Mirrored Specifiers

Iris Mulders

0. Introduction

Chomsky (1995) discusses the possibility of having more than one specifier for each maximal projection. One way to form multiple specifiers, is by allowing a single feature to be checked more than once. The consequences of this option are examined here for the Icelandic EPP-feature and the Q-feature in Bulgarian.

I will show that Chomsky's idea that merger may apply only at the root of the structure, requires revision. Merger of the second specifier at the root of the structure runs into both conceptual and empirical problems. On the empirical side, we will see in section 1 that merger of successive specifiers at the root yields an order which is the mirror image of the observed order. On the conceptual side, we will see in section 2 that merger at the root is problematic for a specific, unified theory of checking configurations.

In section 3 and 4, I will show that these problems can be solved by assuming the mirrored specifier hypothesis. The underlying intuition is that each specifier has to be inserted as close to the head as possible.

1. Empirical problems with merger at the root

1.1 Icelandic multiple subject constructions. Icelandic has multiple subject constructions (MSCs) of the following type:

(1) EXP T-V SUBJ (OBJ)

Chomsky (1995, p.354) argues that the expletive and the subject each occupy a specifier position of TP, and that the verb appears between them at PF because of some PF-property (p.368). Let us assume this to be true. Consequently, the structure of (1) looks like (2) at the Spell-Out point in the derivation:

(2) [TP EXP [T' SUBJ [T' T vP]]

Let us take a look at the derivation of this structure. First, the computational system takes some elements from the lexicon: in this case the expletive, the subject and possibly an object, the verb and the functional elements T and v (the light verb v takes the subject as its spec). These elements are put in a numeration,

Linguistics in the Netherlands 1997, 135–146. DOI 10.1075/avt.14.14mul ISSN 0929–7332 / E-ISSN 1569–9919 © Algemene Vereniging voor Taalwetenschap

136 IRIS MULDERS

which is a set of binary pairs consisting of a lexical or functional item and a number indicating the number of times the element is used in the derivation, its index. Derivations starting out with the same numeration are compared with respect to global economy principles; the cheapest derivation that is fully inter­pretable at PF and LF, is the only grammatical outcome of a given numeration.

The operation Select now takes an element from the numeration, reduces its index by one, and introduces it into the derivation. Elements in the derivation are combined by the operation Merge. Merge takes two elements, puts them in a set, and creates a new set consisting of this set and a label. The label determines the properties of the syntactic object thus formed (p.243). Informally, the sets can be depicted as trees, with the labels represented as nodes. In this way, the vP is formed, and it is merged with T carrying the EPP-feature. At this point in the derivation, the structure looks like this:

(3)

The numeration still contains the expletive. The EPP-feature on T is not interpret­able at LF; therefore, it must be checked and deleted, because otherwise, the derivation would violate the principle of Full Interpretation at LF.

The EPP-feature can be checked in two ways: it can either attract the subject, or be checked by merger of the expletive. This means that we have a choice at this point in the derivation between merger and movement. Merger is considered to be costless, because it has to apply anyway: the numeration must be empty at the end of the derivation, and the object formed must be one structure (Chomsky 1995, p.226). Movement, however, is not costless. Assuming that at each stage in the derivation, the most economical move must be chosen, this means that merger of the expletive at this point is favored over moving the subject. The resulting structure looks like this:

(4)

Chomsky claims that TP is allowed to have two specifiers in Icelandic, because Icelandic [EPP] has the language-specific option of being checked twice (p.354-

MIRRORED SPECIFIERS 137

355). Let us leave the details of this operation aside, and see how [EPP] could be checked for the second time. Since the numeration is empty, merger is not an option. The only option available is movement of the closest DP, the subject.1

Assuming that movement must target the root of the projection, the resulting structure is the following:

This means that we derive that the overt order between the subject and the expletive is subject-expletive. The problem is that the observed order is the opposite: in Icelandic MSCs the expletive precedes the subject. In the next subsection we will move on to another empirical problem for root insertion of successive specifiers.

1.2 Bulgarian multiple questions. In Bulgarian multiple questions, all wh-elements appear sentence-initially. Rudin (1988) argues that the wh-elements form a cluster in spec,CP. Under the present framework, let us assume that Bulgarian CP may have multiple specifiers, and that the Q-feature in Bulgarian must escape erasure as often as possible, just like the EPP-feature that Chomsky proposes for 'lan­guages in which all arguments appear outside of IP' (p.375).

