Malagasy demonstratives appear simultaneously initially and finally within the DP and must be identical: ity boky ity ‘DEM book DEM’ “this book”. We argue that the unusual doubling pattern arises from multiple pronunciation of a single demonstrative formative and not from base-generation of two independent formatives. The primary goal is to show that doubling, which has been amply discussed in the verbal domain, particularly in the literature on verb doubling in predicate clefts, also occurs in the nominal domain and can be successfully analyzed with existing theoretical machinery.

There is no consensus in the literature on the analysis of phrasal comparatives. Both reduced clause analyses, in which the standard phrase contains elided clausal structure, and direct analyses, in which the standard of comparison is a direct complement to the standard marker, have been proposed. This paper argues for a direct analysis of the phrasal comparative in Malagasy, an Austronesian language spoken on the island of Madagascar. Evidence for the direct analysis comes from the lack of overt clausal comparatives, Binding Theory, scope, and Malagasy-specific characteristics of the standard. The conclusion contributes to the rapidly expanding picture of cross-linguistic variation in comparative syntax.

Malagasy demonstratives appear simultaneously initially and finally within the DP and must be identical: ity boky ity ‘DEM book DEM’ “this book”. We argue that the unusual doubling pattern arises from multiple pronunciation of a single demonstrative formative and not from base-generation of two independent formatives. The primary goal is to show that doubling, which has been amply discussed in the verbal domain, particularly in the literature on verb doubling in predicate clefts, also occurs in the nominal domain and can be successfully analyzed with existing theoretical machinery.

Ellipsis is restricted by an identity condition such that elided material must be identical in some fashion to a linguistic antecedent. The traditional view is that this requirement is syntactic in nature. Merchant, in 2001, however, proposed that the identity condition is fundamentally semantic, leading to a substantive debate in the ellipsis literature. Potsdam, in 2007, used the sluicing construc-tion in Malagasy to argue for Merchant's semantic licensing condition; how-ever, since that work, at least two alternative analyses of sluicing constructions in other Austronesian languages, Nukuoro and Malay/Indonesian, have been proposed that are potentially compatible with a syntactic identity condition. This paper considers those analyses for Malagasy and shows that they are untenable. Malagasy sluicing requires that the antecedent and the elided clause need not be syntactically identical. It thus continues to support a non-syntactic identity condition on ellipsis.

Extraposition is the non-canonical placement of dependents in a right-peripheral position in a clause. The Austronesian language Malagasy has basic VOXS word order, however, extraposition leads to VOSX. Extraposed constituents behave syntactically as though they were in their undisplaced position inside the predicate at both LF and Spell Out. This paper argues that extraposition is achieved via movement at Phonological Form (PF). I argue against alternatives that would derive extraposition with syntactic A’ movement or stranding analyses. Within a Minimalist model of grammar, movement operations take place on the branch from Spell Out to PF and have only phonological consequences.

Research on word order has established several possible ways in which VOS order can be derived from VSO order. This chapter considers the derivational relationship between VSO and VOS in the Polynesian language Tongan. VSO order is basic in Tongan, and we address the derivation of VOS from this basic order in the context of multiple possibilities. We argue that Tongan VOS is better analyzed as rightward displacement of the subject as opposed to leftward displacement of the object proposed by Otsuka (2005a,c). The clause-final subject shows many of the hallmarks of rightward movement, including information-structural restrictions, locality with respect to the matrix clause, lack of clitic doubling, and connectivity with respect to case and binding. Given that rightward movement has an uneasy place in syntactic theory, we take pains to establish that the analysis is successful and worth further scrutiny.

This study, first published in 1998, provides a close investigation of central syntactic issues in the English imperative clause type. It argues that the imperative has largely regular syntactic behaviour within a conventional conception of English clause structure. This title will be of interest to students of language and linguistics.

The goal of this paper is to investigate the form and structure of information questions in two dialects of Malagasy: Official Malagasy (OM) and Antakarana (Ant). Questions in both of these languages take the form of a cleft, although this is not obvious from the word order. We provide evidence for this claim, building on existing analyses of OM (Paul 2001, Potsdam 2006a,b). The paper is organized as follows: Section 1 introduces a typology of information-question formation. In section 2, we describe wh-questions in OM and assert that OM is a wh-in-situ language. Wh-questions may be formed using wh-in-situ or a pseudocleft structure. Section 3 turns to the Antakarana dialect of Malagasy, spoken in the northern tip of Madagascar. We describe the form of wh-questions in this dialect and argue that it uses these same two strategies, despite morphosyntactic differences between the two dialects. Section 4 presents our conclusions.

