Abstract Agreement

ABSTRACT AGREEMENT AND CLAUSALARGUMENTSM. Carme Picallo

Abstract. CP arguments have been argued to be Caseless andu-featureless. Empiricalevidence mainly drawn from Spanish suggests that this claim should be reconsidered.In this paper, I claim that clausal arguments and nominalized clauses have au contentand Case specification. These types of arguments are therefore able to relate byagreement with a functional category. The facts examined support minimalistguidelines by claiming that the concrete realization of theu and Case content of asyntactic object is irrelevant for computational mechanisms to take place.

1. Introduction

Arguments with the function of subject or object of predication relate to afunctional projection through the operation Agree, which applies at thecomputational component (Chomsky 1998, 1999). Agree consists of featurematching between two syntactic objects within a given structural space. Forabstract agreement to take place, each of these objects must be endowed witha set ofu-features of the types person, number, and gender (henceforth PNGfeatures). In the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), functional categoriessuch as TP andvP are assumed to be headed by a noninterpretableu set offeatures. These are checked against the corresponding formal features of theargument subject and object, respectively.

In Spanish, nominal categories are endowed with Case and grammaticalnumber, person, and gender. Structural Case on a nominal is realized asnominative or accusative. Number is expressed as [�plural] and gender as[�feminine]. For the purposes of this discussion, I assume that person isexpressed with a subset of the possible combinations of the values [�I, �II]. 1

The structural Case assigned to a nominal makes this argument active andrenders possible the operation Agree. The noninterpretable features of afunctional projection and its related argument are deleted under Agree: thecomplete u set in TP/vP and structural Case in DP. In Spanish, themorphophonological effect of the operation is overt subject-verb agreement.The object is assumed to undergo covert agreement. Thus, given a sentencelike (1), the configuration (2) abstractly represents the mechanisms that aretaking place at the computational component (irrelevant details are omitted).

Syntax5:2, August 2002, 116–147

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

* This paper has gone through several stages of elaboration. A previous version appeared inPicallo 2001. For comments and suggestions, I would like to thank I. Bosque, V. Demonte, J.Elordi, A. Fontich, J. Quer, G. Rigau, the participants of the 2000 LEHIA Workshop (EHU-Vitoria), and the anonymous reviewers forSyntax. Research was supported by the grantsBFF2000-0403-C02-02 (Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologıá) and 2001SGR00150,2000XT00032 (Generalitat de Catalunya).

1 First person can be identified as [+I,ÿII], second person as [ÿI, +II], and third person as[ÿI, ÿII].

(1) Las parejas bailaban el tango.the couples.FEM.PL danced.3PL the tango.MASC.SG

‘The couples were dancing the tango.’

(2) TP DP[+P,+N +G, NOM] [T[P, N, (G)]] vP v [P, N, (G)]] V DP[+P,+N, +G, ACC]

Clausal arguments (henceforth argument CPs) have been argued to lackstructural Case and specification for PNG features (see, more recently,Iatridou and Embick 1997). This claim appears to be supported by the factthat a predicate does not appear to agree with this type of subject. The verb isin the default third-person singular, irrespective of the position of the CPsubject (pre- or postverbal) and irrespective of whether it is a simple or acoordinated structure:

(3) a. Es necesario [que hablemos un rato]is necessary.SG that talk.1PL a while‘It is necessary for us to talk for a while.’

b. Es/*son necesarios/*-s [que hablemos un rato] y [queis/*are necessary.SG/*PL that talk.1PL a while and thatnos pongamos de acuerdo]agree.1PL

‘It is necessary for us to talk for a while and for us to agree.’c. [Que vengas a almorzar] y [que le cuentes un cuento] le

that come.2SG for lunch and that her tell.2SG a tale hergusta/*-n mucho a Emma.pleases/*please lot to Emma‘That you come for lunch and that you tell her a tale pleasesEmma a lot.’

Spanish nominalized clauses (henceforth DP-CPs) behave like argument CPsas far as the morphological effects of agreement mechanisms are concerned.Simple or coordinated DP-CP subjects also require the verb in the defaultsingular:

(4) El PRO estar en Parı´s y el PRO haber hablado con Ethel methe to-be in Paris and the to-have talked with Ethel mealegra/*-n mucho.pleases/*please lot‘To be in Paris and to have talked with Ethel pleases me a lot.’

Anaphoric pronouns taking simple or coordinated CPs or DP-CPs asantecedents are in the default third-person singular as well. These pronounsare considered neuter forms in traditional grammars of Spanish, and theyappear as masculine by default:

▲ ▲

Abstract Agreement and Clausal Arguments117

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002

(5) a. [[El que estuvieras en Parı´s] y [el que hablaras conthe that were.2SG in Paris and the that spoke.2SG with

Ethel]]i es tan sorprendente que casi no me loi/*losi puedoEthel is so surprising that almost not me it /*them can.1SG

creer.believe‘That you were in Paris and that you talked to Ethel is so surprisingthat I almost cannot believe it.’

b. Dices [[que ya escribiste a Mario] y [que yasay.2SG that already wrote.2SG to Mario and that alreadysolucionaste el problema]]i pero yo no me loi/*losi creo.solved.2SG the problem but I not me it/*them believe‘You say that you already wrote to Mario and that you alreadysolved the problem but I don’t believe it.’

The hypothesis that CP or DP-CP arguments (subjects or objects) haveneitheru-feature specification nor Case leads to the subsequent conclusionthat these arguments should be unable to relate by agreement with afunctional category. This paper argues against such a conclusion and showsthat abstract operations that relate the formal features of syntactic objectsapply uniformly and independently of the categorial types of the arguments.My proposal is consistent with the minimalist assumption that the concreterealization of the features of a given argument should not be relevant forcomputation mechanisms to take place. The data in support of this claim aremainly given in Spanish and focus on argument CPs and nominalized clauses.

The paper is organized as follows: in section 2, the syntactic structure Iadopt for nominalized clauses (DP-CPs) is briefly discussed and assessed. Insection 3, theoretical considerations are provided against the hypothesis thatargument CP and DP-CPs are unable to undergo the operation Agree with afunctional category. In section 4, some agreement phenomena involving DP-CPs and argument CPs are considered. It is shown that the data arecompatible with the hypothesis that these types of arguments have a PNGfeature specification, hence, they can relate with a functional head throughu-checking. In section 5, it is concluded that nominal as well as clausalarguments undergo the operation Agree, and I examine the question ofwhether or not nonnominal arguments have a Case specification. I suggestthat they are syntactic objects with a Case content. Throughout thediscussion, I show that a distinction should be made between the formalfeature content of a syntactic object—namely, the features that are active innarrow syntax—and the morphological expression of that content. Thisproposal allows us to assume that pronouns anaphorically related to CParguments or to DP-CPs also agree with the formal features of theirantecedents. In this paper, I abstract away from discussing any movementoperations. Extended Projection Principle effects, such as raising, are inducedby a noninterpretable feature in a functional projection. I assume, following


118 M. Carme Picallo

Chomsky 1999, that Case-u checking (i.e., the operation Agree) is a syntacticprocess that applies independently of movement.

2. The Constituent Structure of Nominalized Clauses

Nominalized clauses (DP-CPs) are structures selected by factive predicates.In Spanish, they conform to sequences of the typesEl que IP(lit.: ‘The thatIP’), as in (6a), or to sequences consisting of the determiner followed by aninfinitive clause, as in (6b).

(6) a. [El [que creas que hay fantasmas en la azotea]]the that believe.2SG that there-is ghosts in the atticcarece de lo´gica.lacks of logic‘That you believe that there are ghosts in the attic is illogical.’

b. Lamento mucho [el [PRO haberme visto obligado a explicarregret.1SG lot the to-have-me seen forced to explaintodo esto]]all this‘I regret a lot to have been forced to explain all this.’

These constructions have been argued to conform to a [DP-NP-CP]structure with a null N head standing for the lexical entryhecho ‘fact’.2 Iwould like to argue against this claim and suggest, on the contrary, thatnominalized clauses are [DP-CP] constituents, as in (7), where theDeterminer takes a CP as its immediate complement (see also Abney 1987and Leonetti 1999:824).

(7) [DP Det [CP C [IP T . . . ]]]

The structure (7) accounts for the obligatory absence of the prepositionde‘of’ introducing the clause, which is required with all CP complements ofnouns in Spanish.3 Note that the preposition should appear even if the noun isphonologically null:

2 See Demonte 1977 (p. 123), Plann 1981, and Iatridou and Embick 1997, who, among manyothers, have claimed that nominalized clauses are complexes with a phonologically null nominalhead.

3 The contrast between (i-a), a complex nominal, and (i-b), a nominalized clause, shows thatthe preposition introducing CP is obligatory in the first case and ungrammatical in the secondcase:

(i) a. Lamento el hecho *(de) que no me saludara.regret.1SG the fact of that not me greet.3SG

b. Lamento el (*de) que no me saludara.regret.1SG the of that not me greet.3SG



(8) a. Considero´ varios hechos independientemente. El [e] de queconsidered.3SG several facts independently theof thathubieran apoyado tal propuesta era el ma´s conspicuo.had.3PL supported such-a proposal was the most conspicuous‘S/he considered several facts independently. The (fact) that theyhad supported such a proposal was the most conspicuous one.’

b. Su sugerencia de que debıá dimitir no fue aceptada peroPOSSsuggestionof that had.3SG to-resign not was accepted butla [e] de que podıá continuar en el cargo fue aprobadathe of that had.3SG to-continue in the post was approvedinmediatamente.immediately‘His/her/their suggestion that s/he had to resign was not accepted,but the (suggestion) that s/he may continue in the post wasimmediately approved.’

