Subject-verb Agreement as a Movement Operation in the Minimalist Program

1.2.2.4. Subject-verb Agreement as a Movement Operation in the Minimalist

The verbal head raises to adjoin to the AgrS head via cyclic adjunction to the intermediate functional heads, a movement that counts as a single complex operation, as in (32):

As a result of these two movement operations, both the verb and the subject are in the checking domain of AgrS and can match (delete or erase) their features against the appropriate features of this functional head. When the features of both verbal head and subject match the AgrS features, agreement obtains and the derivation converges.

As has been previously shown, transitive V in languages such as French includes object features that must be confronted in the corresponding AgrO node (nous l’avons chantée -la chanson-).⁴² Such an overt V-O agreement is neither present in English nor in Spanish; but V-O agreement does constitute a necessary operation (though with no bearings on PF) for the verb to check all its features. The following tree in (33) includes all checking relations undergone by V (subject, object and T features) and how all of them meet in AgrS:

42 For a detailed analysis of participle agreement in a variety of Romance languages, see Kayne (1985, 1989). See also Suñer (1987) for Spanish.

(32)

AgrS’

AgrSP

TP

VP FF (V)V

ti V’

SUi

tV ...

tV

Subject-verb agreement therefore consists of a complex and single operation, as reflected in (33), with all verbal features FF (V) in AgrS. The different steps are as follows: the verbal features FF (V) adjoin to AgrO and leave a trace tV in its original position. Thus the following chain is formed, in which CHv stands for verbal chain:

CHv = [ FF (V), tv ]. Once raised, FF (V) in the tree has no checking domain, but the chain CHv that is headed by FF (V) does. The complex FF ( [V, AgrO] ) raises to T to check its V-related features and then raises to adjoin AgrS for the same reason.

Neither V nor CHv have a new checking domain in this adjoined position, but FF (V), as part of the complex FF ( [V, AgrO, T] ), is now in the checking domain of AgrS and shares features with it. The different steps for FF (V) are illustrated in the following bracketings in (34):

(34) the chain: [FF(V), tV] in AgrO

the final chain: [AgrS FF(V)V [TP tV [AgrO tV [VP tV ]]]]

...

AgrSP

AgrS’

AgrS TP AgrOP

AgrO’

VP

V’

tv

ti

tv

Spec tv

SUi

T T AgrO

FF(V)v AgrO

(33)

the complex: FF [V, AgrO]

FF [V, AgrO, T] in [Spec TP]

FF [V, AgrO, T, AgrS] in [Spec AgrS]

The tree will then be as in (35):

Since the NP-subject has raised overtly to [Spec AgrSP], the subject SU is also in the checking domain of the head AgrS. Even though this overt movement was the result of attraction by the nominal feature in AgrS, the rest of the formal features of the subject have also raised as free riders. Among these free riders are the agreement features of the subject, and they can now match indirectly with FF (V) in the checking domain of AgrS. Subject-verb agreement is therefore formally explained.

At the same time, the subject in [Spec AgrSP] is in the checking domain of AgrS and in the checking domain of the chain headed by T. As a consequence, it will check not only agreement but also Case features.

When taking the movement of the object into consideration, a question arises: what prevents the arguments of the verb from raising to the specifiers of the inappropriate Agreement projections, i.e. for the object to raise to [Spec AgrSP] and for the subject to raise to [Spec AgrOP], thereby rendering an ungrammatical structure like the one in (36)?:

AgrSP

AgrS’

AgrS SUi

...

...

FF(V)V

(35)

(36) by Spell-Out: *[ [AgrSP applesi] [VP John [V´ate ti]]]

In response to the question regarding why the object could not raise to [Spec AgrSP], checking Nominative features, and the subject to [Spec AgrOP], checking Accusative features, Chomsky´s (1992, 1993) solution derives from the application of a new economy principle, the minimal link condition, the locality condition that restricts movement to the shortest move.

As previously stated, the relevant condition that favors shorter moves over longer ones is known as the principle of shortest movement. Since the effect of the principle is to favor the formation of movement chains with minimal links, i.e. the smallest shortest possible links, the relevant principle is also referred to as the minimal link condition or the minimality condition (Chomsky 1995). This includes Rizzi´s (1990) relativized minimality principle by means of which a moved constituent moves to the nearest appropriate position; thus, depending on the type of constituent being moved, the appropriate position will vary. For instance, a

tj

AgrSP

AgrS’

TP

AgrOP

AgrO’

VP

V’

tV

ti

AgrO tV

OBJECTj

FF(V)VtV

AgrS SUBJECTi

(37)

moved head will move to the next-highest head position (head movement); an argument will move to the next-highest A position (A-movement); and an operator will move to the next-highest operator position (A-bar movement).

On the one hand, if the subject were to rise to AgrO, as in (38), it would have to receive accusative Case and object agreement:

The object, on its turn, also has to check its Case, presumably in [Spec AgrS], but the object cannot reach that position since the subject in AgrO is blocking that raising.

As the previous tree diagram in (37) shows, when the subject moves to [Spec AgrS] leaving a trace in [Spec VP], object movement to [Spec AgrO] is not blocked, since the trace of the subject in [Spec VP] is invisible to move (contrary to the subject itself that does prevent the raising of the object).

On the other hand, we see in (33) that in the MP, T does not project a specifier position in the case of languages such as Spanish. The checking of nominative Case occurs then at the point of derivation in which the complex head created by adjunction of V to T raises to adjoin to AgrS, rendering a configuration in which the element in [Spec AgrS] is in the checking domain of all the heads within the complex AgrS, i.e. [V, T, AgrS].

AgrSP

AgrS’

TP

AgrOP

AgrO’

OBJECT SUBJECT AgrS

AgrO (38)

VP V V’

Also direct movement of the subject to [Spec AgrSP] when [Spec TP] is present would violate relativized minimality since it would cross two specifiers positions, [Spec AgrOP] and [Spec TP].⁴³

Summing up the theoretical background provided by the PP theory and the MP, certain contrasting points between the two approaches need to be stressed:

a) As opposed to the PP theory, in the MP a derivation that satisfies all interface constraints does not necessarily yield a grammatical sentence. Economy conditions have to apply.

b) The change in paradigm from the PP theory to the MP research program involves also a change from a representational to a derivational model of grammar since under a minimalist perspective a sentence not only must be assigned a well-formed representation but also has to comply with economy principles at any point in the derivation.

c) In the MP, merge theory specifies possible projections of head-complement, head-specifier and adjunction structures. It replaces X-bar theory in previous models.⁴⁴

d) Unlike it is the case in the PP model, in the MP functional heads do not represent agreement morphemes of a particular language, but rather a collection of abstract morphological features that must be checked.

Within the generative framework, two different approaches have recently been proposed. Both are based on minimalist assumptions, but provide some points of departure from the MP in an attempt to better capture certain differences and

43 Nevertheless, as Olarrea (1996) points out, the result seems to be necessary only for languages with covert V-to-I movement and obligatory subject raising. Adjunction of the verb to T and subsequent adjunction of the complex head to AgrS will allow cyclic movement of the subject to [Spec AgrSP]

through [Spec TP].

similarities between languages. The two proposals are Kayne´s (1994) antisymmetry which focuses on word order, and Archangeli and Langendoen´s (1997) optimality theory which concentrates on different rankings of constraints. In spite of their differences, both antisymmetry and optimality aim at providing a more refined account of how differences among languages are to be explained; and how these differences are interrelated and explained in terms of UG. We will deal with each theory separately.

1.3. Antisymmetry