Sobre los archivos gubernamentales en el contexto del acceso a la información

IP* CP* IP*

(242) a. [ Tu dis [ que [ Jean part]]] you say que J. leaves

‘You say that J. is leaving.’

CP* IP* CP* IP*

b. [ Quel gars [ tu dis [ qui [ – part]]]]? which boy you say qui leaves

‘Which boy do you say is leaving?’

In (242a) the subject of the subordinate clause remains in SpecIP*; in (242b) it fronts to CP*. In (242a) the subordinate clause is introduced by the complementiser que, in (242b), by qui. Second, consider the subject and object relatives in (243a, b) as well as the free relatives in (244a, b):

CP* IP*

(243) a. la femme [ Op que [ Jean veut épouser – ]] the woman que J. wants marry

‘the woman J. wants to marry’

CP* IP*

b. la femme [ Op qui [ – veut épouser Jean]] the woman qui wants marry J.

‘the woman who wants to marry J.’

CP* IP* CP* IP*

(244) a. ce [ Op que [ je veux faire – ]] b. ce [ Op qui [ – me fait peur]] that que I want do that qui me makes fear

‘what I want to do’ ‘what scares me’

Here, too, there’s a correlation between objects and que, and subjects and qui, suggesting that masquerade has taken place in (243b)/(244b): a non-overt wh relative proform (Op) necessarily fronts from SpecIP* to SpecCP*. Thus, instead of treating que and qui here as relative proforms (the analysis rejected in §5.6.1), they’re actually complementisers, and the relative proforms are non-overt. Third, consider the subject and object clefts in (245) (§5.5):

CP* IP* CP* IP*

(245) a. C’est Luc [ Op que [ j’ai vu – ]] b. C’est Luc [ Op qui [ – vient]] that-is L. that I-have seen that-is L. that comes

‘It’s L. that I saw.’ ‘It’s L. who’s coming.’ Once again, the object patterns with que, the subject, with qui.

The standard analysis within generative syntax (Rizzi 1990; Pesetsky 1982) is that qui is an allomorph of the complementiser que, and that the qui allomorph is triggered by wh fronting of the subject from a following

See also the that–trace filter in English: that – 6i: 91

(i) a. *Who do you think that – will leave? b. Who do you think i – will leave?

A potential problem with Taraldsen’s (2001) analysis is that, as que + i, qui isn’t actually a constituent! See Rooryck 92

(2000b) for a similar suggestion. SpecIP* position:91

C*N IP*

(246) a. . . . [ que [ subject . . . CP* i C*N i IP* i

b. [ wh-XP [ qui [ t . . .

It’s suggested that wh fronting of the subject from SpecIP* to SpecCP* creates a spec–head agreement configuration between the wh phrase and the complementiser and that qui is therefore que + agreement.

Taraldsen (2001: 164) questions the validity of this analysis by observing that, for an apparently agreeing form, qui doesn’t have much in the way of agreement morphology (in comparison, say, with agreeing complementisers in West Flemish). On the basis of comparison with parallel data in Vallader (Rhaeto- Romance) and some Germanic varieties, Taraldsen concludes that qui is in fact a portmanteau of que followed by an expletive i element in subject position, rather than a complementiser following by the trace of a fronted92

wh phrase. On such an approach the fronted wh subject has moved from a lower position; (246b) is thus modified as (246bN):

CP* i C*N IP* i

(246) bN. [ wh-XP [ que [ i . . . t . . .

5.8.2

Past-participle agreement

Compound verb paradigms comprise a perfective auxiliary (avoir ‘to have’, être ‘to be’; §2.2.2.6) and a following past participle (see Table 2.3 on page 22 in §2.2.1.2). Ordinarily, the past participle of avoir-taking verbs is invariant:

(247) a. Jeanne a ri. b. Jeanne a écrit les lettres. J. has laughed J. has written the letters ‘J. laughed.’ ‘J. wrote the letters.’

However, in a number of contexts, past participles show agreement, namely, être-taking intransitives (248a) (§2.2.2.6), passives (248b) (§2.2.3.1), cliticised direct objects (248c) (§4.4.1), wh-fronted direct objects (248d, e) (§5.6.1):

(248) a. Les femmes sont mortes. b. Les maisons ont été repeintes. the women are dead the houses have been repainted ‘The women died.’ ‘The houses were repainted.

c. Les maisons, je les ai repeintes. d. Quelles maisons avez-vous repeintes? the houses I them have repainted which houses have-you repainted ‘I repainted the houses.’ ‘Which houses did you repaint?’ e. les maisons que vous avez repeintes

the house that you have repainted ‘the houses you repainted’

On the basis of (248) past-participle agreement (henceforth, PPA) appears to be triggered by direct objects, more specifically, preposed direct objects: in (248c) the non-overt direct object fronts to SpecCliticP, licensing les; in (248d) the direct object undergoes wh fronting; in (248e) the non-overt relative proform, Op, also undergoes wh fronting. The traditional generative approach (Kayne 1989) to PPA has been to assume that it’s triggered by the overt movement of the direct object to some preverbal position via the specifier of a dedicated IP*-internal FP hosting PPA morphology, say, Agr(eement)P(a)stP(a)rt(iciple)P(hrase). Such an approach is clearly motivated in (248c–e).

