Pronominal and complex inversion

We saw in §4.2.1 that French finite verbs undergo V movement to the highest head within IP*, landing to the right of SpecIP*, the canonical subject position:

IP* I*N fin VP* v

(170) [ subject [ verb . . . [ . . . t . . . ]]]

In view of the standard analysis of English subject–auxiliary inversion we might similarly analyse PI in terms of a further instance of V movement, taking the finite verb over the top of the subject, out of IP* and into CP*:

CP* fin IP* I*N v VP* v

(171) [ . . . verb [ subject [ t . . . [ . . . t . . . ]]]]

An approach to PI along these lines (that is, in terms of V movement over the subject) is advocated by Rizzi and Roberts (1989) and immediately accounts for the postverbal position of the subject, assuming of course that the postverbal pronominal is indeed the subject. However, a simple V-movement analysis leaves a number of questions unanswered. Perhaps the two most important are:

(172) a. Why is PI restricted to pronominal subjects? If PI really is parallel to English subject–auxiliary inversion, why can’t the finite verb invert around a DP* subject?

b. What position is occupied by the preverbal DP* subject in CI?

Rizzi and Roberts (1989) answer these questions as follows. The finite verb in French can check nominative case in a spec–head configuration, only. This is fine if the verb remains in I*E, but not if it raises to a head within CP*. However, the pronominal subject can be licensed if it incorporates into the inverted verb. Incorporation is possible with heads, only, not with DP*s. DP* subjects are excluded from PI, therefore, because they can’t be checked if they stay in SpecIP*, and can’t incorporate into the inverted verb, either. As for the position of the preverbal DP* subject in CI, Rizzi and Roberts suggest that CP* has two specifiers, a higher specifier, occupied by the fronted wh phrase, and a lower one, occupied by the preverbal subject DP*. Rizzi and Roberts’ analysis is problematic for a number of reasons. Consider (173), where an adverbial clause intervenes between the wh phrase and the preverbal subject DP* (Jones 1999):

(173) Dans quelle ville, quand le vote a eu lieu, les électeurs sont-ils allés à la pêche? in which town when the vote has had place the voters are-they gone to the fishing ‘In which town, when the vote took place, did the voters go fishing?’

If the fronted wh phrase and the preverbal subject DP* occupy the two proposed SpecCP* positions, the intervening adverbial clause would need to be adjoined to a C*N position, a possibility ruled out by Merge (§1.5), or else would need to occupy an additional intervening specifier position.

The movement-to-COMP analysis of the finite verb in PI/CI also fails to account for the French–English contrast in (174) (Jones 1999):

(174) a. *When did Mary dance and did John sing? b. ?Quand neigera-t-il et ferons-nous du ski?

when snow-it and will.do-we of.the ski

‘When will it snow and when will we go skiing?’

Cardinaletti and Roberts (2002) originally called the two proposed projections Agr1P and Agr2P. Cardinaletti (2004) 71

renames them AgrSP and Subj(ect)P.

Agr recursion also allows the adverbial clause in (173) either to adjoin to a phrasal projection, or else itself to occupy a 72

specifier projection within its own FP.

ordinated. This follows from the standard analysis of English subject–auxiliary inversion in terms of movement to COMP. The French example in (174b) is marginal but much better than (174a). If French PI is analysed along the same lines as English subject–auxiliary inversion, the contrast is unexpected and unexplained.

A minor revision to the Rizzi and Roberts (1989) analysis of PI/CI is offered in Cardinaletti and Roberts (2002) and Cardinaletti (2004). (See also Jones 1999.) Instead of resorting to double specifiers, these analyses suggest that, in PI/CI contexts, only, an additional FP is merged at the top of IP*. Written at a time when the topmost projection within IP* was called Agr(eement)P, this approach to PI/CI has become known as the ‘Agr recursion’ analysis. In this analysis the wh phrase occupies SpecCP*, the (preverbal) DP* subject, the71

specifier of the higher AgrP, and the (postverbal) pronominal subject, the specifier of the lower AgrP, as in (175):

CP* w h AgrP fin AgrP v VP* v

(175) [ XP [ subject DP* verb [ subject pronominal t . . . [ . . . t . . . ]]]]

The attraction of Agr recursion is that it allows: (a) each relevant phrase to occupy a specifier position within its own projection; and (b) the finite verb to raise from the lower Agr head, over the top of the pronominal subject, to the higher Agr head, thus locating it between the DP* subject and the pronominal subject. The72

lower Agr head checks the ö features of the finite verb and the nominative case of the subject, while the higher Agr head checks a predication feature (Cardinaletti 2004: 120–1). Thus, both the inverted verb and the preverbal DP* subject in CI are located within IP*.