Nominalized clauses also contrast in this respect with Spanishconstructions of the typesLo de que‘The.NEUT of that’, as in (9), whichhave a different interpretation and should be analyzed as complex nominalswhere the N head is always null. As in all complex nominals of the DP-NP-CP types, the prepositionde ‘of’ introducing CP complement is alsoobligatory in Spanish. The following examples are from Brucart (1998):

(9) a. Lo de ir a Mallorca este verano no nos convence.the of to-go to Mallorca this summer not us convince‘The (idea/proposal) of going to Mallorca this summer does notconvince us.’

b. Lo de que se tenga que pagar un impuesto adicionalthe of that people have that to-pay a tax additionalprovocara´ un unanime rechazo.will-cause an unanimous revolt‘The (idea/proposal) that people have to pay an additional tax willcause a unanimous revolt.’

In the Lo de CP constructions in (9), the deleted N can be given aninterpretation in the context of discourse. For example, (9a) could be part of aconversation where somebody is suggesting several possible destinations tospend our summer vacation. I can either answer (9a), with a null N head, aswell as with complex nominals likeEsto de ir a Mallorca este verano . . .‘This of going to Mallorca this summer . . .’ orLa cosa de ir a Mallorca esteverano . . . ‘The thing of going to Mallorca this summer . . .’, where thedemonstrativeesto deCP ‘this of CP’ or the more colloquialla cosa deCP‘the thing of CP’ are intended to have a similar interpretation aslo deCP ‘theof CP’; namely, the idea/thought/proposal/suggestion/order thatIP. Theinterpretation attributed to the nominal head depends on the circumstance in



which the exchange is taking place. Note that in (9) the determiner is realizedas the neuterlo and not as the masculine formel, unlike the nominalizedclause I am discussing, which corresponds to the structure (7). I would like tosuggest that the so-called neuter Determinerlo in (9) can be analyzed as thecomplex [l+o] formed byl, standing for D ando, corresponding to the defaultmorphological realization of the functional projectionAgr (or the projections[Number, Gender]) immediately dominating the NP with a null head.4

As shown in the following discussion, the fact that nominalized clausesconform to the agreement patterns of argument CPs, and not that of complexnominal constructions, with a phonologically realized or a phonologicallynull N head, supports the analysis represented in (7).

3. Clausal Arguments and theu-Featureless Hypothesis

Based on the preliminary data provided in (3)–(5), let us initially assume thatDP-CPs and argument CPs do not have any specification foru-features andare not endowed with Case. With respect to this particular aspect of theirformal content, this amounts to considering that argument CPs or DP-CPs aresimilar to categories like adverbs, for example, which have no specificationfor Case or PNG features. According to this idea, let us examine exampleslike (10) where the subject is a DP-CP and the object a CP.

(10) [El que hayas suspendido este examen] demuestra [quethe that have.2SG failed this exam shows thatestudiaste muy poco]studied.2SG very little‘That you have failed this exam shows that you studied very little.’

In these cases, the derivation should crash if T andv enter the numerationasu-complete functional categories. The abstract hypothetical representationprovided in (11) shows that the noninterpretableu set of the functionalelements cannot relate by agreement with the arguments, which are inert forthis operation because they are Caseless andu-featureless under the presenthypothesis.

4 I am following the lines of the analysis proposed by Bernstein (1993) for Spanish nominalswith a null head and an indefinite determiner, as in this example:

(i) Busco uno rojo.look.1SG.-for a.AGR red.MASC

‘I am looking for a red one.’

The indefinite determiner overtly appears with the morpheme realizing the Agr ([Gender,Number]) functional projection (i.e.,un+o) and contrasts in this respect with the indefinite formun introducing a phonologically realized N head as in (ii):

(ii) Busco un paquete rojo.look.1SG.-for a.AGR parcel.MASC red.MASC

‘I am looking for a red parcel.’



(11) *[TP DP-CP [ T[P, N, (G) ] ] [vP v [P, N, (G)] V CP ]]

Full interpretation would require that the feature composition of T andv instructures of the types (10) differ from that of structures where T andv arerelated to nominal arguments (see (1) and (2)). In (10), the functionalcategories would have to be selected, and enter the numeration, asu-featureless syntactic objects for LF representations to be devoid ofnoninterpretable elements. The verb can be selected from the lexicon as anitem without inflectional morphemes for person and number. Halle andMarantz’s (1993) Distributed Morphology hypothesis can be adopted byassuming that default third-person-singular inflection is assigned to the verbalroot at Spell-Out in structures like (10).

This set of assumptions account for the facts observed in (3) and (4). Note,however, that the proposal implies the possibility of having to impose a look-ahead requirement to the grammar. The functional categories T/v can beselected withoutu-features when the subject or the object (or botharguments) is a CP or DP-CP without causing the derivation to crash. Onthe contrary, T/v can be selectedu-complete if the arguments related to themat the computational component are nominal. The proposal can also lead us toassume that the morphological integrity of a syntactic object like V maydepend on the formal features of another syntactic object as V is chosen toenter the numeration.

A less costly alternative hypothesis can be entertained by considering thatDP-CPs and argument CPs may have, in fact, au-feature and Casespecification. If this is so, no condition on Select has to be adopted.5 In thenext section, I examine agreement phenomena for each of theu-features inisolation, suggesting that this alternative hypothesis is compatible with thedata. The consequences of adopting such a view are discussed in section 5.


5 A reviewer suggests the alternative view that Select could be considered a two-step process,as suggested by Giorgi and Pianesi (1997:9). The first step would consist of selection of itemsfrom the lexicon with only their inherent features. Noninherent features would be added in asecond step as the lexical item is used in the actual derivation. The two-step process wouldaccount for the fact that a same lexical item can have different instantiations in the samenumeration, which are produced by different choices of noninherent features (as in, e.g.,el perromira los perros‘the dog is seeing the dogs’). I believe that the cases under consideration areslightly different than having several instantiations of a Noun or a Determiner in a givennumeration. Note that T orv are assumed to enter the numeration with an unvalued set ofu-features in all cases, unlike N or (arguably) D. The noninterpretable PNG content of T/v is valuedunder agreement with an argument. As applied to these functional categories, the two-stepprocess of Select would have to consist of addingu-features to T or tov as required by thecategorial choice of their related goal, otherwise the derivation would crash. As I see it, the two-step process alternative also implies a look-ahead cost incorporated into the derivation. It alsoappears to violate the inclusiveness condition (see Chomsky 1998, 1999) because features have tobe added in the course of the computation.


4. The u-Features of Nominalized Clauses and Argument CPs

4.1 Person

The specification for person of a given argument can be tested by thedistribution of possessive elements anaphorically interpreted. The Spanishprenominal possessivesu/sus‘his/her/its/their’ shows morphemes for personand number. However, and unlike its English counterpart, the numbermorpheme suffixed to the Spanish possessive is in concord with thecorresponding feature of its selecting noun.6 The onlyu-feature thatsu/susshares with its linguistic antecedent is person, morphologically realized ass-in the Romance languages.7 This characteristic allows us to assess the activityof this feature in isolation when the possessive is anaphorically interpreted.

Consider first the examples in (12), where a possessive in (12c) has acomplex nominal [DP-NP-CP] antecedent. The nominal in (12a) is headed byhecho‘fact’, whereas (12b) is alo deCP construction with a null N head (see(9a,b)). Comparing (12) with (13), I see that a DP-CP (a nominalized clause)is unable to antecede a possessive in the same context.

(12) a. [El hecho deque hubieran desaparecido]i no parecıáthe fact of that had.3PL disappeared not seemedimportante. . .important. . .‘The fact that they had disappeared didn’t seem important. . .’

b. [Lo deque hubieran desaparecido]i no parecıáthe.NEUT of that had.3PL disappeared not seemedimportante. . .important. . .‘The (suggestion/idea/probability) that they had disappeared

didn’t seem important. . .’c. . . .perosui relevancia no escapo´ a la atencioń del

but its relevance not escaped to the attention of-theinspector.inspector

‘. . .but its relevance didn’t escape the inspector’s attention.’

(13) a. [El que hubieran desaparecido]i no parecıá importante. . .the that had.3PL disappeared not seemed important. . .

b. *. . .perosui relevancia no escapo´ a la atencioń del. . .but its relevance not escaped to the attention of-theinspector.inspector

6 The Spanish expressionsus orejas, for example, corresponds to ‘his/her/its/their ears’.7 I adopt Kayne’s (1998) proposal that the morphemesm-/n-, t-/v-, ands- of the Romance

possessives are the morphological realization of specific features for first, second, and thirdperson, respectively. Them-/n-, t-/v-, ands- forms correspond to the Spanishmi-/nuestr- ‘my/our[�fem, �pl]’, tu-/vuestr-‘your[�fem, �pl]’, and su- ‘his/her/its/their[�fem]’.