This paper investigates the cost of processing syntactic versus extra-syntactic dependencies. The results support the hypothesis that syntactic dependencies require less processing effort than discourse-derived dependencies do (Reuland 2001, 2011; Koornneef 2008). The point is made through the analysis of a novel paradigm in Russian in which a preposed nominal stranding a numeral can show number connectivity ( paucal ) with a gap following the numeral or can appear in a non-agreeing ( plural ) form, as in cathedral - paucal/plural , there were three . paucal __. Numerous syntactic diagnostics confirm that when there is number connectivity, the nominal has been fronted via A′-movement, creating a syntactic A′-chain dependency. In the absence of connectivity, the construction involves a hanging topic related via discourse mechanisms to a base-generated null pronoun. The constructions constitute a minimal pair and Reuland's proposals correctly predict that the A′-movement construction will require less processing effort compared to the hanging topic construction. A self-paced reading study for contrasting pairs as in the above example showed a statistically significant slow-down after the gap with the hanging topic as opposed to the moved nominal. We take this to support the claim that a syntactic A′-chain is more easily processed than an anaphoric dependency involving a null pronoun, which must be resolved by discourse-based mechanisms.

This paper analyses a paradigm in Russian in which a preposed nominal stranding a numeral can show (paucal) number connectivity, with a gap following the numeral, or can appear in a non-agreeing (plural) form: (1) theater-paucal/plural, there were three. paucal__ Numerous syntactic diagnostics confirm that, when there is number connectivity, the nominal has been fronted via A′-movement, creating a syntactic A′-chain dependency. In the absence of connectivity, the construction involves a hanging topic related via discourse mechanisms to a base-generated null pronoun. These two constructions constitute a minimal pair and can be considered a counterpart to the better-known left edge topics observed in Romance or Germanic languages.

Gulf Pidgin Arabic (GPA) is a simplified communication system established by the non-Arabic immigrants to Gulf countries in the Middle East. In the past decades, millions of people with no Arabic skills have come from countries such as Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines for job opportunities. They needed to try to speak Arabic in order to communicate with their employers and this communication system has evolved into a pidgin. GPA is based on Gulf Arabic (GA), the variety of Arabic spoken in the Gulf states: Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and nearby areas.

The COPY THEORY OF MOVEMENT (CTM) (Chomsky 1993, 1995) requires that a moved element be fully represented at each step in its movement chain. Since only one copy in a chain is usually pronounced, this has necessitated adding theories of SELECTIVE COPY PRONUNCIATION (SCP) to Universal Grammar. Such theories permit chains to be linearized in more than one way, allowing, for example, non-highest copies to be pronounced (Pesetsky 1998, Fox and Nissenbaum 1999, Bobaljik 2002, Nunes 2004, and others). In this paper, we restrict attention to a single domain of investigation, namely, Obligatory Control, in which there is variation in the pronunciation of copies cross-linguistically. We adopt the MOVEMENT THEORY OF CONTROL (MTC) (Hornstein 1999, 2003) and show that a complete typology as expected given a SCP theory is seen: one may pronounce a higher copy, a lower copy, either copy, or both copies. The rest of the article is organized as follows. Section 2 gives a brief overview of the evolution of the theory of movement within the Principles and Parameters framework, focusing on its latest adaptation as the CTM and how it gives rise to SCP. Section 3 introduces the MTC, providing a brief presentation of the theoretical assumptions it is based on. In section 4, we present the control typology. Given the CTM and SCP, the expectation is that a control construction could pronounce the higher copy (forward control), the lower copy (backward control), either the higher or the lower copy (alternating control), or both copies (copy control). We discuss the