Under Agr recursion, the answer to question (172a) therefore remains unchanged. As for question (172b), Agr recursion provides an additional specifier position for the (preverbal) DP* subject to occupy. Since the (postverbal) pronominal subject is licensed by incorporation, the finite verb doesn’t need to check the

pronominal’s case feature, and is therefore able to check the case feature of the DP* in a spec–head configura- tion. The weakness of Agr recursion is that it’s hard to see – not least from the perspective of comparison with Germanic – why the inverted finite verb should be unable to check the case feature of a DP* subject prior to inverting and, therefore, why simple inversion is impossible with DP* subjects.

Of course, these issues stem from the assumption – made in Rizzi and Roberts (1989), Cardinaletti and Roberts (2002) and Cardinaletti (2004) – that PI/CI really do involve inversion, that is, that they involve V movement across the pronominal subject. In order to avoid these issues, and better answer the questions in (172), it has been suggested (for example, by Barbosa 2001) that PI and CI don’t involve V movement beyond I*E, and that the finite verb actually occupies I*E in PI/CI and non-PI/CI contexts alike. There are a number of advantages to such an approach, some having to do with its consequences for our understanding of the nature of the postverbal pronominal and the preverbal DP*. Before these are explored, though, I need to explain how the idea that PI/CI doesn’t involve further V movement can be aligned with our understanding of wh fronting. The theoretical attraction of traditional movement-to-COMP analyses of matrix non-subject wh interrogatives is that they straightforwardly allow inversion to be related to wh fronting: both target the pre-IP* domain because this is the minimal domain in which checking allows a feature on the verb to be associated with a feature on the wh phrase. Further, the approach accounts for why inversion isn’t found in matrix subject wh interrogatives in ModF: neither fronting nor inversion takes place because the required checking configuration can be achieved within IP*.

Given that, in French as in English, wh fronting in matrix non-subject wh interrogatives targets a relatively low position within CP* (lower than SpecTopicP at least; §5.6.1.1), we concluded in §5.6.1.2 that the

motivation for the wh fronting was the same as the motivation for the inversion: the need to check the wh feature of the wh phrase against [Q] on I*E. In English the required checking configuration is produced by fronting the wh phrase and inverting the finite auxiliary. In ConF, while the wh phrase fronts, the finite verb doesn’t invert because [Q] is located within CP*. In ModF, in contrast, inversion does take place. However, we’ve just concluded that the inversion is only apparent, and that, in reality, the finite verb in PI/CI in ModF occupies the same position as in uninverted sentences. How is this so? How do French and English differ? Cyrille-Thomas (2003) suggests that the crucial difference hinges on the properties of CP*. In English C*E can be targeted by V movement, and the finite verb bearing [Q] can raise from I*E. In French, in contrast, C*E

See also Chomsky’s (2005) notion of feature inheritance/spreading. 73

As such, there’s an interesting parallel with some northern Italian dialects, where non-inverted and inverted subject 74

proforms must be distinguished, not least because they are morphologically different:

(i) a. El vien. b. Vien-lo? (Paduan, Zanuttini 2001: 525 (25))

he comes comes-he

‘He’s coming.’ ‘Is he coming?’

on I*E? The answer given by Cyrille-Thomas is that a long-distance checking configuration is created. In the73

structure in (176) the wh feature of the fronted wh phrase in SpecCP* can be checked against [Q] on the finite verb in I*E because a chain is formed between the finite verb and the empty C*E:

CP* C*N IP* I*N fin VP* v

(176) [ wh phrase [ e [ [ verb . . . [ . . . t . . . ]]]]]

The value of the chain is that, together with the local spec–head configuration between SpecCP* and C*E, the wh phrase in SpecCP* can be linked with the finite verb in I*E. However, formation of a chain between I*E and C*E doesn’t come for free: specifically, it comes at the expense of the ability of I*E to check SpecIP*. The biuniqueness condition on checking means that, from a given position, a single head can’t check two

specifiers, so if I*E checks the wh phrase (long distance via the chain with C*E), as it needs to (given that it doesn’t raise out of IP*), it can’t simultaneously check the subject in SpecIP*.