The same phenomenon can be observed in examples involving argumentCPs. In (14), it is shown that it is possible to pronominalize a complexnominal with the function of object of an event/process NP (a ‘‘passive’’nominal in Romance).8 In (15), however, the object of N is a CP andpronominalization of this object is impossible.9 A parallel ungrammaticalityis shown in (16b), where the possessive is intended to take as antecedent theCP complement of the Nobservacioń ‘observation’:

(14) a. La demostracioń de [el procedimiento de asignacioń de Casothe proof of the procedure of assigning of Casea las oraciones] tuvo lugar en el aula 8.to the sentences took place in the room 8‘The proof of the procedure to assign Case to sentences took placein room 8.’

b. Sudemostracioń tuvo lugar en el aula 8.its proof took place in the room 8‘Its proof took place in room 8.’(Su ‘its’ = del procedimiento ‘of-the procedure’)

(15) a. La demostracioń de [que las oraciones tienen Caso] tuvo lugarthe proof of that the sentences have Case took placeen el aula 8.in the room 8‘The proof that sentences have Case took place in room 8.’

b. *Sudemostracioń tuvo lugar en el aula 8its proof took place in the room 8(*Su‘its’ = que las oraciones tienen Caso ‘that the sentences haveCase’)

(16) a. La observacioń de [que la Tierra gira alrededor del Sol]the observation of that the Earth rotates around of-the Sunera inaceptable para la iglesia cato´lica.was unacceptable to the Church Catholic‘The observation that the Earth rotates around the Sun wasunacceptable to the Catholic Church.’

b. *Suobservacioń tuvo lugar en el s. XVI y la atribuı´mosits observation took place in the cent. XVI and it we-attributea Copernico.to Copernicus

I suggest that the ungrammaticality of (13b), (15b), and (16b) must be dueto a mismatch in person feature specification between the anaphoric


8 See Cinque 1980, Picallo 1991, and references cited there.9 The example (15b) is grammatical in the irrelevant reading wheresu denotes a human

being and corresponds to the English ‘his/her/their (proof)’.


possessives and their respective linguistic CP and DP-CP antecedents. Thepossessive is inherently endowed for a [+Person] feature—third person,according to Kayne (1998)—whereas the intended antecedents are interpretedas [ÿPerson] arguments. No mismatch with the subsequent ungrammaticalityoccurs when these types of antecedents lack specification for this feature.10

Argument CPs and DP-CPs behave in this respect like some arbitraryelements like PRO in (17a), null objects like (17b), and impersonal SE in(17c), which arguably also have a [ÿPerson] specification:

(17) a. *Es necesario PROi sacar asui perro de paseois necessary to-takePOSSdog for a-walk

b. *La buena mu´sica reconciliaei con sui espıritu.the good music reconciles withPOSSspirit

c. *Sei ama siempre asusi hijos.SE loves always toPOSSchildren

CPs and DP-CPs can, however, be the antecedents of pronouns other thanpossessives, such aslo, ello, or the null subjectpro:

(18) a. Goldbach conjeturo´ [que todo nu´mero perfecto haGoldbach conjectured that all numbers perfect havede ser par]i. . .to be even‘Goldbach conjectured that all perfect numbers have to be even. . .

b . . .pero ninguń matema´tico ha podido demostrarloi.but no mathematician has been-able to-prove-it

‘. . .but no mathematician has been able to prove it.’

(19) a. [El que la preparacioń hubiera cambiado de color]i parecıáthe that the preparation had changed of color seemed

irrelevante. . .irrelevant‘That the preparation had changed its color seemed irrelevant’. . .

b . . .peroelloi llamo profundamente la atencioń de los cientıficos.but it called deeply the attention of the scientists

‘. . .but it deeply called the scientists’ attention.’

10 Recall that the Spanish possessivesu/sus is inherently numberless. The correspondingmorpheme is assigned in concord with the number of its selecting N. Therefore, the possessivecan anaphorically be linked to a singular or a plural antecedent indistinctively. No numbermismatch can take place, as shown in the following examples:

(i) a. Pedro y Juan nos mostraronsu casa.Pedro and Juan us showedPOSS.SGhouse.SG

‘Pedro and Juan showed us their house.’b. Marıa nos mostro´ sus casas.

Marıa us showedPOSS.PLhouses‘Maria showed us her houses.’



(20) [[Que leas en voz alta] y [que te pasees continuamente]]i

that read.2SG in voice high and that walk.2SG continuouslydivierte a Marıá peroproi distrae mucho a Juana.amuses to Maria but distracts lot to Juana‘Your reading aloud and your walking continuously amuses Marıá butit distracts Juana a lot.’

Kayne’s (1998) claim that the so-called third-personl-pronouns do notlexically express the feature [Person] can account for the grammaticality ofthe anaphoric interpretation oflo andello in (18b) and (19b). These elementscan anaphorically be related to nominal or to clausal antecedents becausel-pronouns are best thought of as ‘‘determiner pronouns’’ (see also Bello1847:sect. 273 and Postal 1966).11 As opposed to possessives, there is noperson mismatch withl-pronouns and their CP or DP-CP antecedents.12 Thepossibility of obtaining an anaphoric reading forpro in (20) suggests that thenull subject has the lexical characteristics of anl-pronoun.13

In conclusion, I suggest that argument CPs and nominalized clauses arespecified as [ÿPerson] syntactic objects and cannot link or be related toanother syntactic object with a [+Person] specification.


11 Note that examples in (17) become grammatical if thes-possessive is substituted by the so-called possessive determiner:

(i) a. Es necesario PRO cuidar la salud.is necessary to-take-care-of the health‘It is necessary to take care of one’s health.’

b. La buena mu´sica reconcilia [e] con el espıritu.the good music reconciles with the spirit‘Good music reconciles one with one’s spirit.’

c. Se ama siempre alos hijos.SE loves always to the children‘One/people always loves one’s/their children.’

12 There is no mismatch either whenl-pronouns antecede a possessive becausel-pronounsinherently lack specification for person:

(i) a. No lasi puedo ver, pero voy siguiendo sui rastro.not them.FEM.PL can.1SG see but am followingPOSStrail‘I cannot see them, but I am following their trail.’

b. Elloi no me importa, pero susi consecuencias sı´.it not me concerns butPOSSconsequences yes‘It does not concern me, but its consequences do.’

13 Iatridou and Embick (1997) claim that the null subjectpro cannot have a clause asantecedent. They suggest that referentialpro must be licensed by specific PNG features on theverb and cannot be licensed in contexts where verbal agreement is default, as in verbs withclausal subjects. They argue that CPs areu-featureless and thatpro can never have them asantecedents in any environment given that au-feature mismatch between the clause and itsanaphoricpro would obtain. Their claim cannot be correct given examples like (20) and (i),wherepro is intended to be anaphoric to a CP and can alternate with the strong neuter formello‘it’ (irrelevant details omitted in the glosses):


4.2 Gender

Grammatical gender is assumed to be a noninterpretable feature that allowsus to assess possible relations, anaphoric or otherwise, in a givenconstruction. As is known, Spanish nouns lexically belong to the masculineor to the feminine class ([�fem]). Determiners, adjectives, pronouns, andparticipial forms are also suffixed for gender morphemes in concord with thenoun they are syntactically related to.

There are several items of the DP-types, such as the demonstrative formsesto/eso/aquello‘this/that’ and somel-pronouns (like the strong formello ‘it’and the accusative cliticlo ‘it’) that have traditionally been classified asneuter. Although ‘‘neuter’’ is used as a descriptive label for these elements, Iwould like to claim that there is no third neuter gender, complementary tomasculine and feminine, in Spanish. On the contrary, I suggest that that theSpanish ‘‘neuter’’ corresponds to the [ÿGender] specification of a class ofsyntactic objects, which include argument CPs and DP-CPs, as well as the so-called neuter demonstratives and pronouns. In this section, this suggestion issupported by the distribution of some interrogative elements as well as by thecharacteristics of constructions involving VP-ellipsis.

Consider first the distribution of the interrogativecual ‘which’. I. Bosque(p.c.) has pointed out that this form is only compatible with [�fem] nominals,demonstratives or pronouns as shown in (21).

(i) a. [Que Bill y Nancy hubieran cometido perjurio]i favorecıa a losthat Bill and Nancy had committed perjury favored to therepublicanos porquepro/elloi perjudicaba a los demoćratas.Republicans becausepro/it damaged to the Democrats‘That Bill and Nancy had committed perjury favored the Republicans because itdamaged the Democrats.’

b. Que sea posible [PRO enganãr a la gente]i no significa quepro/elloi

that is possible to-fool to the people not means thatpro/itsea aceptable.is acceptable‘That it is possible to fool people does not mean that it is acceptable.’

c. Decidieron [PRO producir aquellos documentales]i aunque pro/elloi nodecided.3PL to-produce those documentaries] althoughpro/it notles proporcionara nunca ninguń beneficio.them provide never no benefit‘They decided to produce those documentaries although it wouldn’t ever providethem with any benefit.’

