Main The Bantu-Romance Connection: A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information...
Report a problemThis book has a different problem? Report it to us
Check Yes if Check Yes if Check Yes if Check Yes if
you were able to open the file
the file contains a book (comics are also acceptable)
the content of the book is acceptable
Title, Author and Language of the file match the book description. Ignore other fields as they are secondary!
Check No if Check No if Check No if Check No if
- the file is damaged
- the file is DRM protected
- the file is not a book (e.g. executable, xls, html, xml)
- the file is an article
- the file is a book excerpt
- the file is a magazine
- the file is a test blank
- the file is a spam
you believe the content of the book is unacceptable and should be blocked
Title, Author or Language of the file do not match the book description. Ignore other fields.
Change your answer
You may be interested in Powered by Rec2Me
The Bantu–Romance Connection Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective. General Editors Werner Abraham University of Vienna / Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Elly van Gelderen Arizona State University Advisory Editorial Board Cedric Boeckx Christer Platzack Guglielmo Cinque Ian Roberts Günther Grewendorf Lisa deMena Travis Liliane Haegeman Sten Vikner Hubert Haider C. Jan-Wouter Zwart Harvard University University of Venice J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt University of Lille, France University of Salzburg University of Lund Cambridge University McGill University University of Aarhus University of Groningen Volume 131 The Bantu–Romance Connection. A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure Edited by Cécile De Cat and Katherine Demuth The Bantu–Romance Connection A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure Edited by Cécile De Cat University of Leeds Katherine Demuth Brown University John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia 8 TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Bantu-Romance connection : A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure / edited by Cécile De Cat and Katherine Demuth. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166-0829 ; v. 131) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Bantu languages--Grammar, Comparative--Romance. 2. Roma; nce language-Grammar, Comparative--Bantu. I. De Cat, Cécile. II. Demuth, Katherine. PL8025.1.B36 2008 496'.39045--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 5514 3 (Hb; alk. paper) 2008023397 © 2008 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa Table of contents Acknowledgements vii List of contributors ix Introduction xi Part 1. Clitic and agreement Concepts of structural underspecification in Bantu and Romance Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita 3 On different types of clitic clusters Anna Cardinaletti 41 Pronominal object markers in Bantu and Romance Marie Labelle 83 The Bantu-Romance connection in verb movement and verbal inflectional morphology Carolyn Harford 111 Part 2. The structure of DPs DP in Bantu and Romance Vicki Carstens 131 On the interpretability of φ-features Roberto Zamparelli 167 Agreement and concord in nominal expressions Giuliana Giusti 201 A unified syntactic analysis of Italian and Luganda nouns Franca Ferrari-Bridgers 239 The Bantu-Romance connection: A comparative investigaton Part 3. Information structure The fine structure of the topic field Mara Frascarelli 261 Focus at the interface: Evidence from Romance and Bantu João Costa & Nancy C. Kula 293 Agreement in thetic VS sentences in Bantu and Romance Jenneke van der Wal 323 Index of languages 351 General index 353 Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge the financial support of the European Science Foundation (grant #EW05-242), the British Academy (grant #BCG-41902) and the Linguistic Association of Great Britain which helped bring to life the Bantu-Romance Connection ESF Exploratory Workshop (Leeds, May 2006). Every stage of the workshop and this volume was extensively reviewed. We would especially like to express our gratitude to the team of Bantu and Romance scholars who provided extensive comments on the chapters of the book. Each chapter was reviewed by both a Bantuist and a Romanist. Thanks also to the contributors and participants for having embarked with us on this project, and for having made it such a stimulating experience. List of contributors Miriam Bouzouita King’s College London Philosophy Department The Strand London, WC2R 2LS United Kingdom email@example.com Anna Cardinaletti Ca’ Foscari University of Venice Dipartimento di Scienze del Linguaggio Ca’ Bembo – Dorsoduro 1075 30123 Venezia Italy firstname.lastname@example.org Vicki Carstens University of Missouri-Columbia Department of English 107 Tate Hall Columbia, MO 65211 USA email@example.com João Costa Departamento de Linguistica Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas Av. de Berna, 26 C 1069-061 Lisbon Portugal firstname.lastname@example.org Cécile De Cat Department of Linguistics & Phonetics School of Modern Languages and Cultures University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT UK email@example.com Katherine Demuth Department of Cognitive & Linguistic Sciences Brown University Box 1978 RI 02912 Providence USA Katherine_Demuth@brown.edu Franca Ferrari-Bridgers Department of Speech and Communication Studies IONA College 18 President Street, New Rochelle, NY firstname.lastname@example.org Mara Frascarelli Università degli Studi Roma Tre Dipartimento di Linguistica Via Ostiense, 236-00146 Roma Italy email@example.com Giuliana Giusti Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia Dipartimento di Scienze del Linguaggio Ca’ Bembo – Dorsoduro 1075 30123 Venezia Italy firstname.lastname@example.org Carolyn Harford Midlands State University P Bag 9055 Gweru Zimbabwe email@example.com Ruth Kempson King’s College London List of contributors Philosophy Department The Strand London, WC2R 2LS United Kingdom firstname.lastname@example.org Nancy Kula Department of Language & Linguistics University of Essex Wivenhoe Park Colchester CO4 3SQ UK email@example.com Marie Labelle Université du Québec à Montréal Département de linguistique et de didactique des langues Université du Québec à Montréal C.P. 8888, succ. Centre-Ville Montréal, QC H3C 3P8 Canada firstname.lastname@example.org Lutz Marten School of Oriental and African Studies Africa Department Thornhaugh Street Russell Square London, WC1H 0XG United Kingdom email@example.com Jenneke van der Wal Leiden University Centre for Linguistics van Wijkplaats 4 2311 BX Leiden The Netherlands J.van.der.Wal@let.leidenuniv.nl Roberto Zamparelli Dipartimento di Scienze della Cognizione e della Formazione Università degli Studi di Trento Via Matteo del Ben, 5 38068 Rovereto Italy firstname.lastname@example.org Introduction The study of Romance linguistic structures has a long and fruitful tradition, with issues in comparative Romance being hotly debated today. However, the study of Bantu languages, especially from a more theoretical perspective, has received much less attention. There are approximately 500 Bantu languages in Africa (Nurse & Philippson 2003). These form a minor sub-branch of Niger-Khordofanian languages, though geographically they cover much of central, eastern and southern Africa. These languages are morphologically and syntactically similar in many respects (much as Romance or Germanic languages are). However, they also exhibit significant linguistic diversity, providing an especially rich (but as yet largely untapped) resource for understanding linguistic structure and language change. Recent funding by the British Academy for the project Bantu Grammar: Theory and Description, has brought together Bantu researchers from the School for Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, the University of Leiden, and the Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS) in Berlin, further stimulating research and discussion regarding Bantu linguistic structure. The study of Bantu linguistic structures, and the import this has for the field of linguistics more generally, is therefore gradually becoming more widely appreciated. Of particular note is that several aspects of Bantu morphological and syntactic structure appear to be similar to structures in many Romance languages. Like most Romance languages (except French), Bantu languages permit null subjects, with subject agreement being marked on the verb. Likewise, when the object is pronominalized, both groups of languages show object clitics on the verb. As a result of these rich “agreement” systems, lexical subjects and objects can appear in various surface word orders, or not at all. Compare, for example, the Sesotho and Spanish sentences in (1) and (2) below. (1) (Thabo) o-rata basadi. (Thabo) agr-like women ‘Thabo likes the women.’ Oa-ba-rata, Thabo. agr-obj-like, Thabo ‘He likes them, Thabo.’ (2) (Juán) conoce a las mujeres. (Juan) know/agr prt det women ‘Juan knows the women.’ Las conoce, Juán. obj-knows/agr Juan ‘He knows them, Juan.’ (Sesotho) (Spanish) Recent research on the syntax of issues of subject and object clitics and variability in word order has concentrated primarily on comparative Bantu or comparative Romance, often in separate African or Romance conferences (e.g., WOCAL – World The Bantu-Romance connection: A comparative investigation Conference on African Languages, Going Romance). There has been little discussion of these issues across these research communities. At more general conferences there are typically only a few papers presented on these topics, with no critical mass present to enhance in-depth discussion or comparative study. The only project to date that has explored similarities between Bantu and Romance languages (led by Bantuists at SOAS and funded by the AHRB) focused exclusively on morphological issues. The time is right to take Bantu research to the broader linguistic community and to extend the field of comparative investigation to syntax and information structure, providing a breeding ground for new collaborative research. The purpose of The Bantu-Romance Connection Exploratory Workshop (funded by the European Science Foundation), in which the contributions to this volume are rooted, was therefore to foster further communication between Bantu and Romance research communities in an effort to better understand the nature of linguistic structure, and its diversity and constraints. In particular, participants were invited to address several questions regarding the surface similarities found in these two language groups, and to identify the linguistic tests needed to determine if the syntactic structures underlying these surface similarities are actually the same or not. Presenters were invited to discuss the following (partially overlapping) topics: 1. Clitics, agreement, object drop • What is the decisive evidence for the agreement/pronominal status of subject and object markers/clitics? • What is the grammatical status of overt expletives, and how are these realized? • What are the discourse/syntactic restrictions on null objects? • What is the connection between object agreement and specificity? 2. DP structure • What is the structure of the DP? • At what level of structure are determiners and/or noun class (pre)prefixes specified? • How does this interact with definiteness and/or specificity? • What is the structure of concord? • How does this explain, within language groups and across groups, similarities and differences in surface morpho-syntactic structure? 