In English, where subject–auxiliary inversion involves V movement to COMP, nothing needs to be said about the grammatical subject: it quietly sits in SpecIP* and becomes postverbal as a side effect of V movement across it. If we’d adopted Agr recursion, a similar analysis could have been given for the postverbal pronomi- nal in PI/CI. However, we rejected Agr recursion and concluded instead that PI/CI doesn’t involve V

movement beyond I*E. Given our analysis in §4.4.4 of weak preverbal subject proforms as phonological clitics, that is, as DP*s which first raise from their VP*-internal SpecèP position to SpecIP*, and then phonologically (pro-)cliticise onto the finite verb, something definitely does need to be said about the postverbal pronominal in PI/CI. If the verb hasn’t moved, the pronominal can’t quietly sit in SpecIP* and wait to become postverbal, and it clearly doesn’t phonologically procliticise either. In fact, this outcome is a welcome result. If it had been possible to account for PI/CI so straightforwardly, the question would have remained why inversion isn’t possible around a DP* subject. By having to explain the postverbal pronominal found in PI/CI, we can address in a non-ad-hoc manner why DP*s are excluded.

A number of facts suggest that the immediately postverbal element found in PI/CI is not the same as the preverbal subject proform. First, as we’ve seen, while preverbal subject proforms co-distribute with preverbal DP* subjects, the postverbal element in PI/CI doesn’t:

(177) a. Jean/il est parti. b. Est-il/*Jean parti? J./he is left is-he/J. left ‘J./he left.’ ‘Did he/J. leave?’

Second, while the postverbal element in PI/CI co-occurs with a preverbal lexical DP* subject (in CI), the preverbal subject proform doesn’t (irrelevant LD contexts (§5.3.1) and subject-doubling varieties like Picard and Québécois (§4.4.4) aside):

(178) a. Jean est-il parti? b. *Jean il est parti. J. is-he left J. he is left ‘Did J. leave?’

Third, while preverbal subject proforms can be omitted in a second conjunct, the postverbal element can’t: (179) a. Il va au bar et (il) commande une bière.

he goes to.the bar and he orders a beer ‘He goes to the bar and orders a beer.’ b. Va-t-il au bar et commande*(-t-il) une bière?

goes-he to.the bar and orders-he a beer ‘Is he going to the bar and ordering a beer?’

Finally, the preverbal subject proforms don’t systematically have postverbal counterparts. For example, ce and je are pronounced [sc] and [¥c] before consonant-initial verbs, but [s] and [¥] before vowel-initial ones due to elision. In postverbal position, they are either impossible, as in (180b) and (181b), or else they’re pronounced [s] and [¥], as in (182), possibly involving a phonological modification to the verb, as in (183c) and (184c):74

The ‘uninverted’ form, je puis, is an archaic/literary alternative to je peux. 75

(180) a. ce furent b. *furent-ce

this was was-this

(181) a. je prends b. *prends-je

I take take-I

(182) a. était-ce [etes] b. sais-je [se¥]

was-this know-I

(183) a. je peux [¥cpø] b. *peux-je c. puis-je [pwi¥]75

I can can-I can-I

(184) a. je trouve [t“uv] b. *trouve-je c. †trouvé-je [t“uve¥]

I find find-I find-I

The postverbal counterparts of the vowel-initial subject proforms appear with epenthetic [t] when the verb is phonologically vowel final, as in (185):

(185) a. il trouva [ilt“uva] b. *trouva-il [t“uvail] c. trouva-t-il [t“uvatil]

In one case, the subject proform ça ‘that’, quite clearly a clitic given its availability as a resumptive proform in dislocation structures like (186), is categorically excluded from postverbal position, as shown in (187): (186) Les voisins, ça boit.

the neighbours that drinks

‘The neighbours like their alcohol.’ (187) *Quand (les voisins) va-ça arrêter de boire?

when the neighbours goes-that stop of drink

‘When are the neighbours/they going to stop drinking?’ The inverted equivalent of ça is il:

(188) a. Cela, ça te gêne. b. Cela te gêne-t-il? that that you disturbs that you disturbs-it ‘That disturbs you.’ ‘Does that disturb you?’

Similarly, l’on ‘one, we’, the high-register alternative to on, is excluded from PI: (189) a. Voit-on loin? b. *Voit-l’on loin?

see-one far see-one far

‘Can you see far?’

