In Proceedings of ConSole I, ed. João Cosa, ob Goedemans, & euben van der ijver. HIL, Leiden, 203-220. Projecion and posiion Evidence from Georgian Marha McGinnis - MI he rich morphology of Georgian provides evidence for he differen heads projecing, or merging wih, differen classes of argumens. he evidence suggess ha a daive argumen in Georgian is always merged wih he same head, bu may be an indirec objec, exernal argumen, or derived subjec. he binding and raising properies of differen argumen ypes moivaes a heory linking A- movemen srong crossover effecs wih equidisance. 1. Inroducion A daive argumen in Georgian is always merged (or projeced) in he same posiion, as specifier of he same head, which assigns i inheren case. However, I will argue ha his specifier can be merged as eiher an inernal or an exernal argumen. he inernal/exernal disincion underlies a number of binding and movemen phenomena. I will assume ha his disincion is no represened configuraionally, hough i may be encoded by a difference in he mehod of assigning hea-roles, as suggesed by Maranz (1989). he erm subjec will be used here o mean he EPP posiion, here he specifier of (Chomsky 1995). 1 he closes c-commanded argumen moves o his posiion, expleive inserion aside. I will be assumed ha he case of he direc objec is checked by a funcional projecion (OP) below he base posiion of he subjec (Koizumi 1995, Bobaljik 1995). his projecion is available only if an exernal argumen is presen. I will no be assumed ha he same srucural case is always checked in he specifier of he same head; raher, I will assume a heory of dependen case (Maranz 1991). Movemen will be assumed o be aracion by a arge of he closes elemen bearing he appropriae synacic feaure (cf. Chomsky 1995). hus, I will speak of wo argumens as equidisan from a arge, raher han wo arges as equidisan from a single argumen. I will adop he proposal of Ura (1993) ha equidisan argumens are muliple specifiers of a single head. 1 ajesh Bha (p.c.) has suggesed ha Georgian may have no EPP. If so, he relevan noion of subjec may be highes argumen, raher han specifier of (Maranz 1989). I leave he possibiliy aside for he purposes of his paper.
2 Marha McGinnis 2. Merger I propose he srucure below for he ransiive clause in (1). he subjec is merged as he specifier of a ligh verb (Chomsky 1995), and raises o he specifier of o check he EPP feaure on. he objec originaes as he complemen of, and moves ino he specifier of OP o check srucural accusaive case. 2 (1) gela axal sarval-s ker-av-s. Gela.NOM new rousers-acc sew-s-pes Gela is sewing new rousers. gela Gela.NOM vp v' v OP O' O axal sarvals new rousers-acc ker-av-s sew-s-pes he srucure for he applicaive ransiive in (2) is he same as ha in (1), excep ha an indirec objec is merged as he specifier of he head. his head is spelled ou as he morpheme radiionally known as he relaive prefix (Aronson 1990). Following Maranz (1989), Ura (1996), I will assume ha he indirec objec (IO) is merged srucurally higher han he direc objec (DO) in Georgian. (2) gela sen axal sarval-s g-i-ker-av-s. Gela.NOM you.da new rousers-acc 2--sew-S-PES Gela is sewing new rousers for you. 2 Noe ha srucural accusaive case marking and inheren daive case marking on argumens are morphologically idenical. Daive case is assumed o be associaed wih he relaive marker, and possibly wih a homogeneous class of hemaic relaions (goal/benefacive/experiencer).
Projecion and posiion 3 gela Gela.NOM vp v' v P sen you.da OP O' O axal sarval-s new rousers-acc g-i-ker-av-s 2--sew-S-PES Daive subjecs in Georgian arise in wo conexs: in he perfec ense/aspec and wih saive verbs. In wha follows I will focus on saives; however, Nash (1994) argues ha perfecs are paricipial, wih a saive ensed verb have. Following his argumen, he analysis given here can easily be exended o perfecs. he srucure of a Georgian ransiive clause wih a daive subjec is given in (3). he daive argumen is merged as usual in he specifier of, visible on he verb as he relaive prefix. his argumen moves o he EPP posiion. Since he daive subjec is an exernal argumen, OP is presen. he objec checks nominaive srucural case in he specifier of OP. (3) vano-s nino u-qvar-s. ano-da Nino-NOM -love-pes ano loves Nino.
