Dominique Sportiche

The position of subjects

we say that Bill occupies its canonical position in (la) but not in (lb). Adopting the terminology of the Extended Standard Theory, we can think of the canonical position of a phrase as its D-structure position. Since the concept of canonical position is available, it becomes legitimate to ask of each syntactic unit in a given sentence what its canonical position is, relative to the other units of the sentence. The central question we address in this article is: what is the canonical position of subjects1 Starting with English, we propose that the structure of an English clause is as in (2):

VARIABLES AND THE BIJECTION PRINCIPLE

The constituent α is an open sentence: its tnith value cannot be evaluated since the reference of je or the domain over which χ may r nge is not determined within a. In Standard logic, χ in (l)b is called a variable and is said to be bound by the universal quantifier. Analogically, the term jein (l)a is called a variable, bound by the quantifier phrase everyone. This is not sufficient to define what a variable is, however. By extension from cases like (l)a, the implicit characterization of variables up to (and not including) Chomsky (1981) has been (2):

Further Remarks on First Conjunct Agreement

Aoun, Benmamoun, and Sportiche (ABS, 1994) propose an analysis of first conjunct agreement in VS sentences in Lebanese Arabic and Moroccan Arabic. On the basis of the distribution of number-sensitive items, they argue that this type of agreement is due to clausal coordination. Munn (1999) argues against ABSs account and proposes that first conjunct agreement in the Arabic dialects arises because coordination of NP subjects is semantically plural but syntactically singular. In this reply we show that Munns alternative analysis is empirically inadequate.

Subject Clitics in French and Romance Complex Inversion and Clitic Doubling

The analysis of the French construction of Complex Inversion illustrated in (1) below raises difficulties with respect to current conceptions of available phrase structure: (1) a. Jean est-il malade? ‘Is John sick?’ b. Depuquis quand Jean est-il malade. ‘Since when is John sick.’

French Relative Qui

Starting from Kaynes (1976) motivation for the existence of the French que/qui rule based on the complementizer system of French relative clauses, I show that French in fact has a double paradigm of wh-elements, a weak one and a strong one, much like what is found in the (strong/weak) pronominal system. Although only French is discussed here in any detail, such a split seems to have much wider relevance, in other Romance languages, in some Germanic and Scandinavian languages, and beyond (Wolof). This split in turn shows that the que/qui rule (and its cognates) should be looked at differentlyin particular, that they should be uncoupled from constraints on subject extraction.

Anaphor Binding: What French Inanimate Anaphors Show

Owing to different ideas about what counts as an anaphor subject to Condition A, two influential but superficially incompatible versions of Condition A of binding theory have coexisted: Chomsky’s (1986) version, and versions of predicate-based binding theories defended by Pollard and Sag (1992) and Reinhart and Reuland (1993) and modified in various ways since ( Pollard 2005, Reuland 2011). Using inanimate anaphors to independently control for sensitivity to Condition A without the confound of logophoricity, we show that Condition A must be checked at the syntax-interpretation interface and that Chomsky’s (1986) version (an anaphor must be bound within the smallest complete functional complex containing it and a possible binder) is nearly correct, with one amendment: a tensed TP boundary is opaque to the search for an antecedent. Given these results, we argue that Condition A should be reduced to phase theory and we outline how this can be done.

Assessing Unaccusativity and Reflexivity: Using Focus Alternatives to Decide What Gets Which θ-Role

In reflexive constructions, two arguments corefer. This makes it hard to decide which argument bears which θ-role, and consequently to assess whether unaccusativity is involved. A new test is proposed using focus alternatives, which overcomes this difficulty and can also be used to assess reflexivity strength.

Somber Prospects for Late Merger

I discuss the phrase-structure-theoretic operation of Late Merge proposed in Lebeaux 1991 as it is used in late adjunct merger and wholesale late merger. I show that under current theoretical assumptions about the nature of the Merge and Move operations, Late Merge over-generates in ways that are difficult to overcome. Given that Late Merge is otherwise demonstrably computationally unparsimonious (Kobele and Michaelis 2012), I conclude that it should not be an available operation and suggest Neglect (Sportiche 2016) as an alternative to generate the needed Logical Form representations.