3. Focus, Topic and Information Structure • What evidence bears on the structural analysis of lexical subjects? Are these actually “topics” rather than “subjects”? • What is the structure for topicalization, clefting, right and left dislocation? What are the syntactic/discourse restrictions on such structures? Introduction It was hoped that the outcome of the workshop would help establish a framework for fostering future communication between scholars of Bantu and Romance languages. One of the ways it could have a lasting effect on the field was by encouraging presenters to enter into Bantu/Romance collaborative teams. We hoped that the resulting volume would provide a framework for future workshops and publications of this type, and would be of interest as a teaching text for higher-level linguistics seminars. The intriguing similarities in between these Romance and Bantu languages, in both their agreement systems and various aspects of their syntactic word-order possibilities and resulting information structures, provide a new, exciting field of research that should lay the groundwork for forging a better understanding of the structure of language. In particular it will provide a deeper understanding of interactions at the morphology-syntax interface. This will in turn contribute to our understanding of language change, and ultimately the evolution and acquisition of language itself. In the following section we briefly discuss the theoretical highlights of each of the chapters. Part I: Clitics and agreement Marten, Kempson & Bouzouita explore word order and subject/object clitic similarities between Bantu (Otjiherero) and Romance (Latin, Spanish). This is couched within the framework of Dynamic Syntax (DS) (Cann, Kempson, Marten 2005). First, the authors provide a detailed analysis of the different word order possibilities in Bantu and Romance, showing how DS provides a uniform framework for analysis for word order variation across the two language groups. They then argue that Bantu subject and object clitics can be analyzed as being similar to Romance (object) clitics, where unfixed nodes have to be construed within a tightly locally restricted domain. Support for their analysis comes from restrictions on the presence of object markers in passive and locative inversion constructions in Otjiherero, which follow from independent constraints on the availability of unfixed nodes within a given domain. Thus, despite differences in surface morphology between the two language groups, Bantu and Romance exhibit striking parallels with respect to the way lexical information and general structure-building principles of interact within a theory of DS. Cardinaletti brings to light a restriction on clitic clusters hitherto ignored in the literature, determining which clusters can appear as proclisis and which as enclisis. The latter is shown to be available to fewer types of clitic clusters, while the former is available to all. Another distinguishing property is vowel change (in Italian): clitic clusters that exhibit vowel change can occur in both positions, but only those with no vowel change can appear as enclisis. These restrictions are The Bantu-Romance connection: A comparative investigation argued to derive from partially independent properties of clitic clusters involving their internal structure and whether they are inserted as lexical units or independent words. Cardinaletti argues that the two types of clusters (i.e., those that can appear anywhere vs. those restricted to the proclitic position) result from different types of adjunction: adjunction of one clitic to another, or adjunction to different functional heads. Only the former structure can give rise to enclitic clusters. Two clitic positions are distinguished: one in the IP layer and one in the VP layer. Different features are checked in each position, and only clitic clusters resulting from adjunction on the same head are possible in the VP-internal position. Case is shown to only play a limited role in explaining the cluster-internal ordering of clitics. The data are mainly from Italian, but comparison with Bantu leads to a refinement of the proposal with respect to the (possibly universal) merging order of direct object and indirect object clitics. Differences between the two language groups are attributed to independent differences in clause structure. Labelle investigates the status of object markers in Romance and Bantu. She contends that the traditional split in the literature between analyses in terms of affix vs. clitic pronoun needs to be overcome if a unified analysis of object markers is ever to be attained. Based on evidence from French (including substantial diachronic evidence) and Chicheŵa, she shows that many aspects of the distribution of object markers cannot be captured by a strictly morphological analysis and that these elements must be visible to the syntactic component. She goes on to propose a tentative unified analysis. Critically, she proposes that there is a continuum from independent word to affix, with object clitics situated more on the clitic side in Romance than in Bantu. By recognizing that clitics have a mixed status, Labelle shows that one can account for their morphological properties without having to overlook crucial syntactic properties. Harford examines a number of morphological and syntactic properties of WH-extraction constructions and verbal inflectional morphology in two Bantu languages (Isizulu and Chishona), and two Romance languages (standard French and Italian). She analyses these properties in terms of a common right-branching Split-INFL structure, in which the lexical projection of V is dominated by functional projections of inflectional morphemes. She suggests that the relatively higher degree of fusion in verbal inflectional morphology in the Romance languages can be understood as a constraint that minimizes the number of suffixal inflectional morphemes whose postverbal directionality clashes with the basic order of functional and lexical morphemes. This reinforces the idea that Head-to-Head movement may be used to account for the directionality and relative fusion of verbal inflectional morphology. It also suggests that favoring or disfavoring movement, as expressed in relative rankings for the Optimality Theoretic STAY, cut across syntactic and morphological constructions. Thus, despite their surface morphological Introduction differences, Harford suggests that Romance and Bantu languages are typologically very similar. Part II: The structure of DPs Carstens compares several aspects of Bantu and Romance DP structure, drawing especially on data from Swahili and Spanish. First, she argues that the Bantu Noun Class is a gender system very much like that of Romance. Drawing on data from Swahili diminutive/augmentative processes, she argues that apparent derivational properties of Noun Classes and their prefixes are in fact due to derivational zero morphemes in Bantu with their own gender specifications, much like the phraselevel null element pro found in both Bantu and Romance, with concomitant recoverability/identification requirements. She suggests that Bantu has a greater number and diversity of null elements than Romance because the larger number of genders enables them to be unambiguously identified, facilitating recoverability. Carstens then proposes that Romance and Bantu DPs share a common architecture, and that both groups of languages exhibit noun raising (though with different landing sites). She then argues against Cinque’s (2005) anti-symmetric approach to postnominal modifier order, showing that a symmetrical base-generation approach to modifiers is preferable. Finally, she shows the Agree relation (Chomsky 2000, 2001) in both Bantu and Romance can easily account for the agreement within the DP (concord). Carstens concludes that all aspects of DPs in the two languages are therefore highly similar, in keeping with Universal Grammar. This paper therefore provides the basis for a much larger comparative analysis of these issues, both within and between each language group. Zamparelli’s paper explores the relation between the ± interpretable and ± valued status of features, within the Chomskian Minimalist program of generative grammar. He argues that uninterpretable features are not automatically unvalued, and shows that at least some semantic features must be visible to Agree (an operation traditionally considered to handle syntactic information exclusively). The paper opens with a discussion of the notions of default and interpretability, and the handling of lexical “exceptions”. It then explores the status of the person feature (pers) in light of what has been said about defaults, and proposes a distinction between a genuine 3rd person value for this feature and the assignment of pers = 3rd to categories without person specification. Turning to gender (gend), Zamparelli contends this feature should not be part of “core” grammar as it is not autonomously interpretable in spite of being valued. As for number agreement (num), this is shown to involve semantic as well as syntactic features. The facts are argued to require a modification of the Agree system. Zamparelli draws extensively The Bantu-Romance connection: A comparative investigation on Romance evidence (especially from Italian) and identifies how Bantu data might bear on the issues discussed and advance this research program. Giusti investigates feature sharing in Nominal Expressions, drawing on data from Romance (mainly Romanian, Italian and Spanish) and Bantu (mainly Swahili and Xhosa). Concord on possessors and modifiers in Romance is considered to be parallel to prefixes in Bantu, and the determiner system in Romance as parallel to pre-prefix spreading and multiple demonstratives in Bantu. Giusti contends that feature sharing involves two distinct structural relations: Agreement and Concord. Concord involves modifiers, is triggered by Number, Gender or Class features, and never results in movement. Agreement involves subjects, is triggered by Person features, and is argued to consist of the operations probe and move. However in both Romance and Bantu, Agreement in Nominal Expressions is shown to seldom result in movement: this only happens with pronominal and adjectival possessives, which are argued to have pronominal reference. In this case the goal is exclusively formed by the probed features and pied-piping to the specifier of the probe takes place. Additional support for the distinction between Agreement and Concord is found in the co-occurrence of these two relations on the same element (the genitival article in Romanian and connectors in Bantu). Ferrari-Bridgers argues in favor of a unified syntactic analysis of Luganda and Italian simple nouns. Specifically, she shows that, in both languages, all nouns are formed via the merger of the nominalizer head [n] with a nominal stem [LP], yielding the nominal structure [nP [n [LP]]]. She further claims that syntactic movement is necessary in the formation process of Italian nouns to derive the correct morpheme order. In order to demonstrate that the structure [nP [n [LP]]] is representative for both languages, she shows that the nominalizer head [n] corresponds to both the Italian gender feature and the Luganda class feature and that, therefore, gender and class are the same feature with identical inflectional and derivational functions: At the inflectional level, gender and class trigger VP and DP agreement, whereas at the derivational level, gender and class function as n-marked heads whose merger with an XP yields a noun. She further argues that, unlike Luganda nouns in general and Italian masculine nouns, Italian feminine nouns are derived by movement. Drawing on data from diminutive formation, she also argues that XP movement is the preferred type of movement in derived nominal formation. Thus, by reinterpreting the gender/class as a nominalizer, it is possible to provide a uniform treatment for the derivation of both Bantu and Romance nouns. Part III: Information structure Frascarelli argues that a one-to-one mapping between syntax, phonology and discourse underlies the encoding of topics and subjects. Three types of topics are Introduction distinguished (aboutness-shift, familiar, and contrastive) and shown to correspond to dedicated functional projections within the C-domain, each of which is associated with distinct intonational patterns. Syntax plays a central role in this approach: it determines the interpretation (scope effects, contrast, discourse functions), the word order and the prosody. PF operations are ruled out: prosodic patterns are determined by the phonological output of syntactic structures. On this basis, apparently right-peripheral elements are argued to occupy the position of familiar topics in the left-periphery, the rest of the clause being moved to GroundP via IP-inversion. The strict one-to-one mapping of syntax onto prosody and discourse is shown to also account for subjects in Bantu and Romance. Referential/ specific preverbal subjects are argued to be topics (hosted in the C-domain), while indefinite/non-specific preverbal subjects occupy the canonical A-position. Each is associated with particular intonation and interpretive effects. Postverbal subjects are also argued to be of two types, one occupying a low A-position and resumed by an expletive subject, the other occupying the Familiar Topic position and resumed by a thematic pro. In both cases the word order is derived by remnant movement, and distinct prosodic patterns obtain. Evidence is mainly drawn from a corpus study of spoken Italian and a review of