J.-Marc Authier

Phase-Edge Features and the Syntax of Polarity Particles

In this article, I argue that the phase edge in the C field shares features via Agree with an intermediate layer (FinP) and with a lower projection (ΣP), allowing it to determine the type of clause and its polarity. I adopt a feature-sharing relation of Agree that connects all of the polarity features present on heads (be they Σ, Fin, and, in some cases, VFoc) to a polarity feature in Force, the relevant phase-edge position for clausal typing. This explains, among other things, why embedded clauses containing a polarity feature can only satisfy the selectional properties of a particular class of (matrix) verbs.

French Tough-movement revisited

Abstract In this paper, we argue that predicates of the Tough-class in French embed not a verbal infinitive but rather, a gerundive verbal noun. This hypothesis allows us to capture a number of unexpected restrictions on French Tough-movement discussed by Legendre (Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 137–183, 1986). We show that these restrictions are best described as the inability of French Tough-movement infinitives to be followed by complements that are disallowed in their corresponding argument-taking event nominals. Our analysis of such infinitives as nominalized elements correctly predicts that they should never be selected by auxiliaries, and that they should have suppressed external arguments in the sense of Grimshaw (Argument Structure, MIT Press, 1990). French Tough-movement constructions are further argued to be closely related to the type of English gerund Huddleston (The Sentence in Written English, Cambridge University Press, 1971), Hantson (Towards an analysis of retroactive gerunds, Foris, 1984) and Clark (Boundaries and the treatment of control, University of California, 1985) call ‘retroactive gerunds’. Like French Tough-movement constructions, English retroactive gerunds contain a gap, are possible only with a restricted class of predicates, do not license unbounded dependencies, and do not allow subjects, except when they are realized as by-phrases.

On presuppositions and (non)coreference

The central objective of this paper is to explore some as yet to be understood aspects of the status and character of Bare Output Conditions, those conditions which, in Chomsky’s Minimalist framework, are assumed to be imposed from the ‘outside’ by cognitive systems that use information from the computational (syntactic) component. I argue for a more articulated theory of the syntax-semantics interface, one which recognizes the ability of BOCs such as referential disjointness conditions to make reference to semantic information from two distinct sources, one of which uses lexically encoded material known as conventional implicature or semantic presupposition. This hypothesis accounts for why lexical elements such as even, only, emphatic anaphors, etc. seem to allow the nominal elements which they focus to freely violate the well-known disjointness requirements known as Condition B, Condition C and Weak Crossover. It also leads to the conclusion that Condition A is not a BOC and that proposals which attempt to derive its effects from movement constraints internal to the computational system are probably on the right track.

On some split binding paradigms

This paper examines the chameleon-like coreference properties of one use of the French nominal element ce and shows that this element is subject to different noncoreference constraints depending on the quantificational status of its antecedent. Based on previous observations made by Aoun (1986) regarding the binding properties of overt pronouns in a dialect of Mandarin Chinese, it is argued that elements which obey a “split binding condition,” such as French ce, are not restricted to one language. An analysis of these facts is proposed in terms of interpretive strategies at LF stemming from the use languages make of typing particles in C0. This analysis has the advantage of providing adequate empirical coverage while preserving the cross-linguistic/cross-dialectal universality of Binding Theory. It also raises new prospects for Chomskys (1995) Minimalist approach to grammatical theory.

French orphan prepositions revisited

Abstract In this article, I argue, contra Cervoni (1991), Olivier (2007) and others, that French does have prepositions without an overt complement that are syntactically transitive. That is, these prepositions take a syntactically projected, phonologically unrealized pronominal complement, as first hypothesized by Zribi-Hertz (1984), who coined them “orphan prepositions”. I offer new evidence in favor of this view based on a number of tests that distinguish between various types of implicit arguments, among which (in)definiteness, the (un)availability of bound variable readings, scopal properties relative to operators such as negation and intensional verbs and the (un)availability of sloppy identity readings. I also show that the set of French orphan prepositions turns out to be much smaller than that envisaged by Zribi-Hertz in that some lexical prepositions can function as orphan prepositions in some uses but not others and some lexical prepositions have an intransitive use as well. The article also includes two appendices that lay out a number of reasons why orphan prepositions should not be assumed to be prepositions that have become adverbs through a process of grammaticalization nor should they be assumed to be relational definite descriptions that pragmatically link up to an antecedent via accommodation, as suggested by Olivier (2007).

On the issue of syntactic primacy: Evidence from French

This paper examines empirical evidence based on the distribution and coreference properties of a French pronoun, demonstrative ce, and it is argued that this evidence leads to two basic conclusions. First, interpretive constraints which use Information from the computational System take precedence over those which do not. Second, the principles of economy which regulate grammatical operations in the computational component appear to extend beyond LF. Thefirst conclusion would seem to indicate that the idea that syntax is autonomous is on the right track. That is, at least in the case discussed, it would seem that the Output ofthe computational System is not influenced by the cognitive Systems which access its interface representations; in fact, quite the opposite. The second conclusion, on the other hand, would seem to arguefor an integrated model ofgrammar in which each module, computational or representational, is subject to similar economy conditions and is therefore äs much part of grammatical theory äs the other.