As the discussion proceeds, I intend to show that CPs are notu-featureless. Thus, a referentialproanaphoric with a CP argument agrees in PNG content with its antecedent and can be in contextswhere verbal agreement appears with default morphology.



(21) a. Cua´l escoges, la pluma o la cartera de piel?which choose.2SG the pen.FEM or the bag.FEM of leather?‘Which one do you choose, the fountain pen or the leather bag?’

b. Cual lamentas ma´s, el hecho de PRO habertewhich regret.2SG more the fact.MASC of to-havecallado o el hecho de quepro se haya enfadado?remained-silent or the fact.MASC of that has been annoyed‘Which (fact) do you regret more, the fact of having remainedsilent or the fact that s/he has been annoyed?’

c. En cual confias mas, en el o en ella?in which trust.2SG more in him or in her‘Who do you trust more, him or her?’

d. Cual prefieres, este o aquel?which prefer.2SG this.MASC or that.MASC

‘Which one do you prefer, this one or that one?’

Cual ‘which’ is incompatible with neuter demonstratives or pronouns. It isalso incompatible with neuter nominals with a null head (i.e.,lo deCP, as in(9)) or with CPs and DP-CPs, as shown in (22).

(22) a. *Cual quieres, esto o aquello?which want.2SG this.NEUT or that.NEUT

b. *En cual confıas, en ello o en lo otro?in which trust.2SG in it or in the.NEUT other

c. *Cual te sorprende, lo de que Pedro se va a la Chinawhich you surprise.3SG the of that Pedro goes to the Chinao lo de que Pablo quiere ser banquero?or the of that Pablo wants to-be banker

d. *Cual prefieres, PRO salir a dar una vuelta o PROwhich prefer.2SG to-go-out-for a walk orquedarte en casa?to-remain-you at home

e. *Cual elegirıas, quepro lloviera o queprowhich would-elect.2SG that would-rain or thatnevara?would-snow

f. *Cual lamentas ma´s, el PRO haberte callado o elwhich regret.2SG more the to-have remained-silent or thequepro se haya enfadado? (cf. (21b))that has.3SG-been annoyed?

The contrasts show that the interrogativecual is a [+Gender] interrogativeelement and can only be related to [+Gender] categories. Its realization as[�fem] is not morphologically expressed in the standard form, although itshows masculine or feminine suffixes in nonstandard varieties of Spanish



(i.e., cualo/cuala ‘which.MASC/FEM’).14 The hypothesis that neuter pronounsand demonstratives as well as argument CPs and DP-CPs are inherently[ÿGender] accounts for the ungrammaticality of (22a–f), which is due to agender specification mismatch between the interrogative and the linguisticexpression related to it. Mismatch cannot occur with the interrogativeque‘what’, because it does not lexically express any specification for this feature.Hence,quecan coexist with any combination of argument types:

(23) a. Que´ te inquieta ma´s, su salida intempestiva o el quewhat you worry.2SG more his leave.FEM impetuous or the thathaya permanecido silencioso durante toda la reunioń?has.3SG remained silent during all the meeting‘What worries you more, his impetuous leaving or that he hasremained silent during the whole meeting?’

b. Que prefieres, entrar tu o que salga e´l?what prefer.2SG to-come-in you or that leaves he‘What do you prefer, for you to come in or for him to leave?’

c. Que quieres para tu cumpleanõs, un coche o ir dewhat want.2SG for your birthday a car.MASC or to-go forvacaciones a Noruega?vacation to Norway‘What do you want for your birthday, a car or to go to Norway forvacation?’

d. Que te preocupa, lo de que llega Pedro o lo de quewhat you worry.3SG the of that arrives Pedro or the of thatPablo se marcha?Pablo leaves‘What worries you, that Pedro arrives or that Pablo leaves?’

Additional evidence in favor of the hypothesis that CPs and DP-CPs arespecified as [ÿGender] is provided by VP-ellipsis data. VP-deletion is onlypossible in Spanish in the context of a modal verb. In these constructions, ananaphor with a sloppy reading is possible in examples of the types (24),involving a clausal antecedent in (24a) and a neuter demonstrative in (24b).The deleted string is crossed out within parentheses:

14 The following examples are taken from Seco et al. (1999, I:1340):

(i) a. ¿Quien era este? —¿Cualo? —El fiambre.who was this.MASC which.MASC the cold-meat.MASC

‘Who was this one? —Which one? —The corpse.’b. ¿Y a ti, cualas tetas te gustan, Faraoń?

and you, which.FEM tits.FEM you please, Pharaoh



(24) a. [Que Pedro no estuviera de acuerdo] podrıáthat Pedro would-disagree could.1SG

llegar a entenderlo. . .even to understand-it

‘That Pedro would disagree I could even understand. . .’b. . . .pero [esto] no podrıá (llegar a entenderlo)

but this not could.1SG (even to understand-it)‘. . .but I could not even understand this.’

Ellipsis cannot apply in pairs of examples of the types (25a,b) and (25a,c).In these cases, the first member of the pair is a complex nominal headed byhecho‘fact’, as shown in (25a), whereas the second member of the pair hasbeen constructed with a DP-CP, as in (25b), or with an argument CP as in(25c).

(25) a. [El hecho de que Juan no me salude] debothe fact.MASC of that Juan not me greet must.1SG

lamentarlo. . .regret-it.MASC

b. *. . .pero [el que Marıá no me haya hablado] no puedo.but the that Maria not me has spoken not can.1SG

c. *. . .pero [que Marıá no me haya hablado] no puedo.but that Maria not me has spoken not can.1SG

The structure is grammatical, with the intended interpretation, if ellipsisdoes not apply, as shown in (26).

(26) a. [El hecho de que Juan no me salude] debothe fact.MASC of that Juan not me greet must.1SG

lamentarlo. . .regret-it.MASC

b. . . .pero [el que Marıá no me haya hablado] no puedobut the that Maria not me has spoken not can.1SG

lamentarlo.regret-it.NEUT

c. . . .pero [que Marıá no me haya hablado] no puedobut that Maria not me has spoken not can.1SG

lamentarlo.regret-it.NEUT

Note that the anaphoric pronoun corresponds to the clitic formlo in everycase. The pronoun is phonologically null in (24b) and (25b,c) andphonologically overt in (26). In (24a,b), both the antecedents (a CP and ademonstrative) and the respective anaphoric pronouns (overt and covertlo)are ‘‘neuter’’ elements—that is, they are [ÿGender] according to my



hypothesis. In (25a), the complex nominal antecedent headed byhecho‘fact’and its anaphoric pronounlo are masculine (i.e., [+Gender]), whereaslo in(25b,c) is a neuter (i.e., [ÿGender]) clitic taking the masculine morphologyby default. This pronoun agrees with the DP-CP and the argument CP in(26b,c), respectively.

The contrasts show that VP-ellipsis and the sloppy interpretation issensitive to the [�Gender] specification of the categories involved and not tothe categorial types of the antecedents. Witness the grammaticality of the pair(24a,b), where the antecedents are, respectively, a CP and a demonstrativepronoun. VP-ellipsis and the sloppy interpretation is also sensitive, but to alesser degree, when [+Gender] elements with different realization as [�fem]are combined. Kitagawa (1991) and Fiengo and May (1994:218, n. 21) pointout that sloppy readings tend to be marginal or ungrammatical in VP-ellipsiscontexts if a [�fem] variation between members of the first pair showing ananaphoric relation and those of the second pair occurs. The construction isgrammatical in pairs like (27a,b) but only marginally acceptable in pairs like(27a,c).15 In the first case there is no variation for [+Gender] values betweenthe pair of anaphorically related elements, which are both feminine. VP-ellipsis has a marginal status in the pair constituted by (27a,c), where therelated elements are feminine and masculine, respectively.16

(27) a. Si el obispo anunciara [su dimisioń], elif the bishop would-announcePOSSresignation.FEM thepresidente deberıá aceptarla. . .president would-have-to accept-it.FEM

‘If the bishop would announce his resignation, the president wouldhave to accept it. . .’

b. . . .pero si el Papa anunciara [su abdicacioń], elbut if the Pope would.3SG-announcePOSSabdication.FEM thepresidente no podrıá (aceptarla).president not could (accept-it.fem)

‘. . .but if the Pope would announce his abdication, the presidentwould not be able to.’

c. ?(??). . .pero si el Papa anunciara [subut if the Pope would.3SG-announcePOSS

procesamiento], el presidente no podrıá (aceptarlo).impeachment.MASC the president not could (accept-it.masc)

In conclusion, I have shown that argument CPs and DP-CPs behave likethe so-called neuter categories. I have suggested that, formally speaking,

15 Speakers differ with respect to the degree of (un)acceptability that can be attributed to thepair (27a) and (27c). They agree, however, in considering ungrammatical the pairs (25a) and(25b), and (25a) and (25c).

16 The deleted elements are also represented as crossed out within parentheses in theseexamples.



there is no third gender (the neuter) in Spanish, but the label ‘‘neuter’’ is bestthought of as corresponding to the expression of [ÿGender] specification ofsome syntactic objects. These include a types of DP-like elements, such assome demonstratives and a subclass ofl-pronouns, as well as clausalarguments and nominalized clauses.

