Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T09:00:40.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infinitival Clauses in Breton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Maggie Tallerman
Maggie Tallerman*
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Breton, lexical subjects occur both in finite clauses and infinitival clauses. Within the Principles and Parameters model, the question arises as to how infinitival subjects can be Case-licensed, since the finite Tense element associated with Case-licensing in finite clauses is absent from infinitival clauses. Infinitival subjects are, however, preceded by some prepositional element, and previous accounts have proposed that these are Case-markers, assigning abstract Case to the subjects. However, prepositional elements also occur in controlled infinitival clauses—which have the null subject PRO—yet lexical subjects and PRO are not interchangeable. In this article, it is proposed that the crucial property associated with the Case-licensing of lexical subjects in all Breton clause types is subject agreement. This occurs not only on finite verbs, but also on the prepositional elements in infinitival clauses, which are sometimes complementizers and sometimes AgrSP heads. Clauses containing PRO, however, lack subject agreement, and hence cannot license lexical subjects.

Résumé

Résumé

En breton, les sujets lexicaux apparaissent non seulement dans les phrases à temps fini mais aussi dans les infinitives. Dans le cadre du modèle des Principes et Paramètres, la présence de sujets lexicaux dans les infinitives soulève la question de la légitimation casuelle de ceux-ci puisque l’élément Temps fini dont dépend la légitimation casuelle dans les phrases à temps fini est absent dans les infinitives. Les sujets des infinitives sont cependant précédés d’un élément prépositionnel, et des analyses précédentes ont proposé que ces éléments sont des marqueurs casuels qui assignent un cas abstrait aux sujets. Toutefois, ces éléments prépositionnels sont aussi présents dans des infinitives à contrôle—où l’on retrouve le sujet nul PRO—malgré que les sujets lexicaux et PRO ne sont pas interchangeables. Il est proposé que la propriété qui permet la légitimation casuelle des sujets lexicaux dans tous les types de phrases du breton est l’accord avec le sujet. Cet accord se produit non seulement avec les verbes à temps fini mais aussi avec les éléments prépositionnels dans les infinitives, qui sont parfois des complémenteurs et parfois des têtes de AgrSP. Les phrases qui contiennent le sujet nul PRO, cependant, ne présentent pas cet accord avec le sujet et ainsi ne peuvent pas légitimer des sujets lexicaux.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 42 , Special Issue 1-2: Topics in Celtic Syntax , June 1997 , pp. 205 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1997

Access options

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

References

Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized verb movement. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Carnie, Andrew. 1996. A mimimalist approach to some problems of Irish word order. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 223–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 1986. Prepositional complementizers in Welsh. Journal of Linguistics 22:67–84.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D., and Roberts, Ian. 1996. Introduction. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 1–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsley, Robert D., Rivero, María-Luisa, and Stephens, Janig. 1996. Long head movement in Breton. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 52–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Freidin, Robert, 417–454. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 1, ed. Jacobs, Joachim, Stechow, Arnim von, Sternefeld, Wolfgang and Vennemann, Theo, 506–569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert, and Sprouse, Rex. 1991. Lexical Case phenomena. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Freidin, Robert, 392–416. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hendrick, Randall. 1988. Anaphora in Celtic and universal grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hendrick, Randall. 1991. The morphosyntax of aspect. Lingua 85:171–210.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85:211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1986. Inflection and conjunction in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:245–281.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1996. On the scope of verb movement in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:47–104.Google Scholar
Press, Ian. 1986. A grammar of modern Breton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo. 1987. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: the inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18:85–109.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain. 1994. Syntaxe du gallois: Principes généraux et typologie. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain. 1996. Bod in the present tense and in other tenses. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 125–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, Robin. 1994. Nonfinite predicate initial constructions in Breton. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Schafer, Robin. 1995. Negation and verb second in Breton. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13:135–172.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1991. Icelandic Case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:327–363.Google Scholar
Sola, Jaume. 1996. Morphology and word order in Germanic languages. In Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework, ed. Abraham, Werner, Epstein, Samuel David, Thrainsson, Hoskuldur and Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter, 217–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stephens, Janig. 1982. Word order in Breton. Doctoral dissertation, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Stephens, Janig. 1990. Non-finite clauses in Breton. In Celtic linguistics, ed. Ball, Martin J., Fife, James, Poppe, Erich and Rowland, Jenny, 151–165. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 1984. Agreement vs. incorporation in Breton. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2:289–348.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 1989. Further remarks on Breton agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7:429–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallerman, Maggie. 1998. The uniform case-licensing of subjects in Welsh. The Linguistic Review 15.1.Google Scholar
Ternes, Elmar. 1992. The Breton language. In The Celtic Languages, ed. MacAulay, Donald, 371–452. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trépos, Pierre. 1980. Grammaire bretonne. Rennes: Ouest France.Google Scholar
Willis, David. 1996. The loss of verb-second in Welsh: A study of syntactic change. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Wyngaerd, Guido J. Vanden. 1994. PRO-legomena: Distribution and reference of infinitival subjects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar