Bejar & Rezac (2003); Preminger (2011a, b). - Evidence that they participate in Agreement Restriction configurations: Bonet (1991), Albizu (1996).

BCGL6: Configurations of Agreement 5 In many languages, animacy features induce Raising/Agreement - Evidence for movement/agreement: Ormazabal & Romero (1998, 2007), Baker (2008, 2011). - Evidence that they participate in Agreement Restriction configurations: Ormazabal & Romero (1998, 2002, 2007, 2011) Clausal complements do not induce Obligatory Raising-to-O/Agreement with [V+v] In many languages, 3 rd person and number features do not induce Obligatory Raising-to-O/Agreement with [V+v] See section 2. B. Symmetric Agreement-system, based on the properties of the attracting head, an extra property of (Spec, TP): EPP (either configurational or featural). 4....A bleak prospect 4.1. Animacy agreement Spanish: animate DOs preceeded by the marker A: (18) a. He encontrado (*a) el libro Have.I found A the book I found the book b. He encontrado *(a) la niña Have.I found A-the child-fem I found the girl Leísta dialect of Spanish in the Basque Country (Ormazabal & Romero 2002, 2007, 2011): agreement marking of 3rd person animate objects: (19) a. He encontrado el libro Have.I found the book I found the book b. * Le he encontrado (a) el libro Have.I found A the book (20) a. Le he encontrado a la niña 3sg have.i found A the girl I found the girl b. Le he dado el libro a la niña 3sg have.i given the book A the girl I gave the girl the book

BCGL6: Configurations of Agreement 6 - Ormazabal & Romero (2011): Agreement-type clitics vs. Determiner-type clitics: IO clitics DO clitics 1 st, 2 nd 3 rd 1 st, 2 nd 3 rd animate 3 rd inanimate sg: me, te, pl.: nos, os le les me, te, nos, os le les lo (m.), la (fem.) los, las Doubling yes yes yes yes no Gender no no no no yes Range of DPs FULL FULL FULL FULL NARROW OAC violations yes yes yes yes no - The distribution of the agreement clitic le in this dialect basically coincides with that of the marker A in other dialects (see below) A-headed DPs enter into obligatory object agreement Person-Case Constraint with animate 3 rd person animate DOs: A cannot precede animate specific DOs and le cannot double them in Basque leísta dialect when combined with a doubled IO [Ormazabal & Romero 1998, 2007, 2011] (20) a. [Les].enviaron a los enfermos a la doctora [3pl].sent.they A the sick people to the doctor They sent the sick people to the doctor b. * Le.enviaron a los enfermos a la doctora Standard Sp. 3sg.sent.they A the sick people A the doctor They sent the sick people to the doctor b. * Se.les.enviaron a los enfermos a la doctora Basque Spanish 3sg.pl.sent.they A the sick people A the doctor They sent the sick people to the doctor c. Le.enviaron los enfermos a la doctora 3sg.sent.they the sick people A the doctor They sent the sick people to the doctor Note: in the examples that follow, the two dialects are collapsed unless otherwise needed for clarification; the sentence including the agreement marker in brackets corresponds to the leísta dialect and the same sentence without the overt marker corresponds to Standard Spanish (and most non-leísta) dialects. Evidence: Se-constructions. - Regular se-constructions trigger subject-agreement with the object: (21) a. Se llevaron los regalos a la doctora SE arb take.they the presents to the doctor (The) presents were sent to the doctor b. * Se llevó los regalos a la doctora SE arb take.it the presents to.the doctor