It is widely stated that the scope of quantifiers is clause-bound (Chomsky 1977, May 1977, Farkas 1981, 1997, Fodor and Sag 1982, Aoun and Hornstein 1985, Beghelli 1993, Abusch 1994, Hornstein 1995, Fox and Sauerland 1997, and numerous others). This claim is based on the observation that (1a) has no reading in which reviewers covary with plays, while (2a) does. Current theories capture the contrast by making Quantifier Raising (QR), the covert syntactic operation that assigns scope to quantified noun phrases (QPs), clause-bound. Only in (2a), in which the universally quantified QP every play and the indefinite a reviewer are clausemates, can the universal QP raise to scope over the indefinite, yielding the Logical Form representation (LF) in (2b). This operation is prohibited for (1a) because the two NPs are not clausemates; hence, the LF in (1b) is illicit. While this observation seems empirically well-grounded, its theoretical basis is less secure. Such clause-boundedness makes QR rather more restricted than one would expect a representative Ā-movement to be (see Reinhart 1997, Cecchetto 2004 for discussion). In what follows, I recap Fox’s (1995, 2000) theory of Scope Economy, which provides an explanation for QR’s clause-boundedness. I then introduce new data involving the interaction between QPs and certain instances of negation that are problematic for this approach. I conclude by sketching an alternative. Like many who research QR, Fox (1995, 2000) implicitly adopts what Beghelli and Stowell (1997) call Scope Uniformity: QR applies uniformly to all QPs and is not landing-site-selective. Any QP can be adjoined to any (nonargument) XP where it is interpretable. Further restricting this quite general assumption, economy considerations dictate that QR can apply only if it has an effect on semantic interpretation.1 QR cannot apply if the derivation without it would yield the same meaning.Fox (2000:62–66) proposes that the clause-boundedness of QR follows from Scope Economy. By (3), every application of QR must induce a change in semantic interpretation. At the same time, given that QR is an instance of Ā-movement, each application is subject to locality constraints on movement, which Fox formulates as Shortest Move.2The impossibility of cross-clausal QR follows from a tension between Scope Economy and Shortest Move. QR that does not obey Shortest Move is illicit, but QR that targets a clausal node, obeying Shortest Move, will not normally yield a new semantic interpretation, violating Scope Economy. Returning to (1a), the two constraints derive the unavailability of the non-clause-bound reading of the universal QP in this example, repeated below as (5a). Two potential LFs for the wide scope reading of the QP every play are given in (5b–c). In (5b), every play raises directly to a position above the matrix subject; however, this violates Shortest Move since adjunction to the embedded clause is a closer interpretable position. In (5c), the QP every play targets the embedded clausal node to satisfy Shortest Move; however, Scope Economy is now violated because the move has no semantic consequence. As a result, the embedded QP has no extra, wide scope interpretation, as desired. Fox (2000:63) points out that the Scope Economy account makes a surprising prediction: QR’s clause-boundedness could be overridden if adjunction to CP (as in (5c)) had semantic motivation. Specifically, if the CP projection contained an element that the QP could scopally interact with, then Scope Economy would license cross-clausal movement.Fox (2000:64) offers one set of data, from Moltmann and Szabolcsi 1994, that instantiates the configuration in (6) and seems to confirm the prediction. In (7), the needed scopal element is a wh-phrase in Spec,CP. (7a), unlike (5a), is ambiguous and has a reading in which the embedded QP every play takes scope over the matrix subject: every play is such that some reviewer or other knows when it will fail. The corresponding LF in (7b) is permitted because the intermediate adjunction to CP forced by Shortest Move has the semantic effect of causing the universal QP to take scope over the wh-phrase in Spec,CP. At the same time, Moltmann and Szabolcsi (1994) and Szabolcsi (1997a) argue that cross-clausal QR is not the correct mechanism to derive the wide scope reading in (7). These authors propose an alternative ‘‘layered quantifier’’ analysis that respects clause-boundedness. The goal of this squib is to test Fox’s prediction in a domain that is not open to Moltmann and Szabolcsi’s objections. An alternative instantiation of (6) that would be suitable for testing the prediction places a negative head in C0, what I will call CPNegation. As is well-known, negation introduces scope ambiguities and should thus be a prime candidate for licensing an application of QR adjunction to CP under Scope Economy.3 As above, in such a situation QR would obey Shortest Move and yield a semantically distinct interpretation, the wide scope reading of the QP with respect to CP-negation. Both