Rudin's argumentation involves word order, distribution of clitics, paren-theticals and adverbs, extraction from embedded clauses and extraction from wh-islands. I will concentrate on word order here. In a multiple question with an interrogative subject, object and indirect object, the interrogative constituents show up at the beginning of the sentence in the same order in which they appear in the base.

In fact, it is the expletive that should move from the inner spec,T to the outer spec, because it is closer to [EPP]. Movement of an inner spec to an outer spec is a more general problem, especially in the case of features that must be checked as often as possible (see section 1.2): "as often as possible" could amount to "infinitely" if raising from an inner spec to an outer spec is permitted. Chomsky's (1995, p.370) solution in terms of superfluous features will not work here; see Mulders (1996) for a solution in terms of mirrored specifiers and Attract.

138 IRIS MULDERS

(6) Koj kogo kakvo e pital? who whom what askedSSG 'Who asked whom what?' (Rudin (1986), chapter 4, (72)a)

All other orders among the interrogative constituents in (6) are barred. The derivation of (6) runs as follows. Once it has been merged, strong [Q]

attracts the closest interrogative constituent, the subject.

(7)

[Q] must escape erasure as often as possible, i.e. it must be checked as often as possible. The next constituent that can check it, is the indirect object. It moves to the second specifier of CP. If this specifier is created at the root of CP, the resulting structure is the following:

(8)

The last element that can check [Q], is the direct object. The resulting structure of CP looks like this:

MIRRORED SPECIFIERS 139

The order we derive for the interrogative constituents, is the order in (10a), which is ungrammatical, instead of the order in the grammatical (10b).

(10) a *Kakvo kogo koj e pital? What whom who askedSSG (Rudin (1986), chapter 4, (72)d)

b Koj kogo kakvo e pital? who whom what askedSSG 'Who asked whom what?' (Rudin (1986), chapter 4, (72)a)

We see that the observed order is the mirror image of the order that is predicted if merger applies at the root.2 Note that this problem recurs if multiple wh-move-ment in Bulgarian would be treated as movement to specifiers of multiple heads. In this paper I will show that the ordering problem can be solved for multiple specifiers; since a solution for the ordering problem in the case of multiple heads is not obvious, this means that we have empirical evidence here for the existence of multiple specifiers of a single head.

2. A conceptual problem with merger at the root

In the previous section we saw that strict merger at the root yields the mirror image of the observed order among multiple specifiers in Icelandic MSCs and Bulgarian multiple questions. In this section, we turn to a conceptual problem with root insertion of multiple specifiers. This problem involves the checking configuration between a maximal projection and a head under a specific theory of

2 Independently, Richards (1996 a, b) and Müller (1997) make a similar observation for these facts, and show that the effect shows up in a number of other constructions as well.

140 IRIS MULDERS

checking configurations. We will turn to the problem in a moment; first, let us take a look at checking configurations.

The first type of checking configuration is between heads in the following structure:

(11)

In (11), γ, which is a head, is adjoined to a, also a head. In this structure y is in a checking configuration with the feature F of a.

The second type of checking configuration is between a maximal projection and a head. We may assume that checking by an XP is done in an adjunction structure, just like checking by a head; otherwise, an unwarranted asymmetry would emerge. Let us assume that the only difference is that a maximal projection cannot adjoin to the head itself, because the Morphology component at Spell-Out cannot deal with maximal projections within heads (Chomsky 1995, p. 319). Therefore, a maximal projection that checks a feature of a head a, adjoins to the first projection of a. This yields the following structure.

(12)

In the structure in (12), the maximal projection y is in a checking configuration with the feature F of the head a.

Note that the consequence of this view is that specifiers are in fact adjuncts, cf. Kayne's (1993) proposal. In section 4.8 of The minimalist program, Chomsky follows Kayne to a large extent. However, he seems to want to maintain the distinction between specifiers and adjuncts. Let us assume that checking by a maximal projection is done by adjunction of the checker, just like checking by a head, and turn to our theory of checking configurations. The two types of checking configuration we saw, can be unified by assuming the following theory:3

3 It would also give us an unwanted checking configuration between object and verb; we can exclude this if we assume, as Chomsky does, that checking cannot be done by merger, except for expletives.

