Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 28, Lisbon
Edited by Ernestina Carrilho, Alexandra Fiéis, Maria Lobo and Sandra Pereira
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10] 2016
► pp. 233–258

Intervention or phasal locality?

Two ways of being local in French causative constructions

| Université Paris-Diderot, Laboratoire de linguistique formelle
The Minimalist Program claims that only two notions of locality are necessary: phasal locality and intervention locality (in the form of the Minimal Link Condition). This paper asks whether the unification of the two is possible or desirable. An argument against unification would consist in showing that a process A obeys one locality condition and doesn’t obey the other and that another process B does exactly the reverse. Two phenomena are considered, which fit this description – respectively interpretation (R-I) and clitic placement (CL-PL). Their contrasting behavior in the French faire-construction indicates that each one obeys a locality condition that the other does not: CL-PL obeys phasal locality, R-I some form of minimality. The theoretical implications of these findings for the theory of locality and the architecture of grammar are examined in the conclusion.
Keywords: Agree, Applicative head, Clitic Placement, Faire-construction, intervention, locality, Object Shift, phases, Quantifier Raising, Subject Raising
Published online: 8 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.10.12rou
References (43)
References
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding, Ph.D., University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Boneh, Nora and Léa Nash. 2011. “High and higher Applicatives. The case of French non-core datives.” In WCCFL 28, ed. by Mary V Byram Washburn, et al.: 60–68.Google Scholar
Bošković, Zeljko. 2007. “Agree, phases and intervention effects.” Linguistic Analysis 33: 54–96.Google Scholar
Brüning, Benjamin. 2001. “QR obeys Superiority: Frozen scope and ACD.” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo. 2004. “Explaining the locality conditions of QR. Consequences for the Theory of Phases.” Natural Language Semantics 12: 345–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo and Caterina Donati. 2015. On Labelling. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui. 2012. “Conjunction, cumulation and respectively readings.” Journal of Linguistics 48: 297–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. “Conditions on transformations.” In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: the framework.” In Step by Step, ed. by R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Ken Hale: a Life in Language, ed. by M. Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. “On phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. by R. Freidin, C. Otero and M.-L. Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Problems of projection”. Lingua 130: 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005. “A smuggling approach to the passive in English.” Syntax 8: 81–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costantini, Francesco. 2010. “On the argument structure of the causative construction: evidence from scope interactions.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2010, ed. by I. Franco, S. Lusini and A. Saab, 203–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Scott. 1996. A feature-relativized shortest move requirement. Ph.D. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella and Heidi Harley. 2007. “Causation, obligation and argument structure: On the nature of little v*.” Linguistic Inquiry 38: 197–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny and David Pesetsky. 2004. “Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure.” Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawron, Jean Mark and Andrew Keller. 2004. “The semantics of respective readings. Conjunction and filler-gap dependencies.” Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 169–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groat, Erich. 2013. “Is Movement a part of Narrow Syntax?” Unpublished paper, Goethe-University, Frankfurt.
Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1996. “Semantic restrictions in Romance causatives and the incorporation approach.” Linguistic Inquiry 27: 294–313.Google Scholar
Homer, Vincent, Tomoko Ishizuka and Dominique Sportiche. 2009. “The locality of clitic placement and the analysis of French causatives.” Talk given at Glow in Asia, Hyderabad .
Hu, Victor Xiaoshi. 2014. “A phasal analysis of cliticization in French causative constructions.” Unpublished paper, UFRL, Université Paris-Diderot.
. 2015. “Diagnosing the internal structure of French causative constructions.” Unpublished paper, UFRL, Université Paris-Diderot.
Ippolito, Michela. 2000. “Remarks on the argument structure of Romance causatives.” Unpublished paper, MIT.
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Prepositions as probes.” In Structures and Beyond, ed. by A. Belletti, 192–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the double object construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1968. “The role of semantics in a grammar.” In Universals of Linguistic Theory, ed. by E. Bach and R.T. Harms, 124–169. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 1998. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2011. Constraints on Displacement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nash, Léa and Alain Rouveret. 2002. “Cliticization as unselective Attract.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 157–199.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. “Multiple agree with clitics: person complementarity vs. omnivorous number.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 939–971. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
, 2013, “Locality.” Lingua 130: 169–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouveret, Alain, 2014. “Two ways of being local: the case of French causative constructions.” In O Universal e o Particular. Uma vida a comparar. Homenagem a Maria Francisca Xavier, ed. by A. Fiéis, M. Lobo and A. Madeira, 277–298. Lisboa: Edições Colibri.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1980. “Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations”. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 97–202.Google Scholar
Scha, Remko. 1981. “Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification.” In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, ed. by J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen and M. Stokhof, 483–512. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1987. Levels of Representations. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Hu, Xiaoshi
2018. Explorer la structure interne des constructions causatives du français. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 63:1 ► pp. 70 ff. DOI logo
Hu, Xiaoshi
2023. Defectivity Matters: Cliticization in French Causatives Revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 54:4 ► pp. 759 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.