4 Marha McGinnis vano-s ano-da P OP O' O nino Nino-NOM u-qvar-s -love-pes Daive argumens are always merged or projeced in he specifier of he head. If an exernal argumen is presen regardless of is case i raises o o he specifier of o saisfy he EPP. 3. Subjechood here are a number of ess o show ha daive subjecs occupy he same posiion as nominaive subjecs. Nash (1995a) makes similar argumens for ergaive subjecs. Evidence from binding and focus srucure poins o a unified posiion for subjecs, regardless of case-marking. he classic binding daa are given below. Subjecs canno be bound by objecs, wheher he subjec is nominaive (4a) or daive (4b). However, a subjec can bind he objec wheher i is accusaive (5a) or nominaive (5b). (4) a. *av-is av-i vano-s xa-av-s. self-gen self-nom vano-acc draw-s-pes Himself draws ano. b. *av-is av-s vano u-qvar-s. self-gen self-da vano.nom -love-pes Himself loves ano. (5) a. vano av-is av-s xa-av-s. vano-nom self-gen self-acc draw-s-pes ano draws himself. b. vano-s av-is av-i u-qvar-s. vano.da self-gen self-nom -love-pes ano loves himself.
Projecion and posiion 5 Anoher subjec/non-subjec asymmery arises wih respec o occupaion of he focus posiion. Elemens immediaely o he lef of he verb ypically receive presenaional focus (Nash 1995b). For example, immediaely preverbal objecs bear focus (ialicized), wheher hey are accusaive (6a) or nominaive (6b). Adverbs in his posiion likewise bear focus. Subjecs are an excepion o he generalizaion; immediaely preverbal subjecs need no bear focus, regardless of wheher hey are nominaive (7a) or, for example, daive (7b). (6) a. (is) vano-s xa-av-s. (she.nom) vano-acc draw-s-pes She is drawing ano. b. (mas) vano da-u-rcmunebi-a. (she.da) vano-nom Pre--convince-PEF She has convinced ano. (7) a. nino u-mgeri-s vano-s. nino.nom -sing-pes vano-acc Nino is singing o ano. b. nino-s u-qvar-s vano. nino-da -love-pes vano-nom Nino loves ano. Nash (1995b) argues for he presence of a Focus posiion ouside. I sugges ha a subjec may, bu need no, move hrough his posiion on is way o he EPP posiion, which mus be occupied by a nominaive, daive or ergaive subjec. On he oher hand, an objec ordered linearly beween he subjec and verb mus occupy he focus posiion. econsrucion effecs give rise o a hird asymmery. Georgian has an anaphoric possessor, avis self s (li. head s ) which is embedded wihin a. he anaphoric possessor of an objec o he lef of he subjec may be bound by he subjec, wheher he objec is accusaive (8a) or nominaive (8b). On he oher hand, he anaphoric possessor of a subjec o he lef of an objec canno be bound by he objec, wheher he subjec is nominaive (9a) or daive (9b). (8) a. av-is deda-s nino akeb-s. self-gen moher-acc nino.nom praise-pes Nino i praises her i moher. b. av-isi deda vano-s u-qvar-s. self-gen moher.nom vano-da -love-pes ano i loves his i moher. (9) a.??av-isi deda nino-s akeb-s. self-gen moher.nom nino-acc praise-pes Her i moher praises Nino i. b.??avis deda-s vano da-u-rcmunebi-a. self-gen moher-da vano.nom Pre--convince-PEF His i moher has convinced ano i.