MIRRORED SPECIFIERS 141

(13) A sublabel of L is in a checking configuration with a sublabel of K iff L is a sister of K.

The sublabels of a term are the term's relevant features with respect to checking; I propose to define the notion as follows:

(14) A sublabel of K is a member of the label of K.4

Let us see what happens in multiple specifiers if we take this view of checking configurations. At the point where the first specifier has been formed, we have the structure in (12), repeated here as (15).

(15)

In this structure, the sublabels of y are in a checking configuration with [F]: γ is a sister of the constituent with label a, and [F] is a sublabel of a. Now, let us see what problem comes up if we merge or move another maximal projection δ to check [F]. If we assume that a second specifier is formed at the root, we derive the following structure:

(16)

The problem is that in this configuration, the sublabels of δ cannot check [F]. The term with label δ is a sister of a term with label <α, α>, which, by definition, is {{α}, {α, α}}; by (14), the sublabels of this label are {α} and {α, α}. Obviously, the set {α} or {α, α} does not match any sublabel of 8, since the sublabels of δ

4 To be more precise: a sublabel of K is the feature associated with a member of the label of K; the label itself has no status. For the sake of simplicity, I will keep to the formulation in (14) in the rest of the paper.

142 IRIS MULDERS

are all features, not sets of features. This means that in (16), no checking relation can be established between the relevant features of δ and [F].5

Of course, this problem is not inherent to Chapter 4, since the view of check­ing configurations I proposed is not assumed there. But as we shall see in the following section, this problem and the empirical problems of section 2 can both be solved by assuming that a second specifier is inserted close to the head.

3. The solution: mirrored specifiers

The problems that we saw in section 2, suggest that the order of two or more specifiers should in fact be the mirror image of the order we derive if we insert every next specifier at the root of the structure. For a structure with three specifiers, the order should be (16b) instead of (16a).

(17) a [spec3 [spec2 [spec1 [head complement]]]] b [spec1 [spec2 [spec3 [head complement]]]]

The structure in (16b) can be derived by inserting every next specifier in a position adjacent to the node immediately dominating the head and its comple­ment. I will call this the mirrored specifier hypothesis:

(18) The mirrored specifier hypothesis:

Merger or movement of a maximal projection 6 to check a feature of a in a configuration (i) (i)

5 Note that this will only work if lexical items are unstructured sets of features; cf. Chomsky's fn.27.

MIRRORED SPECIFIERS 143

The intuitive idea behind the mirrored specifier hypothesis is that the specifier in which a maximal projection can be inserted to check a feature, has to be close to the head; no other specifier may intervene. This idea can be expressed technically by assuming that specifiers are formed by adjunction, combined with the theory of checking configurations and sublabels that I proposed in section 2, repeated here as (19).

(19) A sublabel of L is in a checking configuration with a sublabel of K iff L is a sister of K; a sublabel of K is a member of the label of K.

In structure (ii), δ is a sister of a term with label a, hence in a checking configur­ation with the members of the label. If 5 would be inserted above the first specifier, it would be a sister of a term with label <α, α>, hence in a checking configuration with a and a, the members of the label. No checking would be possible. This means that the mirrored specifier hypothesis is in fact a conse­quence of the theory of checking configurations and the idea that specifiers are formed by adjunction.

The intuition behind (19) is that the object K* that is formed by adjoining an element to the structure K, is in a sense not functioning: the relevant features of K are not visible in the label of K*. Hence, sisterhood to K* does not yield a checking configuration.6

It is important to note that adjunction is an operation that does not necessarily apply at the root; head movement is countercyclic, and so is covert feature movement. Chomsky (1995, p.204-205) argues that Merger of adjuncts is also

6 The anonymous reviewer points out that the same intuition is expressed in Zwart (1992, p.25-27). Consider the following abstract structure:

(i)

Zwart calls the lowest XP in this structure a Projection, and the highest one a Segment. He claims that the features of the head are visible on Projections, but invisible on Segments. Furthermore, he also argues that checking is done in a sisterhood configuration. It is clear that his theory predicts that successive specifiers must be inserted close to the head in order to be in a checking configuration with the head.

