Solving the problem

How might these issues be handled? One approach to the data in (92)–(95) has been proposed by Sproat and Shih (1988; 1991) (see also Dimitrova-Vulcha-nova 2003). For these authors, the robust empirical generalisation isn’t universal unmarked left-to-right attributive-AP* ordering, as expressed in (89); rather, it’s universal relative distance from the noun. It’s not that an attributive AP* of one semantic class occurs further to the left, or further to the right, than the other, but rather that one occurs further away from, or closer to, the head noun than the other.

For example, AP*s denoting absolute properties (shape, colour) are closer to the noun than those denoting relative properties (quality, quantity), while subjective AP*s are further from the noun than objective AP*s. Such an approach can handle the data in (92)–(95), but it can’t handle the data in (90): in (90a) German is closer to the noun than blue, while in (90c) bleue ‘blue’ is closer than allemande

‘German’. On the face of it, therefore, the ‘mirror-image’ approach is no better than the ‘universal-order’ approach. Also, the ‘mirror-image’ approach doesn’t answer the question why, in a given language, some AP*s are pre-N while others are post-N.

Observe from examples (94) and (95) that any analysis of attributive-AP*

placement is going to have to allow flexibility. The difference between the a and b examples is one of scope. Further, the analysis needs to cope with the data in (98), where the difference between the unmarked (98a) and the marked (98b) relates to information structure, and exploits a strategy used generally in Romance whereby the right DP* periphery contains a contrastive focus (Bernstein 1999; 2001):

(98) a. une voiture bleue allemande b. une voiture allemande bleue

a car blue German a car German blue

‘a German blue car’ ‘a blue German car’

One way of making the ‘universal-order’ more flexible is suggested by data such as (99), from Lamarche (1991: 219, ex. (8a)):

(99) a. un groupe important de femmes b. un groupe de femmes important a group important of women a group of women important

‘a large group of women’ = (99a)

Assume that the DP*s in (99) both contain the NP* groupe de femmes underlyingly, and that the head noun in (99a) undergoes N movement over the AP* important. In the synonymous (99b) the AP* is preceded, not by the noun alone, but by the entire string groupe de femmes. Consider now the data in (100), from Lamarche (1991:

220, ex. (10b)):

(100) a. *une machine rouge à coudre b. une machine à coudre rouge a machine red to sew a machine to sew red

‘a red sewing-machine’

The DP* in (100b) is headed by the complex noun machine à coudre (§2.1.1).

Here, the attributive AP* necessarily follows the entire complex, rather than just the head noun, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (100a). W hat the data in (99b)/

(100b) suggest is that more than mere N movement is needed to capture N–AP*

ordering. Phrasal movement is needed as well, optionally in (99b), necessarily in (100b). Significantly for our purposes, such an approach is suggested by Laenz-linger (2000; 2005) to deal with the contrasting order in which attributive AP*s appear in (92). In fact, the data in (92) are something of a simplification. Consider the English example in (101) and the two possible French equivalents in (102):

(101) a pretty little blue floral Scottish skirt (102) a. une jolie petite jupe bleue fleurie écossaise

b. une jolie petite jupe écossaise fleurie bleue

The order of the pre-N AP*s is the same in both languages. In fact, Laenzlinger claims this is true across all languages. In contrast, the post-N AP*s in French either come in the same order as those in English, or else their order is reversed (as in (92aN–cN)). W hile the ‘universal order’ in (102a) can be accounted for with simple N movement, the ‘mirror-image’ order in (102b) can’t. Rather than adopting Lamarche’s (1991: 227) suggestion (see also M iller et al. 1997: 72 and Sadler and Arnold 1994) that pre-N AP *s are heads while post-N AP*s are phrases,

Laenz-linger (2005) assumes that pre- and post-N AP*s are all phrases occupying SpecFP positions (as in (91)), but that some are located in SpecFP positions within a higher internal domain (DP*), while others are located within a lower nominal-internal domain (ClfP*). The strict order of the pre-N AP*s is UG-determined; their pre-N position is due to the fact that in no language does N movement raise the noun to the their left. Conversely, the reason why the French N AP*s are post-N is that the noun does raise to their left; the reason why they have two possible orderings is that two kinds of movement are available. The first, N movement, has already been seen, and readily accounts for the order in (102a). The second is phrasal movement. Laenzlinger suggests that each adjectival FP (FPAdj) is immediately dominated by an agreement FP (FPAgr) and that a projection of the noun can raise to SpecFPAgr. This is illustrated in (103) and (104). On the basis of the familiar structure in (103) (now augmented with agreement FPs above each adjectival FP), NP* first raises to the specifier of FPAgr above italienne, resulting in an intermediate word order of rouge voiture italienne, and then the FPAgr

dominating voiture italienne raises to the specifier of FPAgr above rouge, as in (104), resulting in the final word order voiture italienne rouge:

(103) FPAgr

3 FAgrN 3

Agr Adj

F FP

g 3

rouge F NAdj

3

Adj Agr

F FP

g 3

FAgrN 3

Agr Adj

F FP

g 3

italienne F NAdj

3 FAdj NP*

g voiture

1 2

On the distinction between en and en , see Table 4.1 on page 127 and the general

36

discussion in §4.4.3.

(104) FPAgr

qp

Agrj Agr

FP F N

3 tu

Agr Agr Adj

NP* F N F FP

g 3 g 2

i Agr Adj Agr

voiture F FP rouge FP

g fu g

Adj j

italienne F N t

2 FAdj NP*

g ti

Laenzlinger’s approach to nominal structure, AP* order and N/NP* movement provides a perspective on a phenomenon relating to en cliticisation. Compare the2 ³⁶

two indefinite DP*s in (105):

(105) a. trois articles intéressants b. trois bons articles three articles interesting three good articles

‘three interesting articles’ ‘three good articles’

In direct-object position, a subpart of DP* can be pronominalised using en . W hen2

this happens the behaviour of attributive AP*s is sensitive to the pre-N-versus-post-N distinction: while the pre-pre-N-versus-post-N bons seems unaffected by en -pronominalisation2

(106b), post-N intéressants is preceded by de ‘of’ (107b):

(106) a. Ce livre contient trois bons articles.

this book contains three good articles

‘This books contains three good articles.’

b. Ce livre en contient trois bons.

this book en contains three good2

‘This book contains three good ones.’

(107) a. Ce livre contient trois articles intéressants.

this book contains three articles interesting

‘This book contains three interesting articles.’

b. Ce livre en contient trois d’interessants.

this book en contains three of-interesting2

‘This book contains three interesting ones.’

W e can account for this contrast by taking recourse to the informal notion that de is used to license AP*s which would otherwise be ‘orphaned’, for example, in quelqu’un d’intéressant ‘someone interesting’, where intéressant cannot be accommodated within the minimal DP* structure containing quelqu’un. The

In Québécois the PL proforms also exist with suffixed autres ‘others’: nous/vous/eux/elles

37

autres. For recent sociolinguistic and stylistic discussion, see Blondeau (2004). Cf. Spanish nosotros ‘we/us’ and vosotros ‘you’.

As plurals, nous-même(s) and vous-même(s) typically have final -s. However, where nous