6 Marha McGinnis Noe in (9) ha no reconsrucion effec arises for a subjec c-commanding an objec; hus we conclude ha he subjec mus occupy an A-posiion ha c- commands he objec. In (8), however, he objec occupies an A-bar posiion above he subjec, so is inerpreaion allows a reconsrucion effec. In (10), on he oher hand, he objec occupies an A-posiion, from which i binds he subjec. hus he anaphoric possessor of he subjec can, in fac, be bound. he objec can occupy eiher an A-bar posiion or an A-posiion c- commanding a subjec o is immediae righ, bu he subjec mus occupy an A- posiion c-commanding an objec o is immediae righ. (10) a. nino-s av-isi deda akeb-s. nino-acc self-gen moher.nom praise-pes Her i moher praises Nino i. b. vano av-is deda-s da-u-rcmunebi-a. vano.nom self-gen moher-da Pre--convince-PEF His i moher has convinced ano i. Binding of anaphors and anaphoric possessors, as well as focus srucure, demonsrae a number of subjec/non-subjec asymmeries. hese asymmeries suggess he exisence of a unique subjec posiion, he EPP specifier, which is occupied by a subjec regardless of is case. 4. Exernal and Inernal Daive Subjecs We have esablished ha daive subjecs are merged wih, like indirec objecs, bu ha hey move o he EPP posiion. So far, we have only looked a daive subjecs in acive clauses, bu here are also daive subjecs in passives. Some diransiive clauses allow eiher he direc or he indirec objec o move o he EPP posiion. For example, (11) shows a nominaive subjec riggering hird-person plural nominaive agreemen, -nen, on he verb. (11) deideb-i paa-s da-e-karg-nen. auns-nom Paa-DA Pre--los-N.pl he auns go los o Paa. On he oher hand, he verb in (12a) shows agreemen wih he hird-person plural daive subjec. 3 he same agreemen is riggered by he daive subjec of an acive clause (12b). However, an indirec objec is no enough o rigger his agreemen, as (12c) demonsraes. (12) a. deideb-s gela da paa da-e-karg-a-. auns-da Gela.NOM and Paa.NOM Pre--los-NAgr-pl he auns had Gela los on hem. 3 he verb does bear regular nominaive agreemen wih he objec, bu no he nominaive plural agreemen /-(n)en/ which occurs wih subjecs only. Noe ha i is slighly inaccurae o refer o his agreemen as nominaive, since ergaive argumens rigger he same agreemen.
Projecion and posiion 7 b. deideb-s gela u-qvar-. auns-da Gela.NOM -love.pes-pl he auns love Gela. c. deideb-s gela e-cxubeb-a-(*). auns-da Gela.NOM -figh.fu-nagr-(*pl) Gela will figh wih his auns. How does he srucure of a passive wih a daive subjec compare wih ha of an acive wih a daive subjec? As a firs approximaion, we migh suppose ha he wo srucures are minimally differen. Unlike he acive, he passive has a paricipial form (Maranz 1989) and lacks an exernal argumen, as shown in (13). An immediae problem arises wih his accoun. Since he clause srucure shown in (13) lacks an exernal argumen, i also lacks OP, so he srucural case on he objec canno be checked. (13) deideb-s aun-da ParP Par P gela da-e-karg-a- Gela.NOM Pre--los-NAgr-pl Even if his objecion could be pu aside, he srucure in (13) makes he wrong predicions for binding and movemen in passives. As we saw before, a daive subjec can bind a nominaive objec wihin he same acive clause (14a). In passive clauses wih a daive subjec, on he oher hand, he subjec canno bind a nominaive objec (14b). Of course, he opposie is also rue: he objec canno bind he subjec. (14) a. deideb-s avian-i av-i u-qvar-. auns-da selves-gen self-nom -love.pes-pl he auns love hemselves. b. *deideb-s avian-i av-i da-e-mal-a-. aun-da selves-gen self-nom Pre--hidden-NAgr-pl he auns had hemselves hidden on hem.
