Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:48:09.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Case of special qui

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2017

IAN MACKENZIE
IAN MACKENZIE*
Affiliation:
Newcastle University
*
Address for correspondence: e-mail: ian.mackenzie@newcastle.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feature Inheritance (Richards 2007) entails that uninterpretable features originate on the phase head C or v* and are then transferred to the associated Agree head, T or V. In the present article, it is argued that the French que–qui alternation is the locus of a Case contrast, implying that nominative Case originates on the complementiser and only becomes associated with T as a consequence of feature transfer. Que–qui thus provides new, Case-based empirical support for the theory of Feature Inheritance. The article also suggests that the que–qui alternation has an important implication for Chomsky's recent application of dynamic antisymmetry, reinterpreted in terms of labelling, to the issue of subject extraction failure. Specifically, the alternation appears to indicate that Case-matching is required, in addition to phi-feature agreement, in order for extraction to be blocked by labelling.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 21 - 41
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adli, A. (2005). Gradedness and consistency in grammaticality judgments. In: Kepser, S. and Reis, M. (eds), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. (2015). Case: Its Principles and Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. and Vinokurova, N. (2010). Two modalities of Case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28.3: 593–642.Google Scholar
Boef, E. (2012a). Doubling in Dutch restrictive relative clauses: rethinking the Head External Analysis. In: Boone, E., Linke, K. and Schulpen, M. (eds), Proceedings of ConSOLE XIX (University of Groningen, 2011). Leiden: University of Leiden, pp. 125–149.Google Scholar
Boef, E. (2012b). Doubling in relative clauses: aspects of morphosyntactic microvariation in Dutch. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Branigan, P. (2011). Provocative Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. and Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency: a case study of the three classes of pronouns. In: van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 145–233.Google Scholar
Carstens, V. (2003). Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with a Case-checked goal. Linguistic Inquiry, 34.3: 393–412.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). On binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 11.1: 1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: a Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In: Sauerland, U. and Gärtner, H.-M. (eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In: Freidin, R., Otero, C. and Zubizarreta, M.-L. (eds), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130: 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8.3: 425–504.Google Scholar
Epstein, S., Kitahara, H. and Seely, T. (2015). Simplest merge generates set intersection: implications for Complementizer-Trace explanation. In: Epstein, S., Kitahara, H. and Seely, T., Explorations in Maximizing Syntactic Minimization. New York: Routledge, pp. 175–194.Google Scholar
Godard, D. (1986). Propositions relatives, relations anaphoriques et prédication. Thèse de doctorat d’état, Université de Paris VII.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M. (1986). Le bon usage. Paris: Duculot.Google Scholar
Guasti, M.-T. (1988). La pseudorelative et les phénomènes d'accord. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 13: 35–57.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1992). Some speculations on argument shift, clitics and crossing in West Flemish. Ms, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. and van Koppen, M. (2010). Complementizer Agreement and the relation between C0 and T0 . Linguistic Inquiry, 43.3: 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T. (2004). Small clauses everywhere. In: Sybesma, R., Barbiers, S., Den Dikken, M., Doetjes, J., Postma, G. and Vanden Wyngaerd, G. (eds), Arguments and Structure: Studies on the Architecture of the Sentence (Studies in Generative Grammar 67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 319–390.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1976). French relative ‘que’. In: Hensey, F. and Luján, M. (eds), Current Studies in Romance Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 255–299.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1981). On certain differences between French and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 12.3: 349–371.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (2000). Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D. (2014). The que/qui alternation: new analytical directions. In: Svenonius, P. (ed.) Functional Structure from Top to Toe: the Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 46–96.Google Scholar
Le Flem, C. (1992). Toujours les imbriquées en que . . . qui : retour à la piste scandinave. Revue Romane, 27.2: 163–180.Google Scholar
Marcotte, J.-P. (2006). Anti-extraction in Québécois French Wh-interrogatives. Ms, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (2005). On the EPP. MIT Working Paper in Linguistics, 49: 201–236.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (2006). Moving to the edge. In: Proceedings of the 2006 KALS-KASELL International Conference on English and Linguistics. Pusan National University, Busan, Korea, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Moro, A. (2000). Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Muller, C. (1995). Les relatives de perception : j'entends le garçon qui bégaie qui bégaie. In : Shyldkrot, H. Bat-Zeev and Kupferman, L. (eds), Tendances récentes en linguistique française et générale, volume dédié à David Gaatone. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 311–322.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1982). Complementizer-trace phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition. The Linguistic Review, 1.3: 297–343.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (1996). The Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. and Vincent, M.. (2007). On past participle agreement in transitive clauses in French. In: Bisetto, A. and Barbieri, F. (eds), Proceedings of the XXXIII Incontro di Grammatical Generativa , Bologna, March 1–3, 2007. Bologna: Università di Bologna, pp. 140–161.Google Scholar
Richards, M. (2007). On Feature Inheritance: an argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 38.3: 563–572.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. and Shlonsky, U. (2007). Strategies of subject extraction. In: Sauerland, U. and Gärtner, H.-M. (eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 115–160.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. (2003). Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. (2000). A unified analysis of French interrogative and complementizer qui/que . In: Rooryck, J., Configurations of Sentential Complementation: Perspectives from Romance Languages. London: Routledge, pp. 223–246.Google Scholar
Ruwet, N. (1979). On a verbless predicate construction in French. Papers in Japanese Linguistics, 6: 255–285.Google Scholar
Ruwet, N. (1982). Grammaire des insultes et avtres études. Paris: Sevil.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (2011). French relative qui . Linguistic Inquiry, 42.1: 83–124.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. (2001). Subject extraction, the distribution of expletives, and stylistic inversion. In: Hulk, A. and Pollock, J.-Y. (eds), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 163–182.Google Scholar
Tobler, A. (1905). Mélanges de grammaire française (translated by Kuttner, M.). Paris: Picard.Google Scholar