BCGL6: Configurations of Agreement 7 - Agreeing animate objects cannot raise to subject position in se-construction default 3 rd person singular agreement (b). (22) a. * Se llevaron (a) los enfermos a la doctora SE arb take.3pl A the sick people to the doctor b. Se [les] llevó *(a) los enfermos a la doctora SE arb [3p] take.df A the children to the doctor The sick people was taken to the doctor (23) a. Se le llevaron los enfermos a la doctora SE arb 3sIO took.pl the sick-people A the doctor b. * Se le llevó los enfermos a la doctora SE arb 3sIO took.sg the sick-people A the doctor The kids were taken to the doctor Conclusion: Agreement in Spanish tears apart specific animate direct objects and indirect objects from nonspecific and inanimate direct objects. 4.2. ECM subjects vs. regular (inanimate) objects Postal (1975), Lasnik & Saito (1991), Lasnik (1995, 1999): ECM-subjects undergo overt object shift in English. (24) a. The DA proved the defendants to be guilty during each other s trial b. * The DA proved her to be guilty during Mary s trial Bošković (1997, 2002): ECM-subjects undergo obligatory object shift; regular objects do not overtly A-move to the object-agreement position except as an intermediate step of some additional movement to a higher position (wh-movement, passive, etc.). Agreement Restrictions with ECM [Ormazabal & Romero (2002, 2010), Boeckx & Hornstein (2003)]: impossibility of combining ECM and DOCs = a particular case of me-lui/pcc effects (see Ormazabal & Romero 2010 for discussion). (25) a. I showed you the proof b. I showed you that the defendants were guilty c. I showed the defendants to be guilty d. * I showed you the defendants to be guilty Laca (1995) (based on Roegiest 1979): Inanimate DOs headed by A virtually in all dialects of Spanish. Some of Laca s examples are repeated below [see also Zdrojewski 2008]: (26) a. Emergiendo sobre una ola, veo al avión caer envuelto en llamas Emerging over a wave, see.i A-the plane fall down enveloped in flames Emerging over a wave, I see the plane fall down ablaze [Laca 1995, ex. (8b); translation and glosses ours] b. La tormenta dejó sin hojas a los árboles The storm left.it without leaves A the trees The storm left the trees without leaves

BCGL6: Configurations of Agreement 8 - Systematically configurations where the embedded inanimate undergoes raising-to-o (perception verbs, resultative small clases, etc.). Basque Leísta Dialects also shows clitic doubling in the same contexts [extension of an observation by Zdrojewski 2008 for Rioplatense Spanish; see Ormazabal & Romero 2011 for extensive discussion] (27) a. * Le trajeron (al avión) a través de las montañas 3rdDO brought (A the plane) across of the mountains b. El avión, lo trajeron a través de las montañas The plane, 3rdDO brought across of the mountains The plane, they brought it across the mountains (28) a. Le vimos al avión caer envuelto en llamas 3rdDO saw.we A-the plane fall down enveloped in flames We saw the plane fall down ablaze b.? Al avión, lo vimos caer envuelto en llamas A-the plane, 3rdDO saw.we fall down enveloped in flames Obligatory agreement relation established between the matrix verbal complex and the embedded argument, not maintained with regular DOs. 5. Wraping up: How to proceed from now on (29) Person-Case Constraint (PCC): If DATIVE, then ACC/ABS=3rd person. [Bonet 1991] (30) Person Licensing Condition (PLC): Interpretable 1 st /2 nd person features must be licensed by entering into an Agree relation with an appropriate functional category. [Béjar & Rezac 2003] The PCC and PLC are just particular cases. Other cases: (31) i. Two animate arguments ii. A [+participant] argument + an applied object (Double Object/Applicative/Dative Constructions) iii. A [+participant] argument + an ECM object - All of these contexts involve an argument: (i) animate (1/2 person, pronouns, proper names, animate), and (ii) structurally a theme (UTAH). If this specific argument is present, no other argument can be licensed by verbal agreement (accusative/absolutive): Object Agreement Constraint (Ormazabal & Romero 2007). - Not only arguments compete (Bonet 1991, Ormazabal & Romero 2007): (32) a. lo encontraron / dejaron en el jardín 3s found.they / left.they in the garden b. Se lo encontraron / dejaron en el jardín AspM 3s found.they / left.they in the garden They found /left it in the garden