8 Marha McGinnis Moreover, in acive clauses wih a daive subjec, only he daive argumen can raise o he EPP posiion. Noe ha he acive (saive) verb u-qvar (15a) canno bear plural nominaive subjec agreemen. On he oher hand, a passive wih a daive subjec also permis a nominaive subjec, as indicaed by he plural nominaive agreemen in (15b). (15) a. *deideb-i paa-s u-qvar-an. auns-nom Paa-DA -love-pes.n.pl Paa loves he auns. b. deideb-i paa-s da-e-karg-nen. auns-nom Paa-DA Pre--los-N.pl he auns are los o Paa. If acive and passive clauses wih daive subjecs have he same basic clause srucure, he differen binding and raising possibiliies of hese wo clause ypes are no prediced. he srucure previously proposed for acive clauses predics heir binding and movemen chracerisics (16). he daive argumen orginaes and lands in posiions c-commanding he nominaive objec. hus, he daive argumen is he only candidae for movemen o he EPP posiion. Moreover, i is unambiguously able o bind he objec i c-commands. (16) vano-s ano-da P OP O' O avian-i av-i self.pl-gen self-nom u-qvar-s -love-pes We migh consider a differen srucure, such as ha in (17), for a passive clause wih a daive subjec. Since he form of he verb is paricipial, we can assume he presence of a pariciple head above he, wih a ligh marix raising verb bearing finie ense and aking ParP as is complemen. As before,
Projecion and posiion 9 we will assume ha P dominaes he projecion of he verb aking he direc objec as is complemen. Le us suppose furher ha he pariciple head in Georgian has a feaure [+SC] which aracs a srucurally case-marked. A bearing inheren case will be invisible for aracion o his head. (17) deideb-s auns-da ParP ParP gela Gela-NOM Par [+SC] ParP P da-e-karg-a- Pre--los-NAgr-pl In (17), hen, he nominaive objec is araced o he specifier of ParP, where i c-commands he daive indirec objec. he EPP feaure, which we are assuming o be on he ense head, aracs he closes, regardless of is case and agreemen feaures. For he daive argumen o raise o he EPP posiion, herefore, i mus be able o occupy a posiion a leas equidisan wih he DO posiion, from he EPP posiion. Le us suppose ha movemen is permied freely wihin he inernal domain of he verb, he domain ha would be c-commanded by he base posiion of an exernal argumen if one were presen. If he daive argumen in (17) moves o become he second specifier of ParP, i is hen equidisan from he EPP posiion wih he nominaive argumen, and so can be araced o he specifier of, as shown. If his configuraion also rules ou binding beween he daive and nominaive argumens, boh he movemen and binding facs can be capured by he srucure in (17). hus far, i has been proposed ha he difference beween acive and passive clauses wih daive subjecs can be accouned for by he srucures in (16) and (17). he possibiliy for movemen of eiher he nominaive or he daive argumen o he EPP posiion in passives resuls from he availabiliy of equidisance for hese wo argumens. Moreover, he impossibiliy of he daive
10 Marha McGinnis subjec binding he nominaive objec in a passive follows from cerain assumpions abou binding. Le us make he sronges assumpion, ha o rule ou binding beween wo argumens i is sufficien for hem o ener some relaion of equidisance during he course of he derivaion. his assumpion may capure he insigh of izzi (1986), reformulaed by Snyder (1992) as he Chain Formaion Algorihm, by which binding violaions are incurred by he formaion of an improper A- chain. Here, hen, an improper chain has wo equidisan coindexed argumens. By a weaker formulaion, we migh suppose ha wo argumens are equidisan no only from he arge of movemen, bu also from he neares coindexed race hey c-command. his race herefore has wo binders, a configuraion which may easily be uninerpreable a LF. Since movemen of he indirec objec over he direc objec is free and opional, anoher possible derivaion of he passive has he direc objec raising o he EPP posiion, while he indirec objec remains in is base posiion, as in (18). (18) DO deideb-i auns-nom ParP Par' Par P IO paa-s Paa-DA da-e-karg-nen Pre--los-N.pl 5. Binding and Equidisance Beginning wih he assumpions ha he daive argumen is always projeced by he same head above he direc objec, and ha he closes argumen is araced o he EPP posiion, we have arrived a surprising conclusions abou he relaion beween binding and equidisance. Furher suppor for hese conclusions comes from Japanese. Ura (1994) has argued ha he double-nominaive consrucion in Japanese involves wo argumens in specifier posiions wihin. he