The intuition underlying the Projection/Segment distinction is that a head can exist without a Segment; however, according to Zwart, a head cannot exist without a Projection, since a head has to project in order to be embedded in a larger structure. Note, however, that the latter claim is not expressible under the bare theory of phrase structure, because a head does not necessarily have to project to be embedded if bar levels do not exist anyway; see the discussion of clitics in Chomsky (1995, p.249).

144 IRIS MULDERS

countercyclic. The point made in this paper, is that movement of maximal projec­tions patterns with head movement and feature movement. The empirical evidence presented in section 1 shows that movement of maximal projections does not have to be to the root of the structure, hence must be adjunction.

The landing site is not free, however: it is restricted to the position in which a checking configuration is established. Otherwise, movement would violate Last Resort. Furthermore, a certain kind of cyclicity is forced in the following way. Chomsky assumes that a head must have its strong features checked before merger of a distinct higher category (p.233). Therefore, overt movement may only be induced by the topmost head of the structure. As we have seen, the target of movement does not necessarily have to be at the top of the structure; however, it is in fact obligatory that the attracting feature is the highest feature projecting.

A consequence of the proposal in this paper is that the notion of specifier, in the sense of a position in which a maximal projection is in a checking configura­tion with a head, is determined derivationally. A head has at most one specifier at each stage in the derivation; it is the position which is the sister of the maximal term of the head that is formed by non-checking merger.

4. Empirical motivation

4.1 Bulgarian multiple questions. Under the mirrored specifier hypothesis, the correct order is derived for the sentence-initial interrogative constituents. The derivation looks like this. In (20), we have the stage of the derivation where the strong Q-feature is checked for the first time. It has attracted the subject, because this is the closest element that is able to check [Q].

(20)

Bulgarian [Q] must be checked as often as possible. The next constituent that can check it, is the indirect object. It is inserted at a position where it is in a checking configuration with the Q-feature, i.e. adjacent to the lowest segment of CP. The resulting structure is the following.

MIRRORED SPECIFIERS 145

The last element that can check [Q], is the direct object. Once it has been raised, the resulting structure of CP looks like this:

(22)

The order we derive for the interrogative constituents, is SUBJ-IO-DO: the right result.

4.2 Icelandic expletive constructions. We saw in section 1.1 that strict merger at the root derives the order subject-expletive in Icelandic multiple subject construc­tions. Under the mirrored spec hypothesis, the right expletive-subject order is derived straightforwardly. Let us see how the derivation proceeds from the point at which T is merged.

At this point, the numeration still contains the expletive. Strong [EPP] must be checked. It is checked by adjunction of the expletive, since merger is cheaper than movement, and at each point of the derivation, the cheapest option must be chosen. The resulting structure is (23).

146 IRIS MULDERS

Strong [EPP] in Icelandic has the option to avoid erasure exactly once. If the option is selected, [EPP] has to be checked again. The closest element that can check it, is the subject. It is raised to form the second specifier of T.

(24)

We derive the right order between the expletive and the subject. At LF, the N-feature of the subject is attracted to check the D-feature of the expletive, and the derivation converges.

References

Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London, England. Kayne, R. (1993) The Antisymmetry of Syntax', ms., Graduate Center, City University of New York. Mulders, I. (1996) 'Multiple Checking and Mirrored Specifiers: The Structure of CP', MA thesis,

Utrecht University. Müller, G. (1992) 'MLC versus Parallel Movement', talk given at the Workshop on the Minimal Link

Constraint, Potsdam. Richards, N. (1996a) 'Subjacency Forever', to appear in J. Costa, R. Goedemans and R. van de Vijver,

eds., Proceedings of Console 5. Richards, N. (1996b) 'Featural Cyclicity and the Ordering of Multiple Specifiers', ms., MIT. Rudin, C. (1986) Aspects of Bulgarian Syntax: Complementizers and WH Constructions, Slavica,

Columbus. Rudin, C. (1988) 'On Multiple Questions and Multiple Wh Fronting', Natural Language and Linguistic

Theory 6, pp.445-501. Zwart, C. (1992) Dutch syntax: a Minimalist Approach, PdD dissertation, Groningen University.