BCGL6: Configurations of Agreement 9 (33) a. me encontraron / dejaron en el jardín 1s found.they / left.they in the garden b *se me encontraron / dejaron en el jardín AspM 1s found.they / left.they in the garden They found /left me in the garden (34) *te me lo dejé 2s 1s(AspM) 3s left.i 'I left it to you (on me)' Agreement Restrictions: - Selective requirements on the agreeing DP: not all DPs agree, some DPs must agree; - No intervention effects; competition for a single agreement slot. References. Albizu, Pablo. 1997a. Generalized Person-Case Constraint: A Case for a Syntax-Driven Inflectional Morphology. In A. Mendikoetxea & M. Uribe-Etxebarria (eds.), Theoretical issues on the Morphology-Syntax Interface. ASJU Gehigarriak XL. San Sebastián: Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, pp. 1-34. Albizu, Pablo. 1997b. The Syntax of Person Agreement. Doctoral dissertation, USC, Los Angeles. Albizu, Pablo. 2002. Datibo sintagmen izaera sintaktikoaren inguruan: eztabaidarako oinarrizko zenbait datu. In B. Fernández & P. Albizu, eds. pp. 9-70. Albizu, Pablo & Luis Eguren. 1997. Ergative Displacement in Basque. Ms. USC & Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2002. The Syntax of Ditransitives: evidence from clitics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Baker, Mark. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement, Cambridge Univ. Press. Baker, Mark. 2011. When Agreement is for Number and Gender but not Person. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29.4. Barss, Andrew & Howard Lasnik. 1986. A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17.2, 347-353. Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-Syntax: a theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto. Béjar, Susana & Rezac, Milan. 2003. Person Licensing and the Derivation of PCC Effects. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge, eds. Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Béjar, Susana & Rezac, Milan. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40.1, 35-73. Boeckx, Cedric & Norbert Hornstein. 2003. Linguistic Inquiry Bonet, Eulalia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Bošković, Željko. 1997. The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: an Economy approach, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Bošković, Željko. 2003. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin et al. (eds.), Step by Step: Papers in Honour of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 289-155. Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1995.Principles and Parameters Theory. In Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Gómez, Ricardo & Koldo Sáinz. 1995. On the Origin of the Finite Forms of the Basque Verb. In J.I. Hualde et al. (eds.), Towads a History of the Basque Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 235-273. Hale, Kenneth. 1973. Person Marking in Walbiri. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Laca, Brenda. 1995. Sobre el uso del acusativo personal en español. In. C. Pensado, ed. El acusativo Personal, Visor. Larson, Richard. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19.3, 335-391. Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Last Resort. [reprinted in Lasnik 1999, Minimalist Analysis, Blackwell, Pub. Cambridge, MA, pp. 120-145]. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of Arguments. In S. Epstein & N. Hornstein, eds. Working Minimalism, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 189-215.

BCGL6: Configurations of Agreement 10 Lasnik Howard & Mamoru Saito. 1991. On the Subject of Infinitives. In L. Dobrin et al, eds. Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 324-343 [reprinted in Lasnik 1999, Minimalist Analysis, Blackwell, Pub. Cambridge, MA, pp 7-24]. Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 1998. On the syntactic nature of the me-lui and the Person-Case Constraint. ASJU XXXII-2, pp. 415-434. Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2001. A brief description of some agreement restrictions. B. Fernández & P. Albizu (arg.), Kasua eta Komunztaduraren gainean/on Case and Agreement. Bilbo: EHUko Argitalpen Zerbitzua. Ormazabal, Javier and Juan Romero. 2002. Agreement Restrictions Ms., University of the Basque Country- Universidad de Alcala. Ormazabal, J. & J. Romero. 2007. The Object Agreement Constraint, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25.2: 315-347. Ormazabal, Javier and Juan Romero. 2010. The Derivation of Dative Alternations, in M. Duguine et al, eds., Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations from a Crosslinguistic Perspective, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 203-232. Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2011. Object Clitics, Agreement and Microdialectal Variation, manuscript, University of the Basque Country/Hitt, University of Extremadura/HiTT [under revision for Probus]. Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Rinehart & Winston Inc. Postal, Paul. 1975. On Raising. MIT Press. Preminger,. 2011a. Agreement as a Fallible Operation. Doctoral Thesis, MIT. Preminger, Omer. 2011b. Asymmetries between Number and Person in Syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.29.4. Rezac, Milan. 2006. Agreement and Agreement Displacement in Basque, Eskuizkribua, UPV-EHU. Trask, R. L. 1977. Historical syntax and Basque verbal morphology: two hypotheses. In W. A. Douglas et al., Anglo-American Contributions to Basque Studies. Essays in honor of Jon Bilbao, University of Nevada Press, Reno, 203-217. Trask, R. L. 1997. The History of Basque. London/New York: Routledge. Zdrojewski, Pablo. 2008. Por quién doblan los clíticos. Univ. Nacional Comahue Master Thesis. Javier Ormazabal Hizkuntzalaritza eta Euskal Ikasketak Saila Filologia, Geografia eta Historia Fakultatea Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea Unibertsitateen Ibilbidea 5, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain javier.ormazabal@ehu.es Juan Romero Departamento de Filología Hispánica Universidad de Extremadura Avenida de la Universidad s/n 10071 Cáceres, Spain juan.romero@uah.es