Projecion and posiion 11 accoun skeched so far predics ha neiher nominaive-marked argumen will be able o bind he oher. his predicion holds, as shown in (19). (19) a. *John-ga kare-zisin-ga sinpai-da. John-NOM he-self-nom worry-pes b. *kare-zisin-ga John-ga sinpai-da. he-self-nom John-NOM worry-pes John worries abou himself. John-ga i *kare-zisin-ga i *kare-zisin-ga i John-ga i...... When he argumens bear differen case-marking, hey can be assumed o be specifiers of differen heads. In his configuraion hey do allow binding. (20a) shows a nominaive subjec binding an accusaive objec, while (20b) shows a daive subjec binding a nominaive objec, as is possible in Georgian acive daive-subjec consrucions. (20) a. John-ga kare-zisin-o sinpai-sieir-u. John-NOM he-self-acc worry-pog-pes John is worrying abou himself. b. John-ni kare-zisin-ga sinpai-da. John-DA he-self-nom worry-pes John worries abou himself. Ineresingly, while he specifiers do no c-command each oher, hey do c- command each oher s daughers. In (21), one nominaive argumen binds he possessor of he oher. 4 4 Ineresingly, in Japanese he opposie ordering is also possible. he same is no rue for equidisan binding in Georgian double objec consrucions. (i) [kare-zisin-no i hahaoya]-ga John-ga i sinpai-da he-self-gen moher-nom John-NOM worry-pes 'Himself's moher worries abou John.
12 Marha McGinnis (21) John-ga [kare-zisin-no imooo]-ga sinpai-da. John-NOM he-self-gen siser-nom worry-pes John i worries abou his i siser. John-ga i i karezisin-no imoooga... Likewise in Georgian, one specifier can bind ino anoher specifier of he same head. Free movemen wihin he inernal domain of he verb predics ha he direc objec can move freely over he indirec objec in acive diransiive clauses as well as in passives. In (22a), he indirec objec c-commands ino he direc objec in is base posiion. he anaphoric possessor mus be c- commanded by is aneceden; (22b) is ill-formed because he anaphor in he subjec is no c-commanded by is aneceden in he objec. (22) a. nino-m gela-s av-is deida a-nax-a sarkesi. Nino-EG Gela-DA self-gen aun-nom -show-ao mirror.in Nino showed Gela i his i aun in he mirror. b.??av-isi deida nino-s akeb-s. self-gen aun.nom nino-acc praise-pes Her i aun praises Nino i. In (23), he direc objec c-commands ino he indirec objec in a specifier posiion of he same head,. he srucure for (23) is shown below he example. he objec moves o he specifier of OP o check case, hen moves freely over he indirec objec wihin he inernal domain of he verb. From his posiion i binds ino he indirec objec in he lower specifier of he same head. (23) bavsveb-ma nino av-is deda-s a-nax-es. children-eg Nino.NOM self-gen moher-da -show-ao.pl he children showed her i moher Nino i.
Projecion and posiion 13 bavsveb-ma children-eg vp v' v P nino nino-nom av-is deida-s self-gen aun-da OP O O' a-nax-es -show-ao.pl An indirec objec can bind a direc objec in is base posiion (24a). As prediced, a direc objec which has moved o a posiion equidisan wih he indirec objec sill canno bind i, since he equidisance relaion iself rules ou binding (24b). (24) a. nino-m a-nax-a [cven paara gela-s] av-is av-i. nino.eg -show-ao our lile gela-da self-gen self-nom Nino showed [our lile Gela] i himself i. b. *nino-m a-nax-a gela av-is av-s sarkesi. nino.eg -show-ao gela.nom self-gen self-da mirror.in Nino showed himself i Gela i in he mirror. Our examinaion of daive argumens in Georgian acive and passive clauses leads o a number of ineresing conclusions abou binding and movemen. he differences beween acive and passive clauses wih daive subjecs depend crucially on he presence or absence of an exernal argumen, and he associaed presence or absence of a head o assign case o he direc objec. heir differen properies can be explained as he resul of free movemen wihin he inernal domain of he verb, yielding equidisance relaions which have consequences for binding and movemen.