These properties suggest that the postverbal element in PI/CI isn’t simply an inverted subject proform, but an affix instead (Zwicky and Pullum 1983), and not related to the canonical subject position at all. As for what kind of affix it is, a clue comes from the conclusion that the ‘inverted’ verb actually remains in I*E and that the verb in I*E has a long-distance checking relationship with the fronted wh phrase in SpecCP*, a checking relationship which, due to the biuniqueness condition on checking, prevents I*E from checking a subject in SpecIP*: if (the [Q] feature on) the finite verb in I*E checks (the wh feature on) the fronted wh phrase in SpecCP*, then (the D/EPP feature on) the finite verb in I*E can’t simultaneously check (the case feature of) the subject in SpecIP*. It’s precisely to solve this problem that the immediately postverbal element in PI/CI, now conceived of as an affix, appears: it’s an agreement marker (on I*E) and is licensed by the [Q] feature (on I*E) precisely because I*E can’t check the subject (in SpecIP*). Crucially, the affixal agreement marker (re-)endows I*E with the ability to check the subject (in SpecIP*).

Analysing the immediately postverbal element in PI/CI as an affixal agreement marker has a number of merits. It explains why a pronominal ‘subject’ can co-occur with a DP* subject only if the pronominal subject is ‘inverted’, as in (178a) (cf. (178b)). It’s difficult to see how (178b) could be excluded in any principled way under Agr recursion. In the present analysis, (178b) is excluded precisely because only one subject position is available. The two ‘subjects’ can co-occur only if the pronominal ‘subject’ is postverbal (and therefore actually an agreement marker), and the pronominal ‘subject’ can be postverbal only if the finite verb bears [Q].

The example in (i), with -ti rather than -tu, is from Goosse (2000: 116), who suggests that the structure is restricted to 76

popular French, and in decline: (i) Vous en avez-ti des moins chers?

you of-that have-ti of.the less expensive ‘Do you have any less expensive ones?’

(190) a. *Il est-il parti? b. *Jean est-Jean parti? he is-he left J. is-J. left

The Agr-recursion analysis excludes subject clitics from the higher SpecAgrP and DP* subjects from the lower SpecAgrP in part because of the pragmatic mismatch between the status of (pro)nominals on the one hand, and the relevant Agr head on the other. In the present analysis the problems are strictly syntactic. Starting with (190a), in the absence of a DP* subject, a preverbal subject clitic is necessarily present because French is a non-pro-drop language. The non-pro-drop status of French is due to the inability of I*E to identify the ö features of the subject. In PI, however, I*E bears an affixal agreement marker, which is able to identify the ö features of the subject. Thus, where the affixal agreement marker is licensed, we expect pro-drop-like behaviour, that is, the absence of an overt (non-LDed) preverbal subject and the presence of pro instead. The example in (190a) is therefore ungrammatical because the presence of the overt subject clitic is uneconomical. As for (190b), ungrammaticality is due to the fact that there’s no position for the postverbal DP* to occupy.

Interesting support for the explanation for the ungrammaticality of (190a) comes from comparison between the affixal agreement marker found in PI/CI in ModF on the one hand, and the -ti/-tu elements which mark yes–no interrogatives in some varieties of French on the other. The element -tu is illustrated in the Québécois examples in (191):76

(191) a. Le déjeuner est-tu prêt? b. Tu l’as-tu battu? the dinner is-tu ready you him-have-tu beaten ‘Is dinner ready?’ ‘Did you beat him?’

The form of (191) suggests a structural parallel with PI/CI, and that -ti/-tu should be analysed like the affixal agreement marker. However, there are two differences between -ti/-tu and the affixal agreement marker (Taraldsen 2001: 172). First, in terms of morphology, while the affixal agreement marker agrees with the ö features of the subject, -ti/-tu is invariant, suggesting that it’s not endowed with ö features. Second, in terms of syntax, while the affixal agreement marker co-occurs with either a lexical DP* subject or pro, -ti/-tu co-occurs with either a lexical DP* subject (191a) or a subject clitic (191b); it does not co-occur with pro, as shown in (192) (cf. (191a)):

(192) *pro est-tu prêt? is-tu ready ‘Is it ready?’

These two differences can be related. If what allows an affixal agreement marker in ModF to license pro is its morphological richness, then the impoverished morphology of -ti/-tu is expected not to license pro, and to require an overt subject proform, instead. I propose, therefore, that -ti/-tu is like the affixal agreement marker found in PI/CI in ModF in that it: (a) is an affix; (b) is licensed by the presence of [Q] on I*E; and (c) endows I*E with the ability to license the subject in SpecIP*. It differs from the affixal agreement marker in that it: (a) is devoid of ö features and morphologically invariant; and (b) is therefore unable to license pro in SpecIP*. While -ti/-tu appears in certain varieties of French, only, and may be in decline, the present discussion is