4.3 Number

Consider the coordinated complex nominals in (28)–(30). The head noun inthe second member of the conjunct is usually deleted under identity and isrepresented as crossed out. Note that the prepositionde ‘of’ introducing theCP complement of N remains (see section 2).17 Example (28) shows thatcoordination of nominal structures triggers plurality on the verb. In (29), thecoordinated nominals are the antecedents or a pronoun, which must also be inthe plural. Finally, (30) shows that coordinated nominals are able to link afloating quantifier.

(28) [El hecho de que hubiera desaparecido] junto con [el hechothe fact of that had.3SG disappeared together with the factde que no tuviera una coartada] lo hicieron sospechoso anteof that not had.3SG an alibi him made.3PL suspect tola policıa.the police‘The fact that he had disappeared together with the (fact) that he didn’thave an alibi made him a police suspect.’

(29) Pedro sugirio´ [la hipotesis de que las oraciones tienen Caso]i

Pedro suggested the hypothesis of that the sentences have Casey [la hipotesis de que no tienen rasgosu]j, pero nosotros noand the hypothesisof that not have featuresu but we notlasi+j asumiremos.them.FEM assume‘Pedro suggested the hypothesis that sentences have Case and the(hypothesis) that they do not haveu-features, but we will not assumethem.’


17 All types of nominals with subordinated clauses, arguments as in (i), or adjuncts as in theexamples in the text, behave alike in this respect.

(i) [El deseo de que vinieras] y [el deseode que te encontraras bien] methe desire of that came.2SG and the desireof that you feel.2SG well meparecieron ambos sinceros.seemed.PL both sincere.PL

The desire that you would come and the desire that you would feel well seemedboth sincere to me.’


(30) a. [La hipotesis de que las oraciones tienen Caso] y [lathe hypothesis of that the sentences have Case and thehipotesis de que no tienen rasgosu] eran consideradas,hypothesisof that not have featuresu were.3PL consideredlas dos, incompatibles.the two.FEM incompatible.PL

‘The hypothesis that sentences have Case and the (hypothesis)that they do not haveu-features were, the two of them,considered incompatible.’

b. [El hecho de que sea ministra] junto con [el hechodethe fact of that is minister together with the factofque presida una ONG] nos parecen, ambos,that chairs an NGO us seem.3PL both.MASC

asombrosos.amazing.MASC.PL

‘The fact that she is a minister together with the (fact) that shechairs an NGO seem both amazing to us.’

The verbal inflection, the ability to link a floating quantifier, and the pluralfeatures of the anaphoric pronoun indicate that complex nominals are assigneda [+Number] feature specification. Coordination of these categories allowsthem to be assigned grammatical plural. If we now compare the precedingexamples with the following ones with coordinated DP-CPs or coordinatedargument CPs, we can see that they always require the verb in the singular, asin (31).18 They are also unable to link a floating quantifier, as shown in (32),or to antecede an anaphoric pronoun in the plural, as shown in (33).

(31) a. [El que hubiera desaparecido] junto con [el que nothe that had.3SG disappeared together with the that nottuviera una coartada] lo hizo/*hicieron sospechoso antehad.3SG an alibi him made.3SG/*PL suspect tola policıa. (cf. (28))the police‘(The fact) that he had disappeared together with (the fact) that hedid not have an alibi made him a police suspect.’

b. [Que el presidente sea reelegido] y [que sea procesado]that the president is reelected and that is.3SG impeachedes/*son igualmente probable/*probables en este momento.is/*are equally probable.SG/*PL at this moment‘That the president will be reelected and that he will beimpeached are equally probable at this moment.’

18 Example (31b) is the Spanish counterpart of the coordinated clausal subject constructionsdiscussed by McCloskey (1991). He shows that preverbal coordinated CPs that express mutuallyexcluding propositions appear to trigger plurality on the verb in English. The examples in (31)–(33) show that singular inflection on the verb is required in Spanish, independently of whether thecoordinated construction is propositional or factive and also independently of whether itexpresses mutually excluding states of affairs.



(32) a. [El que el presidente enfermara] y [el que el primerthe that the president got-sick and the that the primeministro dimitiera] provoc-o´/*-aron (*ambos) la caıda deminister resigned triggered.SG/*PL both the fall ofla bolsa.the stock-market‘(The fact) that the president got sick and (the fact) that the primeminister had resigned triggered (both) the fall of the stock market.’

b. [Que el eje´rcito intervenga immediatamente] y [quethat the army should-intervene immediately and thatse resuelva la crisis por vıá diplomatica]should-be-resolved the crisis by means diplomaticha/*n sido propuesto/*s, (*cada uno), como una soluciońhas/*have been proposed.SG/*PL, each one as a solutionpossible al conflicto (por las mismas personas enpossible to-the conflict by the same people atmomentos diferentes).times different‘(The fact) that the army should intervene immediately and (thefact) that the crisis should be resolved by diplomatic means hasbeen proposed (each one) as a possible solution to the conflict (bythe same people at different times).’

(33) Juan lamenta [el que estuvieras en Ame´rica]i y [el que nuncaJuan regrets the that were.2SG in America and the that neverconocieras a Luisa]j pero yo no loi+j/* losi+j lamento en absoluto.met.2SG Luisa but I not it/*them regret at all‘Juan regrets (the fact) that you were in America and (the fact) that younever met Luisa, but I do not regret it at all.’

Coordinated DP-CPs and coordinated CPs can be interpreted as a pluralityof facts or of states of affairs. This interpretation, however, does not surfacein the verbal inflection or result in the ability of these types of coordinatedarguments to link floating quantifiers or antecede anaphoric pronouns in theplural. In the previous section, I discussed how DP-CPs and argument CPsbehave like so-called neuter items, such as the pronounsello and lo ‘it’ andthe demonstrativesesto/eso/aquello ‘this/that’, and attributed their behaviorto the fact that all are [ÿGender] items. Neuters also happen to behave likeCPs and DP-CPs with respect to the formal specification for number. Theylack plural morphology,19 require the verb in the singular under coordination,and are unable to link floating quantifiers as well. The following examplesshow the contrasts between neuter demonstratives and pronouns and theircorresponding masculine or feminine counterparts:


19 The demonstrative pluralsestos‘these’ andesos/aquellos‘those’ are masculine, as well asthe pronounsellos ‘they’ and los ‘them’.


(34) a. Me gustan este y aquel, pero no losto-me like.3PL this.MASC and that.MASC but not themprobare.will-taste.1SG

‘I like this one and that one, but I will not taste them.’b. Me gusta /*-n esto y aquello, pero no lo/*los

to-me likes/*like this.NEUT and that.NEUT but not it/*themprobarewill-taste.1SG

‘I like this and that, but I will not taste it/*them.’

(35) a. Esta y aquella me parecen ambas/las dos/cadathis.FEM and that.FEM to-me seem both/the two/eachuna exquisita(s).one exquisite‘This and that seem to me both/the two/each one exquisite.’

b. *Esto y aquello me parece(n) ambos/los dos/cadathis.NEUT and that.NEUT to-me seem both/the two/eachuno exquisito(s).one exquisite

c. *Ello y lo otro son ambos/los dos/cada unoit and the.NEUT other are both/the two/each oneasombrosos.amazing

It has been observed that there is a correlation between gender and numberfeature specification in Spanish, a language that has no plural neuters (seeAmbadiang 1999:4901 and references cited there). Categories that aregrammatically feminine or masculine, namely [+Gender] items, are alsogrammatically [+Number], either singular or plural. It appears, however, thatthe specification [ÿGender] prevents the specification [+Number] from beingpossible. Suppose there is a correlation (or a hierarchy) between gender andnumber, such that all [ÿGender] syntactic objects are also [ÿNumber]. Icannot offer a hypothesis that can accounts for why an implicational relationbetween gender and number specification should exist in Spanish. I canmerely say that the data points out in that direction.20 As far as such

20 A counterexample against the implicational relation that appears to exist between genderand number is provided by dative clitic pronouns in standard Spanish, which are not inflected forgender, as shown in (i-a,b), but are inflected for number, as in (i-c):

(i) a. (A Fernando)le dije que esto no me interesaba.to Fernandol.DAT.SG told.1SG that this not me interested

‘(Fernando) I told him that this didn’t interest me.’b. (A Margarita)le dije que esto no me interesaba.

to Margarita l.DAT.SG told.1SG that this not me interested‘(Margarita) I told her that this didn’t interest me.’



correlation seems to exist, it explains why argument CPs and DP-CPs behavelike neuter items and cannot trigger any phenomena related to plurality.21


c. (A Fernando y a Margarita)les dije que esto no me interesaba.to Fernando and to Margarital.DAT.PL told.1SG that this not me interested

‘(Fernando and Margarita) I told them that this didn’t interest me.’