14 Marha McGinnis 6. Predicions As i sands, he analysis makes a leas one predicion, which differs crucially from he predicions of izzi s (1986) Chain Condiion and Snyder s (1992) Chain-Formaion Algorihm. According o hese accouns, A-movemen of one argumen over a c-commanding, coindexed argumen resuls in an ill-formed chain. By he presen accoun, such movemen is accepable, provided ha he coindexed elemens are no equidisan a any poin in he derivaion. A es case arises in Georgian. he equidisance accoun predics ha he nominaive direc objec of a passive should be able o bind a daive indirec objec if he nominaive argumen crosses over i o check case in he specifier of ParP, hen moves up o he specifier of o check EPP. In his circumsance, he nominaive objec c-commands he daive indirec objec, and no equidisance relaion exiss beween hem o rule ou binding. he predicion is correc, as shown in (25). (25)?deideb-i avian av-s da-e-mal-en. aun-nom selves.gen self-da Pre--hidden-N.pl he auns were hidden from hemselves. DO deideb-i auns-nom ParP i Par' Par P IO avian-i av-s self-gen self-da i da-e-mal-en Pre--hidden-N.pl he analysis here depends crucially on a sysemaic accoun of Georgian morphology. By aribuing consisen case-assigning and projecion/merger properies o he relaive prefix in is various environmens, we have been able o refine he condiions on A-movemen and binding. hese refinemens can be exended o deermine he precise course of derivaion in oher languages.
Projecion and posiion 15 Acknowledgemens hanks go o Jonahan Bobaljik, Noam Chomsky, Alec Maranz, Léa Nash, and Norvin ichards for invaluable discussion of his work. Addiional hanks go o Léa Nash for being a ireless Georgian consulan. his research has been suppored by a NSF esearch raining Gran (DI 9113607) awarded o MI and by a SSHC docoral fellowship (752-93-2393). eferences Aronson, H. 1990. Georgian: A reading grammar. Correced ed., Slavica, Columbus, OH. Bobaljik, J. D. 1995. Morphosynax: he synax of verbal inflecion. Ph.D. disseraion, MI. Disribued by MI Working Papers in Linguisics. Chomsky, N. 1995. Caegories and ransformaions. he minimalis program, 219-394. MI Press, Cambridge, MA. Harris, A. 1981. Georgian synax: A sudy in relaional grammar. Cambridge Universiy Press. Koizumi, M. 1995. Phrase srucure in minimalis synax. Ph.D. disseraion, MI. Disribued by MI Working Papers in Linguisics. Maranz, A. 1989. elaions and configuraions in Georgian, unpublished ms., Universiy of Norh Carolina, Chapel Hill. 1993. Implicaions of asymmeries in double objec consrucions. heoreical aspecs of Banu grammar, ed. by S. Mchombo, 113-150. CSLI Publicaions, Sanford, CA. Nash, L. 1994. On BE and HAE in Georgian. he morphology-synax connecion, ed. by H. Harley and C. Phillips, 153-172. MI Working Papers in Linguisics 22. 1995a. he inernal ergaive subjec hypohesis. Paper presened a NELS 26 a Harvard and MI. o appear in he Proceedings, published by GLSA, UMass Amhers. 1995b. Argumen scope and case marking in SO and in ergaive languages: he case of Georgian. Ph.D. disseraion, Universié Paris 8. izzi, L. 1986. On chain formaion. he synax of pronominal cliics, ed. by H. Borer. Synax and Semanics 19, Academic Press, New York. Snyder, W. 1992. Chain-formaion and crossover, ms., MI. Ura, H. 1994. arieies of raising and he feaure-based heory of movemen. MIOPL 7, MI Working Papers in Linguisics. 1996. Muliple feaure-checking: A heory of grammaical funcion spliing. Ph.D. disseraion, MI. Disribued by MI Working Papers in Linguisics. marhajo@mi.edu 20D-219 MI Cambridge, MA 02139 USA