Cover not available
Part of
The Form of Structure, the Structure of Form: Essays in honor of Jean Lowenstamm
Edited by Sabrina Bendjaballah, Noam Faust, Mohamed Lahrouchi and Nicola Lampitelli
[Language Faculty and Beyond 12] 2014
► pp. 349–360

A note on labeling, Berber states 
and VSO order

| University of Geneva
Berber nouns appear in two syntactically-conditioned morphological forms. Subjects in VSO configurations, objects of (most) prepositions and clitic-doubled direct objects manifest the construct state, CS. Elsewhere, nouns appear in the free state, FS. I argue that CS is the form of a noun that merges with a head K, situated above vP and below T. Following Chomsky (2013), the subject phrase must raise out of vP in order for vP to get labeled. K is its target. From Kayne (2002, 2004), I borrow the idea that P is configured above vP and attracts a noun to a twinned head K. Clitic-doubled objects, unlike non-doubled ones, are also on the edge of vP and labeling requirements force them to raise higher, again to K.
Published online: 17 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.12.27shl
References (28)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2001. “The Subject-in-Situ Generalization and the Role of Case in Driving Computations.” Linguistic Inquiry 32 (2): 193–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 1988. “The Case of Unaccusatives.” Linguistic Inquiry 19 (1): 1–34.Google Scholar
. 1999. “Italian/Romance Clitics: Structure and Derivation.” In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, ed. by Henk van Riemsdijk, 543–579. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bendjaballah, Sabrina, and Martin Haiden. 2013. “The Representational Anomalies of Floating Markers: Light Prepositions in Taqbaylit of Chemini.” In Principles of Linearization, ed. by Teresa Biberauer, and Ian Roberts, 331–375. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo. 2000. “Doubling Structures and Reconstruction.” Probus 12 (1): 93–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. “Problems of Projection.” Lingua 130: 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2006. “On Clitic Doubling and Parasitic Gaps in Romanian.” Revue roumaine de linguistique 51: 23–42.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 1987. “Pirahã Clitic Doubling.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5 (2): 245–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guerssel, Mohand. 1992. “On the Case System of Berber.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37: 175–195.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Berber Clitic Doubling and Syntactic Extraction.” Revue québecoise de linguistique 24: 112–133.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2002. “On Some Prepositions That Look DP-internal: English “of” and French “de”.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 71–115.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Prepositions as Probes.” In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 192–212. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1996. “Subjects and Subject Positions in Irish.” In The Syntax of the Celtic Languages, ed. by Robert Borsley, and Ian Roberts, 241–283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ouali, Hamid. 2008. “On C-to-T ø-transfer: The Nature of Agreement and Anti-agreement in Berber.” In Agreement Restrictions, ed. by Roberta D’Alessandro, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, and Susann Fischer, 159–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1988. The Syntax of Head Movement: A Study of Berber. London: University College Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Subject-Extraction, Negation and the Anti-Agreement Effect.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11 (3): 477–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “The Construct State in Berber.” In Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar, ed. by Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm, and Ur Shlonsky, 278–301. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Genitive Subjects and VSO Order.” In Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, and T. Alan Hall, 197–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “VSO, Agreement and Anti-agreement.” Ms., Dublin: University College.
Pesetsky, David. 1989. “Language-Particular Processes and the Earliness Principle.” [URL]
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2004. “Tense, Case, and the Nature of Syntactic Categories.” In The Syntax of Time, ed. by Jacqueline Guéron, and Jacqueline Lecarme, 495–538. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2013. “Cartography, Criteria, and Labeling.” Paper presented at the Cartographic Workshop , Geneva, June 7, 2012.
Roberts, Ian G. 2005. Principles and Parameters in a VSO Language: A Case Study in Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouveret, Alain. 2010. “On Verb-Subject Languages.” Lingua 120 (2): 232–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 2004. “Enclisis and Proclisis.” In The Structure of CP and IP, ed. by Luigi Rizzi, 329–353. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Subject Positions, Subject Extraction, EPP and the Subject Criterion.” In Locality, ed. by Enoch O. Aboh, Maria Teresa Guasti, and Ian Roberts, 58–86. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1998. The Dependency of Objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. “Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance.” Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Stegovec, Adrian
2024. The third way: object reordering as ambiguous labeling resolution. The Linguistic Review 41:1 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Bošković, Željko
2018. On Movement out of Moved Elements, Labels, and Phases. Linguistic Inquiry 49:2 ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.