I believe, however, that the counterexample is only apparent. The dative cliticle/les showssome characteristics similar to those of the interrogativecual ‘which’ (see section 4.2). I suggestthat le/les has also [+Gender] content but its realization as [�fem] is not morphologicallyexpressed in standard Spanish. Some indication that this may be so is provided by thephenomenon oflaısmo, present in some nonstandard varieties. In thelaıstadialects, dative cliticsare overtly inflected for [�fem], like accusative clitics, according to the gender of their intendedreferent:

(ii) a. (A Margarita) la dije que esto no me interesaba.to Margarita l.DAT.FEM.SG told.1SG that this not me interested

‘(Margarita) I told her that this didn’t interest me.’b. (A Emma y a Isabel)las dije que esto no me interesaba.

to Emma and to Isabel)l.DAT.FEM.PL told.1SG that this not me interested‘(Emma and Isabel) I told them that this didn’t interest me.’

It must also be pointed out that the plural morpheme of a dative clitic doubling an indirectobject is frequently dropped in Peninsular Spanish. The example (iii-a), where the plural mark /-s/does not appear, corresponds to the normative (iii-b):

(iii) a. Le voy a contar esto a mis hijos.l.DAT.SG am-going to tell this to my children

b. Les voy a contar esto a mis hijos.l.DAT.PL am-going to tell this to my children‘I am going to tell this to my children.’

The dative paradigm shows that this clitic can be morphologically underspecified for gender aswell as number. For discussion on number underspecification, see Fernańdez Soriano(1999:1259) and references cited there.

21 There is one exception in this paradigm. Bello (1847:sect. 829) points out that coordinatedinfinitives with the grammatical function of subject of a symmetric predicate can trigger pluralityon the verb, as shown in (i), taken from Bello. I. Bosque (p.c.) points out that the same exceptionapplies to the so-called neuter demonstratives, as shown in (ii).

(i) Holgazanear y aprender son incompatibles.to-laze-around and to-learn are incompatible‘Lazing around and learning are incompatible.’

(ii) a. Esto y aquello se complementan.this.NEUT and that.NEUT each-other complement.3PL

b. Esto y aquello vienen a ser la misma cosa.this.NEUT and that.NEUT come.3PL to be the same thing

Symmetric predicates take collective arguments that necessarily denote sets of entities. Thephenomenon observed in (i) and (ii) appears to be similar to the one found in constructions withcommittee-type NPs, which can trigger plural agreement with the verb (see, more recently, DenDikken 2001). It must be pointed out, however, that coordinated tensed clauses are unacceptablewith the verb in the plural in the same contexts:

(iii) a. Que holgazanees y que aprendas es/??son incompatible/??-s.that you-laze-around and that you-learn is/??are incompatible.SG/??PL

b. Que digas esto y que actues de esta forma es/*son contradictorio/*-s.that you-say this and that you-act of that way is/*are contradictory.SG/*PL

I have no insightful explanation to offer for the contrasts between (i), (ii), and (iii). I suggestthat the acceptable cases might be attributed to the DP-like status of demonstratives and to thequasinominal characteristics of Spanish infinitives, which are in this respect somewhat similar toEnglish gerund forms (see Hernanz 1999).


To conclude, in this section I applied some tests to show the activity ofeach of theu (PGN) features in isolation. Several constructions wereexamined where CP arguments and DP-CPs are related to items such aspronouns, wh-expressions, and floating quantifiers, among others. Theconstructions I considered require agreement between the elements involved.I distinguished the cases where specification for a givenu-feature F is part ofthe lexical endowment of a given category C (either positive or negative)from the cases where F is not lexically expressed in C. The distinctionenables us to discriminate among cases of feature mismatch from cases offeature unmatch between the related elements. The former occurs when afeature (P, G, or N) has a different specification in each of the items involved.The latter occurs when the feature under consideration is lexically absent inone of the items. Mismatch always results in ungrammaticality, whereasunmatch does not. Thus, clausal argument CPs and DP-CPs are [ÿPerson]and cannot link possessives, which have inherent [+Person] content. This is acase of feature mismatch, and ungrammaticality obtains in anaphora. On theother hand, CPs and DP-CPs can anaphorically relate withl-pronouns andpro, which have no specification for [Person], which is a case of featureunmatch. I also showed that DP-CPs and argument CPs are, descriptivelyspeaking, ‘‘neuter’’ syntactic objects. Neuters are elements specified for[ÿGender] in Spanish. Neuter arguments can freely relate with interrogativesthat have no specification for this feature, but these arguments can not relatewith [+Gender] interrogatives. I also examined cases of gender featuremismatch, considering constructions showing anaphora under VP-ellipsis.Finally, I illustrated how CPs and DP-CPs cannot participate in anyphenomenon related to positive specification for number such as floatingquantification and plural verbal or adjectival morphology. Based on thesedata, I suggest that there appears to be a correlation between gender andnumber formal content, although I am unable at this time to explain why sucha dependency between noninterpretable gender and interpretable numbershould obtain in Spanish.

In summary, argument CPs and DP-CPs do not appear to beu-featurelesssyntactic objects but arguments with theu-feature specification of [ÿP,ÿN,ÿG]. This conclusion leads me to reconsider the implementation of theoperation Agree in structures where one of the arguments, or both, are CPs orDP-CPs.

5. Feature Checking and the Operation Agree with Clausal Arguments

5.1 u-Feature Matching

Let us adopt the null hypothesis that the operation Agree applies at thecomputational component between arguments and functional categories,without exception. I follow the assumption that Agree consists of featurematching between two syntactic objects endowed with a set ofu-features.



The property ofu-completeness for a given argument is satisfied in anycategory entering the numeration with specification for PNG features, or asubset of them, whichever values the specification may take.

In cases like (36), the arguments have a specification for PNG features.The interpretableu-content of subject and object match the (uninterpretable)u-feature set of T andv, respectively. The operation Agree can hypotheticallyapply between the two pairs of syntactic objects as abstractly represented in(36b).

(36) a. [El que hayas llegado tarde] demuestra [que eresthe that have.2SG arrived late proves that are.2SG

un irresponsable]a irresponsible‘(The fact) that you have arrived late proves that you areirresponsible.’

b. [TP DP-CP[ÿP,ÿN,ÿG] [T[P, N, (G)]] [ vP[v [P, N, (G)]] V CP[ÿP,ÿN,ÿG]]]

Chomsky (1998, 1999) suggests that the operation Agree is mediated bythe structural Case of the argument. This is a noninterpretable feature thatrenders the argument active, or ‘‘visible.’’ to the probes T orv. It is unclear,however, whether or not clausal arguments are endowed with anoninterpretable Case feature. For the sake of discussion, let us momentarilypostpone our inquiry on which feature or features activates the agreementmechanism in the cases I am examining. Assume now that the functionalelements T orv relate to their corresponding target argument, a CP or a DP-CP, through their noninterpretable feature content, whichever it might be.

In structures like (36), the verb enters the numeration as a unitarycollection of lexical and formal features. The ‘‘elsewhere’’ inflection of third-person singular (i.e., the so-called default inflection) is chosen as this lexicalentry is being selected. It is the less marked inflection of the verbal paradigm(that is, [PÿI, ÿII] and [NumÿPlural]) as corresponds to the negative value oftheu-features of its arguments.

The hypothesis that argument CPs and DP-CPs are complex syntacticobjects that undergo the operation Agree appears to be conceptually moreadequate that theu-featureless hypothesis considered in section 3. Besidesthe memory load or look-ahead requirement thatu-featureless argumentswould impose in the grammar, some other questions concerning expletivesarise under such a view. Take a structure with a postverbal clausal subject, asin (37), with an expletiveit (or its equivalent) in [Spec,TP].

(37) It T seems/is assumed [CP that IP]

If the CP argument related toit would have nou-feature specification, theexpletive and the functional category T must then beu-complete (oru-


▲ ▲


incomplete) for the same types of noninterpretable features in (37). We wouldhave to adopt this assumption because the formal content of both T andexpletive it must be deleted prior to LF. We would have to assume, in fact,that it agrees with T (by feature matching).

The claim that argument CPs and DP-CPs haveu-features and undergo theoperation Agree with a functional category does not lead us to adopt anyspecial assumptions for their associated expletives. A checking and erasingprocedure parallel to the one suggested in Chomsky 1999 for structures withexpletive there related to nominals could be envisaged for this case.Expletive it (or its equivalent in other languages) can be conceived, likeexpletive there, as au-incomplete item (perhaps with the [Gender] or the[Number] feature). Partial agreement ofit and T can delete thenoninterpretable feature of the expletive, and the PNG-u-complete set in Tremains. The probe T abstractly agrees with the interpretable [ÿP,ÿN, ÿG]u set of the clausal argument, the noninterpretable features of the probe andthose of the goal being subsequently deleted:

(38) It[N/G] . . . T[ÿP,ÿN (ÿG)] . . . CP[ÿP,ÿN,ÿG]

Summarizing, I propose that functional categories, as well as their relatedarguments, are endowed with a set ofu-features. All elements assigned ah-role are subject to the operation Agree with a functional projection. Nominalor clausal arguments are undifferentiated as far as abstract computationaloperations are concerned, whicheveru-feature specification they may have.The computational component is blind to the concrete value of the featuresthat distinguish nominal arguments from nominalized clauses or CParguments: positive specification for PNG features in the first case andnegative specification in the latter cases.