Less straightforward are (248a, b) where the PPA-triggering DP*s are subjects. However, the subject in the passive sentence in (248b) would be a direct object in the corresponding active sentence. It makes sense to link PPA in (248a) to auxiliary selection, discussed in §2.2.2.6, where it’s suggested that être selection is

semantically triggered: être is selected if the subject is a Theme. Thus, PPA is actually PPA with a Theme. The significance to PPA of overt movement of the direct object through SpecAgrPstPrtP (rather than fronting per se) is that it accounts for contrasts like the one in (249a, b):

2

A recent orthographic ‘tolerance’ does now allow en to trigger PPA. 93

Note, though, that in some Eastern varieties, M past participles are phonetically distinguished from F past participles in 94

terms of final-syllable length.

CP* IP*

(249) a. les voitures [ Op qu’ [ il a – conduites – ]] the cars that-he has driven.F.PL

‘the cars he drove’

CP1* IP1* CP2* IP2*

b. les voitures [ Op qu’ [ il a dit(*es) [ – qu’ [ il a – conduites – ]]]] the cars that-he has said(.F.PL) that-he has driven.F.PL

‘the cars he said he drove’

In (249a) the non-overt direct-object relative proform (Op) passes through SpecAgrPstPrtP on its way to SpecCP*, and therefore triggers PPA. In (249b) while the same thing happens within CP2*, triggering PPA on conduites, the unbounded nature of the wh fronting involved in relativisation means that Op raises directly from SpecCP2* to SpecCP1*, bypassing SpecAgrPstPrtP in IP1*, and failing to trigger PPA on dit.

The importance of the notion that the entire direct object undergoes fronting is illustrated in (250):

2

(250) J’en ai bu. I-of-it have drunk ‘I drank some.’

2 2

Here, the direct object apparently surfaces as the clitic en, crucially without triggering PPA, even if en is

2

interpreted as a pronominalised form of, say, the PL DP* des verres ‘glasses’. Recall that en pronominalises a subpart of an indefinite DP*, rather than an entire DP*, as in (251):

2 DP*

(251) J’en ai bu [ trois – ]. I-of-it have drunk three ‘I drank three (of them).’

Transferring the structure in (251) to (250), therefore, the entire direct object in (250) has arguably not

2

undergone fronting; only a subpart of it has, the subpart which is pronominalised as en:

2 DP*

(252) J’en ai bu [ i – ]. (= (250))

Crucially, it’s because the entire direct object hasn’t fronted that PPA doesn’t take place.93

PPA is also found in the context of (some) PMC verbs discussed in §5.2.3, as in (253): (253) a. La femme, Jean l’a emmenée/vue/laissée faire ses courses.

the woman J. her-has led/seen/let do her shopping ‘J. led/saw/let the woman (to) do her shopping.’

b. Quelle femme a-t-il emmenée/vue/laissée faire ses courses? which woman has-he led/seen/let do her shopping

‘Which woman did he lead/see/let (to) do her shopping.’

The existence of PPA with these PMC verbs is in line with the biclausal ECM analysis proposed in §5.2.3. In comparison with subject–finite-verb agreement (§2.2.1.1), PPA is very unstable. It arose during the EModF period due to influence from Italian, where it’s marked with rich morphology. In French, for the largest inflectional category of verb, those like regarder ‘to watch’ with infinitives ending in -er, PPA is an exclusively orthographic phenomenon, unmarked phonologically: regardé(e)(s) [“cla“de]

‘watched(.F)(.PL)’. PPA surfaces orally with a small set of irregular verbs, only, for example 94 dire ‘to say’, and even here it’s gender, and not number, agreement that’s marked: dit(s) [di] ~ dite(s) [dit] ‘said’. However, even in the context of those irregular verbs whose past participles potentially show PPA in gender orally, the standard pattern of PPA is poorly respected in speech and writing (Goosse 2000: 126), with speakers/writers often failing to mark PPA where the standard language requires it. Belletti (2001c) suggests that optional PPA may point to movement through SpecPstPrtP being optional. An alternative approach would be to distinguish between ModF (with PPA) and ConF (without PPA) on the basis of the featural make-up of definite DP*s or the PstPrt head. Such an approach won’t account for the obverse of PPA not happening where it ‘should’, namely, PPA happening where it ‘shouldn’t’, illustrated in (254), where the standard language doesn’t require PPA because the reflexive clitic se is an indirect object rather than a direct object:

(254) a. $le chapeau que Lucienne s’est faite b. $Ils se sont succédés. le hat that L. self-is made.F.SG they.M.PL self are succeeded ‘the hat L. made for herself’ ‘They succeeded one another.’ Such cases could be treated as hypercorrection.