of the LFs in (8) should be licensed—that is, whether QR applies or not. (The notation X > Y indicates that X takes scope over Y.) The data to come show that QPs cannot take scope over CP-negation. The clause-boundedness of QR is in fact not overridden. This is problematic for the Scope Economy–based explanation. It has become increasingly clear that not all QPs have the same scope options (Kroch 1979, Beghelli 1993, 1995, Liu 1997, Szabolcsi 1997b). Beghelli (1995) and Szabolcsi (1997b) identify four non-wh quantifier types:As Beghelli (1995:136–166) discusses, not all of these quantifiers interact equally with negation.4 In the crucial data to follow, I will use Beghelli’s counting quantifiers, which include complex numerical expressions such as at least three and at most two. They interact scopally with negation, as illustrated by the ambiguity in (10). There are a number of constructions in English in which negation, in the form of a contracted auxiliary like don’t, occurs in C0. I consider three: imperatives, declaratives with negative constituent preposing, and interrogatives. In all cases, we will see that a potential scope ambiguity between CP-negation and a QP is resolved in favor of a lone NEG > Q interpretation.Beukema and Coopmans (1989) and I (Potsdam 1998) argue that negative inverted imperatives such as (11a–c) have the desired structure with don’t in C0 and the imperative subject in Spec,TP, as shown in (11d). Negative inverted imperatives containing a QP are unambiguous, regardless of the position of the QP (see Schmerling 1982, Potsdam 1998, Moon 1999). (12a), for example, has only the interpretation in (12b), the wide scope reading of negation, and not the interpretation in (12c), the reading where the QP takes inverse scope. We can sharpen the judgment by placing the example in a context that favors the inverse scope reading. In such a case, the example is infelicitous. The example in (14a) makes the same point in a different way. We can make sense of its infelicity because the only available meaning, the narrow scope interpretation of the QP with respect to negation in (14b), is pragmatically odd. One doesn’t normally place a lower bound on how many test questions someone shouldn’t skip. The inverse scope reading in (14c) is sensible but seemingly unavailable. The same pattern appears with CP-negation in negative constituent preposing, illustrated in (15). This construction is widely analyzed using T0-to-C0 movement (see Koster 1975, Emonds 1976, Progovac 1994, Haegeman 1995, Rizzi 1996). An inverted negative auxiliary in this construction also obligatorily takes wide scope with respect to clause-internal QPs. (17) provides a context that favors the inverse scope reading, but the example is infelicitous. [paParaphrases with clause-internal negation are acceptable in this context, (18), because the QP can scope over internal negation. Finally, subject-auxiliary inversion in English interrogatives is standardly analyzed in terms of T0-to-C0 movement (e.g., Koster 1975, Koopman 1984, Chomsky 1986). As above, a QP obligatorily takes narrow scope with respect to CP-negation (Rupp 1998:154, citing Andrew Radford, pers. comm.). The Scope Economy–based approach to QR clause-boundedness wrongly predicts the above examples to be ambiguous. To illustrate, (20b) is the available LF corresponding to the unavailable interpretation of (12), repeated as (20a). Raising more than four people from the subject position to an adjunction position above negation satisfies Shortest Move and Scope Economy since it yields an interpretation distinct from the derivation in which it does not apply; nevertheless, the MORETHAN 4 > NEG interpretation is not possible.5I suggest that the above data are representative of a larger pattern, the CP-Negation Scope Generalization.Scope Economy derives the unexpected clause-boundedness of QR; however, it does not capture (21) and overgenerates readings in examples with CP-negation. It remains to be determined whether the theory can be modified to avoid these results.6The inability of a QP to take scope over CP-negation suggests that CP is not a possible target adjunction site for QR, a stipulation made by a number of researchers (e.g., May 1985, Cecchetto 2004). If we assume this, then clause-boundedness may follow in combination with an independently needed theory of successive cyclicity. A core result of research in bounding theory within the Government-Binding tradition and phase theory within the Minimalist Program is that CPs are cyclic nodes for cross-clausal movement (but see Rackowski and Richards 2005 and Den Dikken 2009).7 If CP is simply not a possible adjunction site for QR, then a QP will not be able to raise out of its clause without violating Subjacency or the Phase Impenetrability Condition. We have an alternative answer to the clause-boundedness independent of Scope Economy. If such an approach is on the right track, it nonetheless remains to be explained why adjunction to CP is not a possible landing site for QR.8