5.2 Case Features

The issue of whether or not clausal arguments have Case has been subject toinquiry through the years, the general assumption being that CP categoriesare incompatible with Case. Accounts for this incompatibility range fromsuggesting that argument CPs can be in a Case-marked chain but cannotremain in a Case-marked position (Stowell 1981)22 to claiming that clausescannot receive Case (see Safir 1986 and subsequent literature). Bothempirical evidence and the theoretical framework I am adopting require forthese proposals to be refined. Piera (1979) shows that CPs (tensed oruntensed) can occupy the subject position of a finite clause, a typical Case-

22 To account for the distribution of clauses in English, Stowell (1981) proposed the CaseResistance Principle, which states that Case may not be assigned to a category that bears a Case-assigning feature. CPs contain the feature [+Tense], a Case-assigning feature in the frameworkadopted by Stowell.

▲



marked position. Furthermore, Plann (1986) offers many examples in Spanishwhere CPs with a diversity of functions appear as complements ofprepositions, which are presumably Case-assigning categories. I alreadydiscussed how CP complements of nouns are introduced by the prepositionde‘of’ (see, e.g., (8)). CPs can also be complements of verbs selectingprepositions likeconfiar en‘to trust in’ (to trust),depender de‘to depend of’(to depend on) orconsistir en ‘to consist in’ (to consist of), as in theseexamples:

(39) a. Confıó en que vengas.trust.1SG in that come.2SG

‘I trust that you would come.’b. Todo dependede que lo digas.

all depends of that it say.2SG

‘All depends that you say it.’c. El problema consisteen que nunca habla claro.

the problem consists in that never speak.3SG clear‘The problem consists of him/her never speaking clearly.’

CPs can appear as well as objects of prepositions introducing adjuncts ofvarious types that have a variety of interpretations.23 For cases like (8) and(39), one can adduce that complements of nouns and complements of [Verb-Preposition] complexes have inherent or thematically related Case. For theirpart, adjuncts introduced by prepositions have been suggested to have (or beassigned) what is known as adverbial or semantic Case.24 The latter is notdetermined, or checked, by a functional element in the root sentence. Leavingthematic and adverbial Case aside, the issue to be elucidated here is whether


23 Some examples of CP adjuncts introduced by prepositions are:

(i) a. Esto se arrugacon que lo mires.this wrinkles with that it look.2SG

‘This gets wrinkled just by looking at it.’b. Dio dinero para que se construyera el puente.

gave.3SG money for that SE.IMPERS constructed the bridge‘S/he gave money for the bridge to be constructed (by somebody or other).’

c. Te siguio mirando hastaque te callaste.to-you continued.3SG looking-at until that you got-silent‘S/he continued looking at you until you got silent.’

d. Me rıo por no llorar.me laugh.1SG by not to-cry‘I am laughing instead of crying (or: I’ve chosen laughing rather than crying).’

e. No estoy de humor comopara que me digan lindezas.not am of humor as for that me say.3PL witticisms‘I am not in the mood to hear witticisms.’

f. Lo hizo sin que yo se lo pidiera.it did.3SG without that I it him/her asked‘S/he did it without me asking for it.’

24 See Andrews 1982, Zaenen, Mailing, and Thraínsson 1985, and, more recently, Schu¨tze2001.


or not subject and object CP arguments are endowed with structural,noninterpretable, Case features.

Suppose that all arguments enter the derivation with a set of formalfeatures [[Case], [P,N,G]], the respective sets showing a combination ofdifferent values. Nominal arguments have the property of being endowedwith a noninterpretable feature specified with the value [+Case], which ismainly expressed with the nominative/accusative alternation in Spanish. Fortheir part, the nonnominal arguments considered here (CPs and DP-CPs) canbe conceived of being endowed with the specification [ÿCase]. Any of thetwo possible specifications for this feature enables an argument to activatethe probes T orv. Theu set of the argument goal, whichever combination of[P,N,G] features it may have, values and deletes the noninterpretableu set ofT/v. The noninterpretable [�Case] feature of the goal is subsequently deleted.Checking and the operation Agree take place as abstractly represented in(40), independently of whether the subject or the object are of the nominal orof the clausal types.

(40) [TPSubj[[�C][�P,�N,�G]] [T[P, N, G]] [vPv [P, N, G]] V Obj[[�C][�P,�N,�G]] ]]

Under my hypothesis, CP arguments and DP-CPs relate with a functionalelement through the same abstract mechanisms that nominal arguments do.On purely conceptual grounds, the conjecture that clausal arguments have a[Case] content is a possible hypothesis in the theoretical framework I adopt.That is, no substantial difference exists in terms of basic formal featurecontent among the types of arguments that can satisfy a subject or an objectfunction. The system is simple if we assume that syntactic operations applyblindly and independently of feature specification. The proposal that clausesare [ÿCase] arguments is also the trivial solution to the problem of thelongtime-noted incompatibility between [+Case] features (realized asstructural nominative or accusative in Spanish) and argument CPs and howthe incompatibility is solved in the computational component.

The near opacity of Spanish morphology with respect to Case featuresdoes not allow us to test on Spanish data the hypothesis that argument CPsare explicitly specified as [ÿCase] syntactic objects. We can resort, however,to examine some data in Euskara (Basque), an ergative language that hasthree grammatical cases—ergative, absolutive, and dative. Overt Casemorphemes in the auxiliary verb system of Euskara reflect the Case contentof the predicate arguments. Consider first the following sentence with anominal subject and a complement clause:25

▲ ▲

25 The Basque (Euskara) example (41) is from Levin 1993.



(41) Mirenek esan du [JonMiren.ERG say.PERF AUX.3SG.ERG, 3SG.ABSJon.ABS

etorri dela]come.PERF AUX.3SG.ABS.C‘Miren has said that Jon has come.’

Levin and Massam (1985) and Laka (1993) claim that ergative cannot beassigned to a subject unless the object is in the absolutive. In (41), theauxiliary du shows third-person singular and ergative morphemescorresponding to the subjectMiren.ERG, as well as default third-personsingular and absolutive corresponding to the CP object. Absolutive, which ismorphologically null, is structurally assigned to the nominal object of atransitive predicate. It also is the default Case in Euskara.26 Tensed argumentCPs appear in a given construction with the agreeing auxiliary inflected forabsolutive, whether CP has the function of object, as in (41), or that of thesubject as in (42).

(42) a. [Etxean daudela] iruditu zait.house.INES.SG AUX.3PL.C seem.PERF AUX.3SG.ABS, 1SG.DAT

‘It has seemed to me that they are at home.’b. [Gaixorik zaudela] ahaztu zait.

sick AUX.2SG.C forget.PERF AUX.3SG.ABS, 1SG.DAT

‘I have forgotten that you are sick.’ (‘That you are sick forgottenis to me.’)

Recall once more that argument CPs have been claimed to have thespecification [ÿP, ÿN, ÿG]. This characteristic is expressed on the verbalinflection by resorting to the default third-person singular morphology. Isuggest that a similar strategy is used in Euskara for the Case feature.Suppose that argument CPs are endowed with the specification [ÿCase], as Isuggest. The related auxiliary must therefore exhibit absolutive, which is theunmarked, default, or ‘‘elsewhere’’ Case in this language.27 Any othermorphological expression of Case is impossible because it manifests a formof the [+Case] specification, a property of nominals or nominal-like syntacticobjects. Under this idea, consider the following transitive constructionsshowing the incompatibility between ergative assignment and subject tensedclauses. The ungrammatical ergative morphology on the main auxiliary isshown in boldface in (43).


26 With the exception of (41), the Euskara examples in this section were provided by J. Elordi,whom I thank for his patient and careful discussion of many data. For a detailed discussion of thestructure of verbal inflection in Euskara, see Laka 1996.

27 Following Schutze (2001), I assume that Universal Grammar may include a notion ofdefault Case. He suggests that default Case surfaces in nominal elements that do not receive aCase specification by syntactic means. I propose to extend the notion to include arguments thatcannot be associated with a [+Case] feature.


(43) a. *[Etor zaizeten] [arduragabekeria handia] erakustencomeAUX.2SG.ABS(Subj) irresponsibility big.ABS prove.IMPERF

duAUX.3SG.ABS/3SG.ERG

‘That you have come has proved/shown a big irresponsibility.’b. *[Jon etorri dela] [arazo asko]

Jon.ABS come.PERF AUX.3SG.ABS.C problem many.ABS

eragingo ditu.cause.FUT AUX.3PL.ABS/3SG.ERG

‘That Jon has come will cause many problems.’

In each of these examples, structural absolutive has been assigned to thenominal objectsardurabekeria handia‘big irresponsibility’ andarazo asko‘many problems’, respectively. Given that CPs are [ÿCase], ergativeassignment cannot obtain. Propositional or factive arguments with thesubject function in a transitive structure require a nominalization or anominalization-like process in Euskara in order to be compatible with[+Case]ERG assignment. For the purposes of this discussion, thenominalization procedure basically consists of either adding the suffix-t(z)eto the verbal root or using a nominal-like form on the verbal auxiliary.In the former case, the predicate projection does not have an auxiliary verb,as shown in (44). In the latter, the auxiliary is in the infinitive, as in (45). Ineach set of examples, the propositional or factive nominalized subject showsergative inflection, which agrees with the main auxiliary, also in the ergative.The relevant morphemes appear glossed in boldface:

(44) a. [Zuk Jon gonbidatzeak] [arduragabekeria handia]you.ERG Jon.ABS invite.NOM.ERG.SG irresponsibility big.ABS

erakusten du.show.IMPERF AUX.3SG.ABS/3SG.ERG

‘You inviting Jon has shown/proved a big irresponsibility.’b. [Mozioa onartzeak] [arazo asko]

motion.DET.ABS approve.NOM.ERG.SG problem many.ABS

eragingo ditu.cause.FUT AUX.3PL.ABS/3SG.ERG

‘Approving the motion will cause many problems.’