the Bantu literature (especially on Kinande). Costa and Kula explore the syntactic and prosodic realization of new information focus in Bantu and Romance. They argue that syntax alone is insufficient to encode information structure and determine its prosodic manifestations. Rather, they propose that the syntax generates all possible structures, and that these are then filtered out at the interface with the phonological component of the grammar. Contrary to Frascarelli, they contend that the prosodic effects arising from information structure should not be tied to dedicated syntactic projections. According to Costa and Kula, the locus of cross-linguistic variation lies in the way prosodic prominence is assigned. In stress-based languages (Romance), a single position of prominence may be identified syntactically; in tone-based languages (Bantu), phonological phrasing determines where focus is assigned. The first section of the paper presents arguments for a prosodic account of focus movement in Romance (drawing essentially on evidence from Portuguese) and points out shortcomings of syntactic account of these facts. The second section discusses evidence from Bantu indicating that the position of focus is predictable from prosody, most notably at the right edge of the phonological phrase. Van der Wal investigates the status of thetic, or non-topical, presentational constructions with post-verbal subjects in Bantu and Romance. She shows that type 1 languages (Sesotho and French) exhibit default (expletive) “agreement” in thetic constructions, whereas type 2 languages (Makhuwa and Italian) exhibit verbal agreement with the postverbal subject. Previous treatment of these facts attributed these differences to different parameter settings of the Agree system (e.g., Collins 2004; Carstens 2005; Baker 2008), but van der Wal shows that these The Bantu-Romance connection: A comparative investigation proposals cannot account for the Makhuwa facts. Rather, she shows how issues involving Case, Binding Theory and Information Structure demonstrate that these language differences are due to the status of subject-verb agreement: In the type 1 languages she suggests that subject-verb “agreement” is actually pronominal, as evidenced by the use of the “expletive” class 17 marker in Sesotho and the obligatory subject clitic in French. In contrast, subject agreement in the type 2 languages shares agreement features with the postverbal subject. The paper presents a nice treatment of comparative Bantu prosodic structure to demonstrate the different position of the logical subject with respect to the VP, laying the groundwork for further comparative research in this area. In sum, this volume has wide empirical coverage across Bantu and Romance languages, providing some support for universalist claims regarding: the status of subject and object clitics (Marten, Kempson & Bouzouita), the order of insertion for DO and IO clitics (Cardinaletti), the syntactic restrictions on the nature of Inflection (Harford), and the existence of a continuum of graded rather than discrete notions of clitic vs. affix (Labelle). Several of the papers also use data from both Bantu and Romance languages to explore current theoretical issues, especially relating to the understanding of the Agree relation. Some suggest that Agree is not sufficient to account for feature sharing in Nominal Expressions, and should be complemented with Concord (Giusti). Others suggest that Agree should be rethought in light of the lack of automatic correlation between unvalued and uninterpretable features (Zamparelli). Still others propose that its current formulation nicely accounts for Bantu/Romance similarities, though the details of the analysis vary (Carstens, Ferrari-Bridgers). Finally, several of the papers contribute to current theoretical debates in the field, such as the role played by syntax in the overall architecture of grammar. Some suggest that it is the syntax that determines discourse structure and its prosodic reflexes (Frascarelli), whereas others argue that interfaces between syntax and discourse and/or syntax and phonology (Costa & Kula) as well as the pronominal/agreement status of subject clitics (van der Wal) play a more prominent role. It is hoped that these contributions, with their new data and comparative Bantu/Romance analysis, will stimulate further debate about the nature of grammar. Cécile De Cat Leeds, UK April 2008 Katherine Demuth Providence, RI Introduction References Baker, M. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: CUP. Cann, R., Kempson, R. & Marten, L. 2005. The Dynamics of Language. Oxford: Elsevier. Carstens, V. 2005. Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 219–279. Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, H. Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (Eds), 89–156. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Cinque, G. 2005. On deriving Greenberg’s universal 20. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 315–332. Collins, C. 2004. The agreement parameter. In Triggers, A. Breitbarth & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds), 115–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nurse, D. & Philippson, G. 2003. The Bantu Languages. London: Routledge. part 1 Clitics and agreement Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance Lutz Marten Department of Africa, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita Philosophy Department, King’s College, London The paper explores parallelisms between Bantu (speciﬁcally Otjiherero) and Romance (through Latin and Spanish) with respect to left and right peripheries, and subject and object clitics. The analysis is formulated in Dynamic Syntax (DS, Cann et al. 2005) and centrally involves notions of structural underspeciﬁcation. Through providing detailed analyses of diﬀerent word order possibilities in the Bantu and Romance languages discussed, we show how DS concepts of structural growth over initially underspeciﬁed tree relations, such as the building of linked structures and unﬁxed nodes, provide a uniform basis for analyses of word order variation across the two language groups. We then extend our analysis to include Bantu subject/object markers, which we analyze by employing the same formal tools as used in the analysis of Romance (object) clitics, namely unﬁxed nodes which have to be construed within a tightly locally restricted domain. Empirical support for our analysis comes from restrictions on the presence of object markers in passive and locative inversion constructions in Otjiherero, which we show to follow from independent constraints of the availability of unﬁxed nodes within a given domain. The analyses of Bantu and Romance presented show that despite diﬀerences in surface morphology between the two language groups, both exhibit a striking parallel with respect to the way lexical information and general structure building principles of DS interact. The diﬀerence between Romance clitic systems and the agglutinative morphology of Bantu subject and object makers is thus seen to be comparatively superﬁcial, while the DS analysis brings out the strong structural parallelism between the two language groups.1 . We are grateful to Jekura Kavari, Nancy Kula, Clara Simango, Nhlanhla Thwala and audiences in Groningen, Leiden, Oxford and Leeds for helpful comments on parts of this paper, as well as to Helsinki University Library for granting access to their Swahili corpus. Parts of Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita 1. Introduction In this chapter, we present an explanation of structural parallels between Bantu and Romance from the perspective of Dynamic Syntax, a grammar formalism which argues that natural language syntax can be explained as humans’ ability to build structured representations of meaning from words in context, on a left-toright basis. The model thus purports to reﬂect both natural language structures in relation to the linear order of words, and the way information progressively emerges during the incremental parsing of those words. Given this perspective, left and right periphery constructions are of speciﬁc interest, and we begin by illustrating similarities of periphery constructions in Romance and Bantu. In Section 2, we introduce the DS analysis of the left and right periphery in more detail, with reference to Spanish and Latin, based on previous DS analyses. Section 3 shows how the DS analysis of Romance can be extended to left and right periphery constructions in Bantu, which we illustrate from Otjiherero, Nsenga, siSwati, Swahili and Tumbuka, and demonstrates how the DS model provides a straightforward analysis of these constructions, without stipulation of construction-speciﬁc principles, which extends equally to Romance and Bantu. In the following Section 4, we probe further the parallelism between Romance and Bantu, and the formal space in which this is expressed in the DS model. We develop an analysis of Bantu subject agreement markers along the lines of Romance (object) clitics, which in our analysis reﬂect the more liberal word-order of Latin, and in particular local scrambling. Employing formal DS concepts, we construct an analysis of Bantu subject (and object) markers, which allows them freedom of construal within a very tightly locally restricted domain – what we call local underspeciﬁcation. This analysis contradicts the view of Bantu verbal structure as morphologically ﬁxed, but has the advantage of oﬀering a principled analysis of subject and object-marking restrictions in passive and locative inversion constructions, which we illustrate from Otjiherero (Section 5). Our argument thus starts from the more familiar left and right periphery analyses of Romance, and proceeds to show how they are matched in Bantu. In a second step, we focus on a less obvious parallel, namely the type of process induced by Bantu (subject) agreement markers and Romance clitics (those that are syncretic in form), and show that this parallel can be brought out through the DS formalization of local underspeciﬁcation, with the shared restrictions of locative inversion and passive as evidence. the research reported in this paper have received ﬁnancial support from the AHRC (B/RG/ AN8675/APN16312) which is hereby gratefully acknowledged. Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance 1.1 Romance-Bantu similarities on the left and right periphery It has often been proposed that Bantu and Romance share many structural characteristics despite diﬀerences in morphology. For example, objects can be fronted, with agreement and clitic doubling:2 (1) Alenje njûchi zi-ná-wá-lum-a. 2.hunters 10.bees sm10-past-om2-bite-fv ‘The hunters, bees bit them.’ (2) El coche, María lo compró. the car Maria cl bought.3sg ‘The car, Maria bought it.’ [Chichewa] [Spanish] Subjects can be postposed, with either a focus or backgrounding eﬀect, or when postposed to the right of the full verb phrase, characteristically associated with contrast: (3) Zi-ná-wá-lum-a alenje njûchi. sm10-past-om2-bite-fv 2.hunters 10.bees ‘They bit the hunters, the bees.’ (4) Canta muy bien María. sing.3sg very well, Maria ‘She sings very well, Maria.’ [Chichewa] [Spanish] There are also object-subject inversion eﬀects in both language families, associated with contrastive interpretation: (5) Alenje zi-ná-wá-lum-a njûchi. 2.hunters sm10-past-om2-bite-fv 10.bees ‘The hunters, they bit them, the bees.’ (6) Un coche compró María. a car bought.3sg Maria ‘A car, Maria bought.’ [Chichewa] [Spanish] . The term clitic doubling is here used non-technically to mean use of an NP with co-construed clitic for both right-and left-peripheral NPs. We use the following abbreviations in the glosses: a = “personal a”; acc = accusative; appl = applicative; cl = clitic; fut = future; fv = ﬁnal vowel; hab = habitual; nom = nominative; om = object marker; pass = passive; pl = plural; sg = singular; sm = subject marker; 1, 2, 3, = noun-class number. We are grateful to Jekura Kavari, Clara Simango and Nhlanhla Thwala for providing the Otjiherero, Nsenga and siSwati examples. Chichewa examples are from Bresnan and Mchombo (1987). Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita In all these cases there is variation. For example, fronted objects require doubling in most Bantu languages, while in Spanish, clitic doubling is obligatory only if the subject intervenes between the object and the verb. However, despite variation both within and across the language families, the overall parallel between Bantu and Romance is clear. Object agreement markers on the verb, whether an identiﬁably separate clitic or an aﬃx, result in increased word-order freedom; subjects and objects broadly diﬀer in the referentiality implications associated with co-occurrence of the full NP with the agreement marker; and the subject, if rightperipherally placed, may be placed either externally to the VP or, in some languages, immediately following the verb: (7) Zi-ná-wá-lum-a njûchi alenje. sm10-past-om2-bite-fv 10.bees 2.hunters ‘They bit them, the bees, the hunters.’ (8) Compró María un coche. bought.3sg Maria a car ‘She bought, Maria, a car.’ [Chichewa] [Spanish] In both language families there is variation as to the extent to which “agreement” for non-subject expressions patterns alongside subject marking or more like a regular anaphoric process, hence giving rise to referentiality eﬀects. In Spanish, for example, the dative construction behaves more like an agreement phenomenon than an anaphoric linkage between clitic and full NP that it doubles; and in Bantu, languages vary as to whether or not object marking, unlike subject marking, is subject to a referentiality restriction, or is an invariant agreement-like device. Such left and right periphery eﬀects in Romance have been the subject of considerable research, both in orthodox frameworks where the work is well known (Rizzi 1997 and others following; Monachesi 2005 in HPSG) and in the emergent Dynamic Syntax framework (DS; Cann et al. 2005; Kempson et al. 2006, 2007); and some work has been done extending these claims to the Bantu case (see Cocchi 2001 for a minimalist analysis; Cann et al. 2005; Marten 2007; Marten & Kempson 2002 for DS analyses). Certainly, the parallelism between the two language families even down to the level of individual-language variation suggests the phenomena should emerge as the consequence of interaction of general principles. The relevance of the DS perspective in this connection is the claim that syntax is no more than the progressive construction of semantic representation. In particular, the concept of building “unﬁxed” nodes as part of the ongoing construction process which is the heart of the DS claim, deﬁnes a family of relatively weak relations; and these provide the basis for an integrated characterization of left and right periphery eﬀects on a broad cross-linguistic basis (Kempson et al. 2007). There is in particular: (i) the construction of a highly restricted, structurally underspeciﬁed relation Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance where a node is introduced as unﬁxed but necessitates update within an individual predicate-argument array, the basis for local scrambling; (ii) the construction of an unﬁxed node requiring update within an individual tree, the basis for long-distance dependency and long-distance scrambling; and (iii) the building of paired (“linked”) trees whose relation to each other is not that of mother/daughter at all but merely a relation of anaphoric connectedness. These three forms of structural underspeciﬁcation are put together with the fact that pronouns themselves only provide a partial speciﬁcation of node decorations, and so can be used as a basis for unifying any weak structural relation to provide the necessary update that will ﬁx any such initially “unﬁxed” node. The result is an account of a range of intermediate eﬀects such as clitic and pronoun doubling. With just the additional and independently motivated assumption that pronoun decorations may vary as to whether they allow further structural development of the node they decorate (the DS account of expletives: Cann et al. 2005), a further range of intermediate eﬀects is obtained, in particular associated with expletives, and with doubling as displayed by Spanish datives. The overall result is that interactions between general processes of anaphora construal and the construction and update of structural relations provide a principled explanation of what are otherwise taken to be topic and focus eﬀects, while nevertheless providing an analysis which is suﬃciently ﬁne-grained to provide a basis for the full range of cross-linguistic eﬀects. Indeed Kempson et al. (2006, 2007) argue that the various topic and focus eﬀects should be seen as grounded in such interactions rather than requiring these notions as syntactic primitives. The account thus makes a bid to be explanatory in a way that an account in terms of stipulating as many discrete formal structures (such as features, categories, or functional projections) as there are distinct patternings, as in many current alternative analyses, fails to match (e.g., Rizzi 1997; Cardinaletti this volume; Rivero forthcoming). However, there are idiosyncracies associated with the interaction of object marking and local clause-internal variation in Bantu not displayed in Romance, which threaten this claim, suggesting that the commitment to a single set of universally available principles for inducing the relevant data may not be sustainable. First of all, in the majority of Bantu languages, there can only be one object marker, whether direct or indirect object marking: (9) Ngi-m-nik-e kudla. sm1sg-om1-give-past 15.food ‘I gave him/her food.’ (10) Ngi-ku-nik-e sm1sg-om15-give-past ‘I gave it to Jabulani.’ Jabulani. 1.Jabulani [siSwati] Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita (11) *Ngi-ku-m-nik-e. (12) *Ngi-m-ku-nik-e. Secondly, in the majority of Bantu languages where only one object clitic is allowed, passives preclude the presence of object markers, even when the verb is di-transitive, an equally puzzling restriction (although see Woolford 1995 for exceptions): (13) òmbápírà y-á-tjàng-èr-w-á òvá-nátjè 9.letter sm9-past-write-appl-pass-fv 2-children ‘A letter was written to the children (by Katenaa).’ (í (by Kàténáà). Katenaa) (14) *òmbápírà y-é-và-tjàng-èr-w-á. 9.letter sm9-past-om2-write-appl-pass-fv Intended: ‘The letter was written to them.’ Thirdly, as is known from Bresnan and Kanerva (1989) and others, locatives undergo inversion, and in so doing, induce “subject” agreement on the verb, suggesting that the concept of subject in Bantu is exceptional in that canonical subject and the locative share a potential to act as “subject”: (15) m-Òn-djúwó mw-á-hìtí é-rúngà. 18–9-house sm18-past-enter 5-thief ‘Into the house entered the thief.’ (or, ‘There was a thief entering the house.’) Finally there is the puzzle that unlike the canonical subject and like a passive subject, such pre-posed locatives cannot co-occur with object markers: (16) *m-on-djuwo mw-a-ri-hiti. 18–9-house sm18-past-om5-enter Intended: ‘He/she entered the house’ This suggests that there may be cross-linguistically distinct bases for relations we informally understand as subject and object, so that the concepts of subject and object themselves continue to elude us even though they are so very familiar. However, we shall argue to the contrary in this paper that the family of concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation which are deﬁned in DS as replacing concepts of movement equally apply to explain these apparent Bantu idiosyncracies, while retaining a universalist methodology on the syntactic processes themselves. In so doing, we shall provide an integrated analysis of Bantu passive and locative inversion that is not available in other frameworks. We will argue that the Bantu subject and object markers should be seen as associated with underspeciﬁed treerelations which are restricted to requiring resolution within a local domain, an underspeciﬁcation which, until resolved, debars any other such underspeciﬁed Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance tree relation. Moreover, as we shall show, this turns out to constitute a further parallelism with the Romance data. Kempson and Cann (2007) have argued that the family of patterns displayed by Romance clitics involves the construction of locally underspeciﬁed tree relations as a reﬂex of earlier Latin scrambling, an underspeciﬁcation which is most clearly displayed by syncretic forms (e.g., Spanish me, te). The non-co-occurrence of such syncretic forms within an individual cluster is explained by the tree-logic restriction that only one token of a structurally underspeciﬁed relation is possible at any one time.3 What we shall argue is that exactly the same explanation carries over to the non-occurrence of more than one Bantu object clitic, and indeed to the restriction on both passive and locative inversion that object clitics are generally precluded. The consequence is that these arguments will provide strong and novel endorsement of the parallelism between Romance and Bantu, while at the same time providing an integrated account of what have been taken to be heterogeneous and puzzling Bantu data. Given that the concept of syntactic subject deﬁned as a locally underspeciﬁed tree-relation will be new both within and beyond the DS framework (though see Wu 2005 for a related conclusion), we close by reﬂecting on what this tells us about the concept of subject in general. However, before setting out our analysis, we provide a short introduction to DS in the following section, using a combination of Latin and Contemporary Castilian Spanish as the languages of illustration for the various concepts of paired “linked” trees, unﬁxed tree relations and consequent characterizations of such structures as Hanging Topic Left Dislocation, long-distance scrambling, pronoun doubling, short-distance scrambling. We will also look at the account provided within DS of the morphological template behavior of clitic clusters.4 2. The dynamics of language processing The methodology implicit in the Dynamic Syntax formalism is to take the constructs used in semantics and deﬁne them as tree-structure representations with . Potential complications for this account arise with se, which can co-occur with both me and te and may give rise to clitic clusters (Cuervo 2002; Heap 2005). But there is reason to think that in all such cases se is an ethical dative use, for which there is considerable evidence of its requiring an independent adjunct analysis (Cuervo 2002). . It is not possible in the space provided to give a full introduction to DS, nor to provide full justiﬁcation for the Romance analyses we discuss. See Cann et al. 2005; Kempson et al. 2006; Kempson & Cann 2007; Bouzouita 2007; Bouzouita in preparation; Bouzouita & Kempson 2006; which present more detail. Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita a concomitant tree-growth process of establishing some interpretation in context. The central claim is that syntactic properties of natural language reside exclusively in the progressive growth of such tree-structure representations strictly following the dynamics of left-right processing: no additional level of syntax is needed. The type of tree-growth process we assume as the process of building up an interpretation for a string such as (17) involves a growth from just a single-node tree with a requirement to build-up a propositional structure, as in the left below in (18) through a sequence of transitions to yield a ﬁnal tree, being the tree on the right in (18):5 (17) María compró un coche. Maria bought.3sg a car ‘Maria bought a car.’ (18) [Spanish] Parsing María compró un coche in (17) Ty(t), Comprʹ(Cocheʹ)(Maríaʹ), ?Ty(t), → Maríaʹ, Ty(e) Comprʹ(Cocheʹ), Ty (e → t) Cocheʹ, Comprʹ, Ty(e) Ty(e → (e → t)) In example (18), diagrammatically displaying this process, a lot of implicit content is packed into , which symbolizes the concept of tree growth. Central to the concept of tree-growth is the concept of requirement: ?X for any decoration X. Decorations on nodes such as ?Ty(t), ?Ty(e), ?Ty(e → t) etc. express requirements to construct formulae of the appropriate type on the nodes so decorated (propositions, terms and predicates respectively), and these drive the subsequent treeconstruction process.6 The general dynamic is ﬁrst to unfold a tree structure imposing such requirements following a mixture of top-down general tree-growth strategies and bottom- . By convention, nodes decorated by functor types are on the right, nodes decorated by argument types are on the left. In all tree displays, we give only such tree decorations as are needed to demonstrate the point in question. . In any partial tree, there is one node indicated by a pointer, ◊, as the node under development. In this framework all noun phrase construals are taken to be of type e, matching arbitrary names manipulated in natural deduction proofs. Accordingly, the terms onto which words map are lambda terms within the epsilon calculus (the epsilon calculus provides the formal study of arbitrary names, see Meyer-Viol 1995). In general, we ignore the internal structure to be assigned to such type e names. Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance up lexical actions which contribute concepts and other aspects of structure, and then compositionally to combine those concepts in a strictly bottom-up fashion to yield the overall interpretation, in which all requirements must have been satisﬁed. For any language, the process of growth of structure is strictly monotonic, and for any one interpretation, hence wellformedness, there must be at least one sequence of progressively enriched partial trees between input tree and resulting logical form in which all requirements are met. The formal system underpinning the partial trees which are constructed is a logic of ﬁnite trees (LOFT: Blackburn and Meyer-Viol 1994). There are two basic modalities, 〈↓〉 and 〈↑〉, such that 〈↓〉α holds at a node if α holds at its daughter; and the inverse, 〈↑〉α, holds at a node if α holds at its mother. Functor and argument relations are distinguished by deﬁning two types of daughter relation: 〈↓0〉 for argument daughters, 〈↓1〉 for functor daughters (with their inverses 〈↑0〉, 〈↑1〉). There is also an additional link operator, 〈L〉, which relates paired trees, with a link relation from a node in one tree to the top node of another. This tree language plays a critical role in deﬁning the individual steps of tree growth; and procedures are deﬁned for step-wise building up of such structures either by computational actions or by lexical or even pragmatic actions. All are deﬁned in the same vocabulary, a set of context-relative actions for updating representations of interpretation. Such formal tree languages by deﬁnition provide characterizations of such structural relations as dominate; and in LOFT, the concept of dominate is deﬁned in the following terms: a node can be described as dominated by a node Tn(a) when 〈↑∗〉Tn(a) holds at that node, that is when the node identiﬁed as Tn(a) is along some sequence of mother relations from the present node. Such structural relations will play an important part in what follows, but we start with the characterization of how predicates are built from lexical speciﬁcations. 2.1 Lexical information provided by verbs As in other frameworks, verbs are the major projector of structure, for which actions are deﬁned that induce some or even all of the propositional template they express. (19) Result of running lexical actions of compró ?Ty(t)Tns() U,Ty(e), ? x.Fo(x), ?Ty(e → t) ?Ty(e) Ty(e → (e → t)), Comprʹ,[↓]⊥ Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita In Spanish, a subject pro-drop language, verbs project full propositional structure, in which: (i) a subject argument node is decorated with a placeholder i.e., a metavariable of the form U,V, ... of type e, which stands for some value to be assigned either from context or from the construction process; and (ii) an object node which requires subsequent development, as expressed by the requirement ?Ty(e) in (19). Taking ﬁrst the subject node decoration, these meta-variables all have an associated requirement, ?∃x.Fo(x) which guarantees they must be updated. The pointer is positioned at this node, since this allows the subject to be identiﬁed contextually as the very next step. Strings made up of either a SVO sequence or a VSO sequence are thus taken to be unmarked (we shall see in the next section how left-peripheral expressions may be treated as decorating distinct nodes, external to the propositional structure itself and identiﬁed solely through replacement of the meta-variable).7 The eﬀect is that verbs induce a sequence of actions which might equivalently be expressed by a pairing of verb plus subject pronoun. The decoration of argument nodes with a meta-variable, for example, is the intrinsic property of pronouns, underspeciﬁcation with respect to content being their hallmark. Whether provided by parsing a pronoun or a pro-drop verb, all such place-holding devices must be supplied with an assigned value (notice the requirement for a full formula ?∃x.Fo(x)); and diﬀerent types of anaphoric expression can be deﬁned according to the diﬀerent constraints on that process which they impose. Values for reﬂexive pronouns have to be updated within a given single predicate-argument structure, values for other pronouns outside such locally deﬁned structure. Meta-variables projected as part of the intrinsic speciﬁcation of the verb, on the other hand, lack any such restriction, and can have their value identiﬁed either locally or nonlocally, indexically, or from some term provided later on in the construction process, where the choice of value involves general cognitive constraints such as relevance (Sperber & Wilson 1995). The object node, on the other hand (the other node induced by the verb’s actions in (19)), has only a requirement that the node be developed so further linguistic input is essential (with no provided meta-variable, there is no license to use context-provided values). By virtue of the grounding in LOFT, trees are not however taken as syntactic primitives as in other frameworks, but are built up by explicit tree-growth procedures, deﬁned as actions which induce the structure in (19), and then feed into . As Zagona (2002: 27) points out, the acceptability judgments for the VSO order in ﬁnite declaratives vary from speaker to speaker, some reporting it as archaic. Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance whatever structural or pragmatic operations are suitably triggered. The so-called “bottom-node restriction”, [↓]⊥, which is part of the decoration of the predicate node in (19), is deﬁnitive of regular lexical speciﬁcations that the node to which the formula decoration is provided constitute a terminal node in the resulting tree, closing oﬀ development of the node so decorated, so that no further expansion is possible. As we shall see, this restriction may get lost in some words. 2.2 Context-dependence and lexical speciﬁcations for pronouns The process of providing such a meta-variable with a value is a substitution process, its replacement having to be selected from the set of terms made available during the construction process, characteristically from the context. For example, in (20), lo is naturally understood as picking out the same individual as picked out by the antecedent use of Pablo: (20) ¿Quién ama a Pablo? María lo ama. who love.3sg A Pablo Maria cl love.3sg ‘Who loves Pablo? Maria loves him.’ The concept of the context-dependence of anaphoric expressions in language is familiar enough. What is less orthodox is the assumption that it is to be deﬁned as a tree-update process; and with contexts also represented as (partial) trees, anaphora resolution can apply equally to the update of a pronoun from antecedent terms within the structure under construction: (21) Pablo cree que María lo ama. Pablo think.3sg that Maria cl love.3sg ‘Pablo thinks that Maria loves him.’ For the identiﬁcation of lo in (21), the context relative to which that interpretation process takes place includes the partial structure containing the subject node with its decorations. So there is no distinction between grammar-internal and discourse uses of pronouns: both are analyzed alike as a tree update process in which the meta-variable gets to be provided with a term as value by substitution. In canonical uses of pronouns, like all other content words, the pronoun has ‘the bottom restriction’ that whatever value it is assigned must be taken as decorating a terminal node in the tree. However, by adopting a representationalist stance, with pronoun construal seen as a substitution process, we can integrate anaphoric and apparently nonanaphoric uses of pronouns into a single form of explanation. In Spanish, as already brieﬂy discussed above, there is widespread clitic doubling of dative expressions which occur either pre- or post-verbally (e.g., the pre-verbal dative NP Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita is doubled by les in (22)), sometimes referred to as an agreement phenomenon (Franco 2000 inter alia): (22) A familias de pocos medios les ofrecieron queso. to families of small means cl oﬀered.3pl cheese ‘To low-income families, they oﬀered cheese.’ From a DS perspective, such clitic uses can be seen as anaphoric devices of just the same sort as more regular pronouns, with just a minor loosening of the deﬁning properties of what it is to correspond to a regular lexical item of the language: they have lost this bottom restriction, with the result that the meta-variable they provide, in (23) represented as U, can be updated by structure as part of the construction process.8 As a result, these dative clitics have broader distribution, allowing identiﬁcation either from context or from the construction process, retaining their anaphoric properties but in a modiﬁed form. (23) Parsing A familias de pocos medios les ofrecieron queso in (22) ?Ty(t) ?Ty(e → t) Funcionariosʹ Quesoʹ ?Ty(e → (e → t)), FPMʹ, U Ofrecʹ The eﬀect, however, is that doubling in such cases will not impose a referentiality constraint, as the meta-variable provided by the clitic can be given a value by any term whatever of appropriate type, even allowing indubitably quantiﬁed NPs to be doubled: (24) A nadie le devolvió María su manuscrito to nobody cl returned.3sg Maria his/her manuscript ‘Maria didn’t return anyone their manuscript.’ This renders them equivalent to the decorations provided by the verb for its subject in subject pro-drop languages, hence their supposed agreement-displaying properties. . Details of individual terms are omitted, including the internal structure of the composite term projected from familias de pocos medios, diagrammatically represented as projecting the predicate FPM'. We assume that the subject position is annotated with Funcionarios', supplied from the context. Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance 2.3 The dynamics of long-distance dependency The dynamics of initially constructing some incomplete speciﬁcation and subsequently providing its update apply also to the projection of structure. The core claim of DS is that all syntactic mechanisms can be seen in terms of tree growth and update, and in particular, discontinuity phenomena are modelled by deﬁning structural concepts of underspeciﬁcation and update as a direct analogue of the formula underspeciﬁcation and update, taken to be the underpinning of anaphora resolution. In (26), for example the expression un coche is construed as providing a term for the resulting logical form, but the node which it decorates does not yet have its relation to the root, Tn(0), ﬁxed within the overall structure (indicated by the dashed line):9 (25) un coche compró a car bought.3sg ‘A car, he/she bought.’ (26) Parsing un coche in (25) Tn(0), ?Ty(t), Cocheʹ, ·≠*ÒTn(0), ? x.Tn(x) Once this unﬁxed node is decorated, the actions of the verb can be used to project a full template of propositional structure; and, with the subject having been contextually identiﬁed, say as someone called Maria, the pointer returns to the object node for further development. This move provides the necessary input for ﬁxing the unﬁxed node, with this delayed update also solving the subcategorization requirement of the two-place predicate projected by the verb: (27) Parsing un coche compró in (25) ?Ty(t),Tn(0) Cocheʹ , ·≠*ÒTn(0), ? x.Tn(x) ?Ty(e Æ t) Marίaʹ, Ty(e) ?Ty(e ), Comprʹ . Formally, this is deﬁned using the Kleene star operation deﬁned on the daughter-mother relation: 〈↑∗〉Tn(a) is a node dominated by a node Tn(a), where Tn(a) is along an arbitrary sequence of mother relations from the current node to Tn(a). Adding the requirement ?