(45) a. [Zuk Jon gonbidatu izanak] [arduragabekeriayou.ERG Jon.ABS invite.PERF AUX.INF.ERG.SG irresponsibilityhandia] erakusten du.big.ABS show.IMPERF AUX.3SG.ABS/3SG.ERG

‘You to have invited Jon has shown/proved a big irresponsibility.’b. [Mozioa onartu izanak] [arazo

motion.DET.ABS approve.PERF AUX.INF.ERG.SG problemasko] eragingo ditu.many.ABS cause.FUT AUX.3PL.ABS/3SG.ERG

‘You to have approved the motion will cause many problems.’

Finally, consider (46), which has an infinitive subject in the ergative and acomplement tensed clause. The main auxiliarydu appears with defaultabsolutive, for the CP object, and with ergative agreement with the infinitive(nominal-like) subject. Both appear in boldface in the glosses:

(46) [Zuk gainditu izanak] [ikasiyou.ERG pass.PERF AUX.INF.ERG.SG learn.PERF

duzula] erakusten du.AUX.3SG.ABS/2SG.ERG.C show.IMPERF AUX.3SG.ABS, 3SG.ERG

‘You to have passed has shown/proved that you have studied.’

I believe these Euskara examples offer support to the hypothesis thatargument CPs are not Caseless but have, in fact, specification for Case. Instructures like (41), the presence of a Case feature, with the value [ÿCase],allows ergative assignment to the NP subject. The concrete specification ofthis noninterpretable feature has its morphological reflex on the verbalauxiliary. The [ÿCase] value assigned to argument CPs is expressed byresorting to the less marked inflection of the Case paradigm (absolutive), thesame way that the interpretable [ÿP,ÿN, ÿG] content of the CP argument isexpressed with the less marked inflection of theu paradigm [III, Sg].

Independently of this interpretation of the Euskara data, anotherconsideration can be brought up in favor of the proposal that argumentCPs have Case andu content. Assume that [ÿCase] and theu-features [ÿP,ÿG, ÿN] are properties of Comp. Such a formal content is phonologicallyrealized in Spanish either asque (tensed CPs),el que (DP-CPs), or aphonologically null head (infinitive CPs). As suggested by an anonymousreviewer, the proposal that clausal arguments have a complete formal featurecontent in Comp can account for the possibility or the impossibility ofembedded subjects to be the goal of a functional projection in thesuperordinate structure. A T or av in the main clause is able to enter intoan agreement relation with an embedded subject only if a CP is notselected—that is, in raising and ECM constructions as in the abstractrepresentations (47a,b), respectively. If a CP is present, as in (47c), theagreement relation between the main T/v and the embedded subject is



blocked because Comp c-commands the subject and Comp has Case anducontent.28

(47) a. [TP [T[P, N, (G)] [ SEEM [TP DP[+P, +N, +G][+Case]to VP]]]]

b. [TP DP [vP [v [P, N, (G)] BELIEVE [TP DP[+P, +N, +G][+Case]to VP]]]]

c. [TPXP [vP[v [P, N, (G)]V [CPC[ÿP,ÿN,ÿG][ÿCase][TPDP[+P, +N, +G][+Case]to VP]]]]]

Summarizing, the proposal that argument CPs are endowed with Case andPNG features as part of their lexical makeup leads us toward a simplersystem. The need for ad hoc stipulations based on category types iseliminated because all arguments are alike at the relevant level of abstraction.In this paper, I have included nonnominal categories within the generalprocess of abstract agreement. The agreement mechanism proposed in theminimalist framework can easily be imagined as a species of grammaticalsynapse between elements having an interpretableu set of features with acombination of different values (for nominal and for nonnominal arguments)and elements endowed withu-receptors (functional categories). The synapticcontact between syntactic objects in the lexical and in the functional phasesof the clause is possible by the noninterpretable Case feature of the argumentsthat activates the process.

References

ABNEY, S. 1987. The English NP in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT,Cambridge, Mass.

AMBADIANG, T. 1999. La flexion nominal: Geńero y Numero. In Gramaticadescriptiva de la lengua espanõla, ed. I. Bosque & V. Demonte, 4843–4913.Madrid: Espasa Calpe.

ANDREWS, A. D. 1982. The representation of Case in Modern Icelandic. InThemental representation of grammatical relations, ed. J. Bresnan, 427–503.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

BELLO, A. 1847. Gramatica de la lengua castellana. Madrid: EDAF Ediciones(1980).

BERNSTEIN, J. 1993. Topics in the syntax of nominal structure across Romance.Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY, New York.

BRUCART, J. M. 1998. ‘‘El artıćulo neutrolo’’ in El foro del espanol en el CentroVirtual Cervantes. Available at: cvc.cervantes.es/foros.

▲

▲

▲ ▲

28 The Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) proposed in Chomsky 1999 also rules out theimpossible agreement relation represented in (47c). The PIC states that the domain of a head X(X, v, or Comp) is not accessible to operations outside its projection XP. Any operation can onlyapply to X and to its specifiers or adjuncts.



CHOMSKY, N. 1995.The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CHOMSKY, N. 1998. Minimalist inquiries: The framework.MIT Occasional Papers

in Linguistics15. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.CHOMSKY, N. 1999. Derivation by phase.MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics18.

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.CINQUE, G. 1980. On extraction from NP in Italian.Journal of Italian Linguistics

5:47–99.DEMONTE, V. 1977.La subordinacioń sustantiva. Madrid: Catedra.DEN DIKKEN, M . 2001. Pluringulars, pronouns, and quirky agreement.The

Linguistic Review18:19–41.FERNANDEZ SORIANO, O. 1999. El pronombre personal: formas y distribuciones:

Pronombres a´tonos y tonicos. InGramatica descriptiva de la lengua espanõla, ed. I.Bosque & V. Demonte, 1209–1273. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.

FIENGO, R. & R. MAY. 1994.Indices and identity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.GIORGI, A. & F. PIANESI. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to

morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.HALLE, M. & A. MARANTZ. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of

inflection. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of SylvainBromberger, ed. K. Hale & S. J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

HERNANZ, M.L. 1999. El infinitivo. InGramatica descriptiva de la lengua espanõla,ed. I. Bosque & V. Demonte, 2197–2356. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.

IATRIDOU, S. & D. EMBICK. 1997. Apropospro. Language73:58–78.KAYNE, R. 1998. Person morphemes and reflexives. Ms., New York University.KITAGAWA, A. 1991. Copying identity.Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

9:497–536.LAKA, I. 1993. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative.

In Papers on Case and agreement I, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics18, ed. J.D. Bobaljik & C. Phillips, 149–172. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Working Papers inLinguistics.

LAKA, I. 1996. A brief grammar of Euskara, the Basque language. Available at:www.ehu.es/grammar.

LEVIN, B. 1993. On the nature of ergativity. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,Mass.

LEVIN, B. & D. MASSAM. 1985. Surface ergativity: Case/theta relationsreexamined. InProceedings of NELS 15, ed. J. Bergman et al., 286–301,Amherst, Mass.: GLSA Publications.

LEONETTI. M. 1999. El artıćulo. InGramatica descriptiva de la lengua espanõla, ed.I. Bosque & V. Demonte, 787–890. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.

MCCLOSKEY, J. 1991.There, it, and agreement.Linguistic Inquiry22:563–567.PICALLO, M. C. 1991. Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan.Probus3:279–316.PICALLO, M. C. 2001. Nominalized clauses, clausal arguments, and agreement.

CatWPL9:69–84.PIERA, C. 1979. Some subject sentences.Linguistic Inquiry10:732–735.PLANN S. 1981. The twoel+infinitive constructions in Spanish.Linguistic Analysis

7:203–240.PLANN, S. 1986. On Case marking clauses in Spanish: Evidence against the Case

Resistance Principle.Linguistic Inquiry17:336–346.POSTAL, P. 1966. On so-called ‘‘pronouns’’ in English. InReport of the 17th annual

Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, 177–206. Washington,D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

SAFIR, K. 1986.Syntactic chains. New York: Cambridge University Press.SCHUTZE, C. 2001. On the nature of default case.Syntax4:205–238.SECO, M. et al. 1999.Diccionario del espanõl actual. Madrid: Aguilar.



STOWELL, T. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,Mass.

ZAENEN, A., J. MALING & H. THRAINSSON. 1985. Case and grammaticalfunctions: The Icelandic passive.Natural Language & Linguistic Theory3:441–483.

M. Carme PicalloUniversitat Auto`noma de Barcelona

Filologia Catalana, Edifici B08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona)

Spain

[email protected]



Documents

Abstract Agreement