∃x.Tn(x) Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita In addition, given that the only restriction on this uniﬁcation process is that the result be an update, we expect that it can also apply in the presence of a pronoun decorating the object node, as long as that pronoun has no bottom restriction. So we predict the availability of long-distance dependency eﬀects in Spanish with a preposed dative expression and dative doubling, as in (22): the so-called Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) phenomenon. Like the process of anaphora resolution, the process of constructing an unﬁxed node is in principle available at any point, allowing the construction of an unﬁxed node at some relatively late point in the parse. There is an asymmetry between early and late application of such construction processes, however, by virtue of the tree either being radically underspeciﬁed (early in a parse) or all but complete (late on in the parse process). In particular, DS assumptions lead us to expect a more restrictive result once an emergent tree is complete apart from completing the formula decorations on its nodes. General restrictions on tree development dictate that once the pointer is at a node with some imposed requirement(s), it cannot move up from that node except as particular licence is deﬁned to enable it do so. One such case is in the parsing of pronouns. In parsing pronouns, although the formula value may remain to be provided at some late stage, a type value is established, and so the construction process can proceed. However, the delay in completing the decorations on the node which this gives rise to has to be essentially local, as a strict bottomup compositionality requirement on the containing predicate-argument structure must nevertheless be satisﬁed. In consequence, though the pointer can move away from a type-decorated node as long as it has some interim place-holder decoration, it will have to return to the partially decorated node so that a ﬁxed value for that node is provided when the semantic information on the tree is compiled. This late construction of a subtree can be achieved by a process of building an unﬁxed node of a type that matches the node from which it is built, decorating it suitably, and then unifying the two (so-called Late*Adjunction). This sequence of steps will, for example, apply in deriving a construal for (28): (28) Les ofrecieron queso a familias de pocos medios. cl oﬀered.3pl cheese to families of small means ‘They oﬀered cheese to low-income families.’ With the clitic pronoun decorating a third argument node of ofrecieron early on in the parse, Late*Adjunction can induce a node of type e (Ty(e)) for the parse as an additional decoration on that node imposes the requirement that in all successful completions of the tree, this underspeciﬁed characterization is replaced by a ﬁxed tree relation. Cf. Kaplan & Zaenen (1989) for use of the Kleene star in deﬁning the related concept of “functional uncertainty” in LFG. Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance of a familias de pocos medios which, once established, uniﬁes with that node. The result of this introduction and decoration of an unﬁxed node at this point in the derivation yields as a consequence the very strict locality restriction at the right periphery (sometimes called “The Right Roof Constraint”), which, although well known, has never been satisfactorily explained. As a bonus, this account provides a basis for analyzing the inversion phenomenon characteristic of the Romance languages: (29) un coche, compró María. a car bought.3sg Maria ‘A car, Maria bought.’ Early on in the derivation, an unﬁxed node is introduced, decorated by the parse of un coche. This weak tree relation is not updated immediately but only after the verb has been processed, hence with a delay in its construal. The projection of content for the subject node is also delayed, this node only being introduced as part of the information provided by the verb, with its content provided once a predicate has been compiled from verb and object in combination. Once the pointer has returned to the subject node, Late*Adjunction can then be used to provide an intervening node for parsing the end-placed subject expression and so establishing the construal of that subject. (30) Parsing Un coche compró María in (29) ?Ty(t) U,Ty(e), ? x.Fo(x), ʹ ʹ Maria Comprʹ(Cocheʹ), Ty(e Æ t) Cocheʹ Comprʹ This ﬁnally leads to a tree no diﬀerent from that which could have been derived by parsing (17) (see the the right-hand side tree in (18)). As mentioned above, wellformedness in DS is not deﬁned by the ﬁnal tree of a derivation, but rather by the monotonic transition from an initial to a ﬁnal tree. There is, however, an important constraint, which is an immediate consequence of the concept of partial trees. Just like any individual ﬁxed node, any unﬁxed node is nevertheless identiﬁed by its tree-node value – in these very weak cases solely by the dominate relation that deﬁnes it. But this means that there can eﬀectively never be more than one unﬁxed node at a time, because any two such identiﬁed nodes cannot be distinguished, and so would lead to incompatible tree decorations. The derivation of (29) notably meets this constraint: at no point in the sequence of trees over which its interpretation is built up is there ever more than one unﬁxed node. Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita 2.4 Constructing trees in tandem The one missing part of the DS jigsaw of interacting mechanisms is the details of how paired so-called ‘linked’ trees are constructed. These are licensed by a mechanism which induces paired trees on the assumption that they must share a term which occurs in both. The two trees are, in eﬀect, introduced in tandem, using LOFT modal requirements to ensure an anaphoric substitution process across the pair of trees. Relative clause construal provides a core example (see Kempson et al. 2001; Cann et al. 2005). But this very same device applies equally to provide a basis for Hanging Topic Left Dislocation (HTLD) structures (Anagnostopoulou et al. 1997). The left-peripheral expression is analyzed as providing the trigger for introducing a tree linked to the rootnode to be of type e, which that expression duly decorates. There is an additional restriction that the root node with requirement ?Ty(t) must now be constrained to contain a copy of the term projected from the left-peripheral noun phrase so as to satisfy the sharing-of-terms requirement dictated by the LINK relation. This modal form of requirement determines the presence of a suitably construed pronoun in the twinned structure, which the facts of HTLD corroborate: (31) Este coche, Pablo lo compró this car Pablo cl bought.3sg ‘This car, Pablo bought it.’ (32) *Este coche, Pablo compró this car Pablo bought.3sg The only exception to this required presence of a lexical pronoun is the case of subject pro-drop structures: i.e., just those cases where the verb projects its argument nodes decorated with only a meta-variable as formula value, exactly as though a lexical form of pronoun had been present, since these can satisfy that same requirement by identifying the meta-variable appropriately. The result is that a range of strategies is available in the opening stages of a parsing process, any one of which can apply. This gives us a basis for explaining the blurring eﬀect associated with the subject position in pro-drop languages: that it is able to be construed either as a backgrounding device, or as a focussed term, or more neutrally, with concomitant diﬃculty in some cases of diﬀerentiating what have been distinguished as HTLD and CLLD structures (De Cat 2007). In particular we expect both the availability of building an unﬁxed node, decorated, and presumed to be incorporated into the single emergent structure as it unfolds, and the building of a pair of linked structures, with the second structure suitably construed as having an interpretation dictated by the decoration on the ﬁrst, as shown below. It is notable that, if these are the only two options available for parsing preverbal subject expressions in Spanish, we derive the result observed in Zubizarreta (2001) that Spanish subjects are invariably in some sense external to the clause: Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance (33) Martín lo escribió. Martin cl wrote.3sg ‘Martin wrote it.’ (34) Parsing Martín (a) as decorating an unﬁxed node or (b) as a linked structure (a) Tn(0), ?Ty(t), Martίnʹ, ·≠*ÒTn(0) (b) Martίnʹ, ·LÒTn(0) ·L-1ÒTn(n), ?Ty(t) ? ·Ø*ÒMartίnʹ, The two strategies of building linked structures or an unﬁxed node within an individual structure are in principle also available at the right periphery, though to rather diﬀerent eﬀect. If an independent linked structure is constructed, it will be the value assigned to the meta-variable of the pronoun that is identiﬁed from context: the construal of the end-placed NP will then have to be ﬁxed to be coextensive with value of the meta-variable in order to match the linked-structure requirement of shared term in the paired structures. Hence the reported backgrounding eﬀect that can be conveyed by so-called Pronoun Doubling. Alternatively, an unﬁxed node can be introduced by Late*Adjunction whose decoration provides a value for the meta-variable. This typically gives rise to contrastive or new information eﬀects by virtue of that late construction (see Kempson & Cann 2007). This predicted ﬂexibility at both left and right peripheries is a bonus of the parsing perspective since, unlike in more conventional grammar formalisms, there is no commitment to a single assignment of structure for an unambiguous string. On the contrary, this framework provides a range of tree-growth strategies, which may feed each other, giving rise to a mixed array of eﬀects. Taking a step back from the details, what is striking in the set of explanations which this account makes possible is how few stipulations there are: no single identiﬁable structure is deﬁned by a mechanism individual to that structure. Instead we have general principles of tree development interacting with general principles for anaphora construal: it is these together that determine the range of eﬀects associated with HTLD, CLLD, Pronoun Doubling, expletives and so on. 2.5 Scrambling and locality constraints on structural under-speciﬁcation Locality constraints on actions for tree-growth are not all merely an epiphenomenon of the stage in the construction process at which update must have taken place. In free word-order languages, in particular, there is evidence of local processes of tree construction in anticipation of the verb. To express this in a principled way, we push the parallelism with anaphora resolution yet further, and extend the articulation of diﬀerent locality restrictions to structural processes of tree growth, articulating analogous restrictions on update of tree growth, deﬁning a sub-type of structural Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita underspeciﬁcation which requires update within a single propositional domain (socalled Local*Adjunction). Local*Adjunction applies to a type-t-requiring node. It involves the construction of an unﬁxed node which, in eﬀect, has to be updated to a ﬁxed relation within a given local scope domain. What the rule induces is one ﬁxed argument daughter node immediately dominated by a node whose relation to the node of introduction is an underspeciﬁed relation across functor relations ∗ (〈↑1〉 picks out the functor spine along which argument nodes can be constructed – the unﬁxed tree-relation is diagrammatically indicated by a dashed line): (35) The eﬀect of Local*Adjunction Tn(a), ... ?Ty(t) ·≠1*ÒTn(a) ·≠0Ò·≠1*ÒTn(a), ?Ty(e), ? x.Tn(x), Proposition node Unfixed functor node Argument node The node introduced by these actions has a requirement for an argument term (of type e), a description of its tree relation to the point of departure, and a requirement for a ﬁxed value. As we shall see, this rule is used to induce structure for local scrambling eﬀects. To see the general application of this, we need to revert to Latin, the source language from which Romance languages developed, as this displays the relatively free word order variation symptomatic of free use of Local*Adjunction, applying in conjunction with constructive use of case. What the case speciﬁcation ensures is immediate update of any such unﬁxed node, ﬁxing the structural relation of the node decorated by the expression well before the occurrence of the verb, thereby allowing the rule to apply again to introduce a further unﬁxed node. So as in (36), we can license the building of structure from ﬁrst servum and then Xerxes: (36) Serv-um Xerxes cecidit slave-acc Xerxes.nom killed.3sg ‘Xerxes killed the slave.’ This sequence of words can be in any order. This is where the restriction imposed by the system that there be only one unﬁxed structural relation of a type at a time has a role to play, since any duplication of the process without any such update would lead to immediate collapse of the two unﬁxed tree relations, yielding just one argument node for a predicate simultaneously characterized as a subject and an object argument. The eﬀect of case as a constructive mechanism for ﬁxing any such underspeciﬁed tree relation is therefore essential Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance to the eﬀective re-use of Local*Adjunction as a strategy.10 Of course, once any one relation is ﬁxed, (as in (37b) below), another unﬁxed node can be introduced, following through on the same sequence of actions; and the interim result (37d) – is a partial tree with a set of argument nodes but as yet lacking any predicate node with which to combine. Notice in particular the pair of argument nodes (without having parsed a verb) in (37d), a pattern reﬂected by the later clitic clusters that emerged in the Romance languages. The verb then follows, ﬁlling out the remainder of the propositional structure to yield the appropriate output tree with Xerxes' as subject argument Serv' as object argument to the predicate Caed'. Unlike two case-distinguished unﬁxed nodes, either subject or object nodes induced by actions of the verb harmlessly collapse with those introduced as unﬁxed and updated through constructive use of case (Nordlinger 1998), because annotations provided by the verb are compatible with those provided by computational actions used in parsing the NPs: the formula decorations provided on the verb-induced argument nodes are meta-variables, compatible with all formula updates. So the tree projected by the lexical actions of cecidit can be constructed by applying those actions to the tree (37d). This allows “free” word order eﬀects without any necessary interpretational diﬀerence, with pragmatic constraints free to determine preferential orderings. (37) (a) Locally unfixed node (b) Tn(0), ... ?Ty(t) (c) Parsing Serv-um Tn(0), ... ?Ty(t), ·≠1*ÒTn(0) ·≠1ÒTn(0) ?Ty(e Æ t), ·≠0Ò·≠1*ÒTn(0), ?Ty(e), ·≠0Ò·≠1ÒTn(0), Ty(e), Servʹ Locally unfixed node Tn(0), ?Ty(t) ·≠1*ÒTn(0) ·≠0Ò·≠1*ÒTn(0), ?Ty(e), ·≠1ÒTn(0), ?Ty(e Æ t) ·≠0Ò·≠1ÒTn(0), Ty(e), Servʹ (d) Parsing Xerxes Tn(0), ?Ty(t), ·≠0ÒTn(0), Ty(e), Xerxesʹ ·≠1ÒTn(0), ?Ty(e Æ t) ·≠0Ò·≠1ÒTn(0), Ty(e), Servʹ . Instead of, or in addition to, case speciﬁcations there may be pragmatic and prosodic clues, which are, however, likely to be less secure. Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita In the modern Romance languages, with case no longer being expressible in the morphology of the full NPs, the eﬀects of the actions of Local*Adjunction are now restricted to its use with clitic pronouns.11 Firstly, in ﬁnite clauses, they invariably occur in an early position, prior to the verb, exactly as the eﬀects of multiple applications of Local*Adjunction plus case update (see Bouzouita 2007, in preparation; Bouzouita & Kempson 2006; and Kempson & Cann 2007 for a diachronic account of clitic placement). Furthermore, being stored as a lexical device, each is associated with a distinct scrambling mechanism. For example, the third person accusative clitics ﬁx their structural relation to the dominating type-t-requiring node immediately. However, many of the clitics display syncretic properties, e.g., French me, te and Castilian Spanish le. These fail to identify whether the argument introduced is a direct or an indirect object, and are assigned lexical actions which induce the construction of a locally unﬁxed node without immediate update. The syncretic form thus matches the weakeness of the update they provide. It is these actions of which the agreement forms of Bantu are redolent; so we will return to this type of update action in due course. The characteristic rigid pre-verbal positioning, allowing only other clitics to intervene between the clitic and the verb, echoes the multiple applications of Local*Adjunction plus update displayed in scrambling, a grouping which over time became calciﬁed in the lexicon as a single look-up, hence eventually a single lexical entry. In some languages, e.g., Italian, these are written as one word, glielo; in other languages, e.g., Spanish, they may become associated with idiosyncratic and noncompositional forms of interpretation.12 (This eﬀect is missing from the Bantu languages where the almost invariant case syncretism has not led to any such multiple clustering.) The composite eﬀect achieved by the Dynamic Syntax analysis is a characterization of clitic template phenomena as a lexicalization of the earlier free word order system. The update actions which had licensed ﬂexibility of NP ordering in the earlier Latin system, where they were freely available, are now lexically associated with individual clitics or clitic clusters. In this view, it is the retention of case speciﬁcations only in the lexicon with the clitic pronouns that ensured that the eﬀects of Local*Adjunction are reﬂected in clitic placement. Furthermore, because these are now all individual lexical stipulations, each can only reﬂect one of the possible mechanisms which give rise to scrambling eﬀects. . We leave on one side whether enclitic forms are directly lexically speciﬁed or induced via Local*Adjunction. . “I gave it to them.” or “I gave them to him/her.” or “I gave them to them.” Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance 3. Left and right periphery eﬀects in Bantu The structural possibilities at the right and the left periphery available in Romance are mirrored by similar structures in Bantu, as already shown in Section 1. We can thus use the Romance analyses of the previous sections for developing analyses of similar structures in Bantu, and so in this section, we give a cross-Bantu survey to show how the range of variation encountered is similar to variation across Romance. For instance, the use of *Adjunction and LINK is exploited in Bantu as well, given the optional doubling phenomenon at least with object markers; and, as in Romance, these general mechanisms interact with the tree-update actions which the subject and object markers provide (see Marten 2007). Bantu subject and object markers are sometimes referred to as agreement markers, but are better analyzed from a semantic perspective as quasi-independent pronominal elements (e.g., Bresnan & Mchombo 1987; Marten & Kempson 2002). They behave like pronouns in terms of their referential properties much as Romance clitics, and although they appear to be more morphologized in Bantu than in Romance in terms of positional restrictions, we will argue in the following section that, like the Romance clitics, they should be analyzed by employing the concept of locally unﬁxed node, but with greater systematicity, hence demanding a more general form of explanation. At the left periphery, in some languages (such as Tumbuka (38)), object-argument nodes can be introduced through *Adjunction without co-referring object marker; although, in many languages, the more common, or sometimes only, strategy is to have an object marker (39): (38) Ngóoma ti-zamu-limilír-a namchéero. 9.maize sm1pl-fut-weed-fv tomorrow ‘Maize we will weed tomorrow.’ (Downing 2006: 62) (39) Q: Ba-ntfwana, ba-ba-nik-e-ni? 2-children sm2-om2-give-past-what ‘What did they give to the children?’ [Tumbuka] [siSwati] A: Tin-cwadzi, ba-ti-nik-e ba-ntfwana. 10-books sm2-om10-give-past 2-children ‘Books, they gave (them) to the children.’ In the siSwati example, tincwadzi ‘books’ is projected onto a linked structure, hence the object marking. In addition, as we will see shortly, siSwati object markers have not lost their bottom restriction, indicative of the node having to be a terminal node in the resulting tree. At the right periphery, subject and object expressions are found, and the phenomenon of clitics losing their bottom restriction may seem to have extended further than in Romance since, in some languages, the Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita doubling phenomenon is generalised to all object clitics, and even in some cases internally to the structure under construction (rather than between pairs of trees). First, there is the distribution which is widespread in Romance: in siSwati, object expressions tend to occur with object clitics only when they are right dislocated, as the adverb placement in (40) indicates. But in Swahili, object clitics can occur with co-referential objects internally to the verb-phrase sequence, indicating that in Swahili object clitics have lost the bottom restriction: (40) Ng-a-yi-bon-a kahle inja. sm1sg-past-om10-see-fv well 10.dog ‘I saw the dog well.’ (41) *Ng-a-yi-bon-a (42) inja [siSwati] kahle. Gidyoni a-li-kuwa h-a-ja-mw-on-a huyo ki-jana Gidyoni sm1-past-be neg-sm1-perf-om1-see-fv dem 17-youth vizuri. well ‘Gidyoni had not seen the youth well.’ (Mvungi n.d.: 126) [Swahili] However, in apparent marked contrast to the Romance pattern, many Bantu languages have a restriction on the number of object markers available in the verbal template. Thus languages like siSwati, Swahili and Otjiherero allow only one object marker per verb, although multiple object markers are found, for example, in Tswana, Rundi and Kinyarwanda. While the restriction on the number of object markers is often taken as morphological, we will argue below that it is in fact syntactic, in that object markers project locally unﬁxed nodes, from which the restriction to only one object marker at a time follows immediately.13 The analysis involving locally unﬁxed nodes predicts furthermore that there should be no signiﬁcant restrictions on the case or thematic role of the object clitics, in contrast to Romance, where clitics are a reﬂection of an older case system, and this prediction is borne out: (43) ú-térék-èr-à òvá-éndà ònyàmà p-òngàndà. sm1-cook-appl-fv 2-guests 9.meat 16-9.house ‘S/he cooks meat for the guests at home.’ [Otjiherero] (44) ú-vé-térék-èr-à ònyámà p-òngàndà. sm1-om2-cook-appl-fv 9.meat 16-9.house ‘S/he cooks them meat at home.’ . Multiple object markers, under this view, are only possible if they are taken to induce a complex of nodes built from a single intermediate propositional node, itself unﬁxed (a characteristic of scrambling languages: Kiaer 2007), or if the node each one induces is ﬁxed immediately, involving a pragmatic notion of constructive case (McCormack 2008). However, we will Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance (45) ú-í-térék-èr-à òvá-éndà p-òngàndà. sm1-om9-cook-appl-fv 2-guests 16-9.house ‘S/he cooks it for the guests at the house.’ (46) ú-pé-térék-èr-à òvá-éndà ònyàmà. sm1-om16-cook-appl-fv 2-guests 9.meat ‘S/he cooks meat for the guests there.’ Although Otjiherero allows only one object marker per verb, object markers can mark the dative (44), direct (45) or locative (46) complement of the verb. Object markers are formally distinguished for diﬀerent noun classes, but not for case. This is directly explicable on the assumption that the object markers themselves induce the unﬁxed node and provide it with a meta-variable decoration, without any structural update of that node relation taking place. In eﬀect, the only structural information they provide is that they are an argument of the predicate corresponding to the verb. Subject expressions, too, as in the Romance languages, are found in post-verbal, inverted position and often carry presentational focus by virtue of this late placement, or alternatively, may be associated with an afterthought interpretation (48): (47) à-léndò à-fwík-à. 2-visitors sm2.past-arrive-fv ‘(The) guests have arrived.’ [Nsenga] (48) à-fwík-à à-léndó. sm2.past-arrive-fv 2-visitors ‘Guests have arrived.’/‘They have arrived, the guests.’ Nsenga subject markers have lost their bottom restriction, and so update both through *Adjunction and by constructing a linked node is possible, accounting for the two diﬀerent readings. Again, we ﬁnd variation across Bantu, as, for example, in Otjiherero, subject markers cannot be associated with update by Late*Adjunction (49), and post-verbal subjects with agreeing subject marker can only be introduced through a LINK structure yielding (50), with its associated co-referring afterthought interpretation. However, since the diﬀerent update possibilities of Otjiherero clitics are speciﬁed lexically, we would expect variation within the language as well as cross-linguistic variation, and indeed, update within the propositional structure is possible with (grammaticalized) locative subject markers (51) indicating that they have lost their bottom restriction: (49) *v-á-hìtí òvá-ndú. sm2-past-enter 2-people [Otjiherero] focus on one object marker languages, more speciﬁcally on Otjiherero in the following sections, and will leave multiple object markers to one side for the present. Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita (50) v-á-hìtí, òvà-ndú. sm2-past-enter 2-people ‘They entered, the people.’ (51) p-á-hìtí òvá-ndú. sm16-past-enter 2-people ‘There entered people.’ Bantu languages thus make use of the same strategies as the Romance languages, with minor variations. Overt NPs, both subjects and objects, can be introduced into the parse sequence early or late, with the nodes that they serve to decorate either being introduced within a single tree by *Adjunction or being taken to be a linked structure. As in Romance, these diﬀerent modes of introduction interact with the lexical speciﬁcations of the corresponding subject and object markers, introducing locally unﬁxed nodes so that these can be uniﬁed with an already constructed unﬁxed node, or, by virtue of some bottom restriction, allowing no such update and forcing any co-referring NP to be processed as decorating an independent linked structure. As expected, these diﬀerent strategies can be used together. As a result, an object expression can be processed by early application of *Adjunction to create an unﬁxed node, which can then come to be ﬁxed as the object node once that is introduced by actions of the verb. The subject marker, on the other hand, which provides a type value but only a meta-variable as formula value, will need update from application of Late*Adjunction after the object node is completed; and the decorations of that subject node will then be provided by using a post-verbal subject-marked expression to decorate the introduced unﬁxed node. An illustration of this is (52), with class 10 subject marking and post-posed agreeing subject, under the assumption that subject markers in Tumbuka have lost their bottom restriction and that the locative term is construed as argument of the predicate: (52) pa-mu-páanda zi-ka-dúk-a mbúuzi. [Tumbuka] 16-3-wall sm10-past-jump-fv 10.goats ‘Over the wall jumped goats.’ (‘The goats jumped over the wall.’) (Downing 2006: 62) The data presented in this section have served to show the parallelism of Romance and Bantu in terms of word-order freedom (through the application of *Adjunction and the building of linked structures), with restrictions on this freedom imposed by the lexical constraints encoded by subject and object markers. However, we have not yet addressed the question of the representation of these subject and object markers, having concentrated merely on their interaction with early and late placed NPs. In the following section, we address this question and argue, taking the conceptual underspeciﬁcation of Bantu clitics as a starting point, that they are also structurally underspeciﬁed, inducing a locally unﬁxed Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance node which they decorate with a place-holder, with both structural relation and formula value needing to be updated. 4. Inducing locally unﬁxed nodes: Otjiherero subject markers We argued above that Romance clitics may decorate locally unﬁxed nodes, the clitic system overall being a reﬂex of the historic case system of Latin and its constructive use in scrambling. We will employ the same notion of locally unﬁxed nodes for an analysis of subject and object markers in Otjiherero, arguing synchronically with evidence from passive and locative inversion constructions that the Bantu subjectmarking system parallels the scrambling-induced actions of Romance.14 From this it also follows that in contrast to subject pro-drop in Spanish, where we have analyzed the verbal actions as providing both a subject node and a meta-variable as decoration, we analyze subject “pro-drop” in Bantu as resulting from the lexical actions of the subject markers, similar to the actions provided by pronominal object clitics in Romance. Since subject markers are obligatory cross-Bantu, this means that overt NP subjects are always taken either to decorate a linked structure, with a copy of the term they provide having to be constructed in the primary structure, or an unﬁxed node, in which case that node will have to unify with the node decorated by the subject marker. The analysis is motivated initially through the parallelism with Romance, and as formal reﬂex of the observation that Bantu clitics are pronoun-like. However, crucial to the analysis to be given is that the subject marker induces the building of a locally unﬁxed node which it decorates with a meta-variable as formula value without updating that structural relation. The following steps of the derivation of (53) illustrate the analysis. (53) Kàtènáà w-á-kòtòk-á. 1a.Katenaa sm1-past-return-fv ‘Katenaa returned.’ (54) [Otjiherero] Parsing Kàtènáà w- in (53) Tn(0), ?Ty(t), Kàtènáàʹ , Ty(e), ·≠*ÒTn(0) Uw,Ty(e), ·≠0Ò·≠1*ÒTn(0) . The notion of locally unﬁxed nodes is independent of the notion of case, and so we are not proposing that Bantu languages have grammatical case, since it is widely known that they do not. On the other hand, there are in fact isolated instances of morphological diﬀerences between subject and object markers, e.g., Proto-Bantu class 1 (3rd sing) subject *á vs. object *mù, 1st pl. subject *tù vs. object *tú (Meeussen 1967), so the point might be worth revisiting. Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita We assume that the subject NP decorates an unﬁxed node introduced by *Adjunction. We could equally have chosen to introduce an independent linked structure into the emergent overall structure, since both strategies are available. However, as mentioned above, under the locally unﬁxed node analysis for subject markers, full NP subjects will never be taken to provide the decorations for a ﬁxed node because no ﬁxed node is available if the subject precedes the verb. Following the construction of the unﬁxed node decorated by the preposed expression, we assume, as with the Romance object clitics, that it is the subject marker that induces the building of a locally unﬁxed node, to which it adds a meta-variable decoration. We assume, furthermore, that the subject marker encodes as formula value a pronominal meta-variable restricted by the associated class information (in this case expressed as a subscripted W), and we leave to one side the problem of how this information is spelled out (see Cann et al. 2005: chapter 7). Note that the two unﬁxed nodes can unify at this stage; and indeed in this derivation they do so, with the actions induced by the subject marker having initiated the local domain within which the left-peripheral expression will be interpreted. The next step is to scan the lexical information from the tense morpheme. We assume that the tense marker not only provides semantic information about the time of the event (an annotation on the root node), but also provides a skeletal predicate frame with subject- and predicate-requiring nodes, reﬂecting the probable historical origin of many Bantu tense markers as verbs: (55) Parsing Kàtènáà w-á in (53) Tn(0), ?Ty(t),Tns() Kàtènáàʹ , Ty(e), ·≠0Ò ·≠*1ÒTn(0) ·≠0ÒTn(0) ?Ty(e) ·≠1ÒTn(0), ?Ty(e Æ t), With the new presence of a ﬁxed subject node, the unﬁxed node-relation could now be ﬁxed by unifying the two nodes, and in this simple case they do so (with the passive and locative cases that we shall see, this option is not taken up).15 Hence the decoration of the subject is completed at this stage, and the information from the verb then annotates the predicate node as the next step. The ﬁnal . By deﬁnition of the Kleene star operator, the set of relations denoted can be empty, in this case, the possible sequence of functor relations being null, allowing enrichment as the subject relation. Concepts of structural underspeciﬁcation in Bantu and Romance step in the derivation is the parsing of the ﬁnal vowel, which induces the eventual construction of the predicate, and then all semantic information in the tree is duly compiled up progressively so that a ﬁnal propositional formula of type t is derived as decoration to the top node, satisfying the overall requirement. While the eventual tree for (53) looks like an ordinary subject-predicate structure, it is important to keep in mind that its derivation involved construction steps at which ﬁrst one unﬁxed node and then one locally unﬁxed node were part of the tree. One of the reasons for analyzing subject markers in Otjiherero as triggering the building of unﬁxed nodes was to extend a parallelism between Romance and Bantu clitics so that it applies also to the Bantu subject clitic (which not all Romance languages display).16 We have so far discussed similarities between the two language groups with respect to the diﬀerent word-order possibilities of full NPs, which we have analyzed as resulting from the interplay of linked structures, *Adjunction and diﬀerent lexical speciﬁcations of co-referential pronominal elements. Now we propose that in terms of structural and referential properties of their pronominal elements also, the two language groups are similar in that, in both groups, pronominal elements are typically positioned close to the verb stem because they trigger the building of locally unﬁxed nodes. However, whereas in Romance, the projection of locally unﬁxed nodes for a clitic coincides with remnants of a case system, so that locally unﬁxed nodes can be ﬁxed if enough case information is available, thereby licensing the occurrence of multiple clitics, in Otjiherero, locally unﬁxed nodes are only ﬁxed if a ﬁxed tree node address is provided independently, either by lexical information from the tense marking, or from the verb. This distinction provides the basis for the constraint in Otjiherero, as in many Bantu languages, that only one object marker can be present in the inﬂected verb form. Moreover, it explains why, in many noun-classes in the Bantu languages, there is no diﬀerence in morphological marking between subject and object marker: all the marker does is to initiate and decorate a locally unﬁxed node, with some other expressions providing its decoration, and construal as subject or not is only ensured either by the following tense markers (in the case of the subject), or by the following verb in the case of the object marker. Conﬁrmation of this analysis now comes from passive and locative inversion in Otjiherero, which pose the additional puzzle of precluding object preﬁx-marking, which this analysis now promises to solve. . In French, there is clear evidence that the pronoun does not decorate an unﬁxed node, as the referentiality restriction on subject clitic doubling remains completely undisturbed. In the Northern Italian dialects however, an account of subject clitic doubling might arguably follow lines similar to those developed here (cf. Poletto 2000). Lutz Marten, Ruth Kempson & Miriam Bouzouita 5. Passive and locative inversion The passive construction was one of the constructions ﬁrst argued in generative grammar to involve movement, based on the older descriptive observation that the logical object of the verb becomes the grammatical subject in the corresponding passive. Accordingly, most analyses of the passive involve the matching of the function of the relevant NP at two diﬀerent levels: the logical or semantic level, and the grammatical level. The challenge in Dynamic Syntax for an analysis of the passive is that no level of grammatical function is deﬁned: the trees built in Dynamic Syntax are logical or semantic trees, and thus the eventual tree structure associated with both the active and the passive will be a transitive structure, although in the passive the formula value for the logical subject might be an existentially quantiﬁed term (“someone”). However the semantic representation of the logical object will be the same for both active and passive, as it will be associated with an argument node below the predicate node. The question then is how to derive such a transitive structure from the passive form of the verb. In the light of the preceding discussion, a natural hypothesis to explore is associating the passive suﬃx with a delay in unifying the unﬁxed node provided by the subject marker with the logical-subject node provided by the tense marker.17 Delay in unifying the unﬁxed node is unproblematic: all rules are constraints so not taking up the option of uniﬁcation is always a possibility. So the unﬁxed node, now identiﬁed as locally unﬁxed, can remain unﬁxed until a point at some later stage in the parse when another putative uniﬁcation site arises, such as, for example, the logical object node supplied by the lexical information from the verb. Thus, we assume that in a parse of (56) the structural option to unify the locally unﬁxed node after the introduction of the tense marker which supplied the ﬁxed subject node, is NOT taken up in passives, but rather the pointer is moved directly to the predicate node as in (57): (56) òmbàpírà y-á-tjàng-w-á (í òvá-nátjè). 9.letter sm9-past-write-pass-fv by 2-children ‘The letter was written (by the children).’ (57) Parsing òmbàpírà y-á in (56) Tn(0), ?Ty(t),Tns() Òmbàpίràʹ,Ty(e), ·≠0Ò ·≠*1ÒTn(0) ·≠0ÒTn(0) ?Ty(e) ·≠1ÒTn(0), ?Ty(e Æ t), . An alternative analysis in the system would be to invoke steps of inference between diﬀerent, albeit related, conc