Download Costa - Figueiredo

NOTES ON NOMINAL AND VERBAL AGREEMENT
IN PORTUGUESE
João COSTA & Maria Cristina FIGUEIREDO SILVA
0. Introduction
Some tradition in generative syntax tries to explain verbal morphology in purely
syntactic terms. Although this type of correlation proves fruitful in some domains,
several problems have been noticed in the literature. We emphasize two of them:
a) The few visible morphemes in a language without V-to-I movement, such as
English, must involve some kind of affix-lowering. However, the latter does not
comply with general syntactic constraints (Halle and Marantz 1993, Bobaljik 1995).
b) The notion of “rich morphology” must be established in terms of paradigms,
which obviates a direct connection between each individual inflected form and the
target of verb movement (Rohrbacher 1994, Vikner 1997).
The goal of this work is to discuss an additional argument against the view that
verbal morphology should be explained in terms of verb movement alone, using data
from three varieties of Portuguese.The basic generalisations concerning these dialects are:
1. In European Portuguese, and in two registers of Brazilian Portuguese, there is no
evidence to posit different landing sites for the verb: the verb seems to have moved
from V to T, without reaching the topmost functional head (Costa 1996, Costa and
Galves 2002).
2. Yet, the agreement patterns in these varieties are different:
- In European Portuguese (EP), all elements able to bear plural morphology do so:
(1) Os carros são lindos.
the-pl car-pl are beautiful-pl
17
João Costa - Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva
- In one of the varieties of Brazilian Portuguese (BP1), there is no DP-internal
agreement, although there is subject-verb agreement:
(2) Os carro são lindo.
the-pl car-sg are beautiful-sg
- In the other variant of Brazilian Portuguese (BP2), there is neither DP-internal
agreement, nor subject-verb agreement:
(3) Os carro é lindo.
the-pl car-sg is beautiful-sg.
These facts raise at least the following questions:
a) If there is evidence that in all these varieties the target of verb movement is the
same, can it be maintained that the morphological differences follow from verb
movement?
b) What type of micro-variation is at play in Portuguese that derives these differences?
c) Is there any relation between the DP-internal facts and subject-verb agreement
facts?
The hypothesis to be developed here is that the effects of visible agreement are
derived from i) the type of morpheme (singleton or dissociated) (Embick and Noyer
2001), and ii) whether Spec-head configurations trigger visible agreement. The possible combinations of these factors give the variation found across the three patterns
described.
1. The facts
1.1 DP-internal number agreement
DP-internally, in EP plurality is expressed in all categories able to bear this type
of morphology (noun, determiner, quantifiers, adjectives, possessives and demonstratives):
(4) a. Os/estes/alguns/uns livros muito bonitos
The-pl / these-pl / some-pl /a-pl book-pl very pretty-pl
b. Os primeiros livros da biblioteca
the-pl first-pl books-pl of-the library
c. Os meus livros
the-pl my-pl books-pl
d. Todos os meus primeiros livros bonitos
all-pl the-pl my-pl first-pl book-pl pretty-pl
18
Notes on nominal and verbal agreement in Portuguese
Both registers of BP behave alike and differ from EP: plurality is marked just on
the determiner, nouns and post-nominal adjectives are not marked for it:
(5) Os/estes/alguns/uns livro muito bonito
The-pl / these-pl / some-pl / a-pl book-sg very pretty-sg
Prenominal adjectives may or may not bear plural morphology. A pattern that is
not found is agreement on the adjective with a non-agreeing determiner:
(6) a. Os primeiros livro da biblioteca
The-pl first-pl book-sg of-the library
b. Os primeiro livro da biblioteca
The-pl first-sg book-sg of the library
c. *O primeiros livro da biblioteca
The-sg first-pl book-sg of the library
Prenominal possessives differ from prenominal adjectives, even if, like in the
case of adjectives, both the determiner and the possessive may bear the plural morpheme. However, if only one of them is to agree, the possessive (not the determiner)
bears the plural marker:
(7) a. Os meus livro
The-pl my-pl book-sg
b. *Os meu livro
The-pl my-sg book-sg
c.
O meus livro
The-sg my-pl book-sg
Hence, it seems that either the determiner head or all the prenominal elements
bear plural morphology in BP. The difference between adjectives and possessives
must be accounted for, since the latter is the only case in which the plural-bearing
element is not the determiner.
1.2 Subject-verb agreement
In EP, subjects and verb agree independently of the position of the subject. The
only exception to this is the possibility for inverted subjects of unaccusative verbs
not to agree in colloquial speech (Costa 2000):
(8) a. Os meninos comeram o doce.
The children ate-pl the candy
b. *Os meninos comeu o doce.
The children ate-sg the candy
c. Comeram os meninos o doce.
Ate-pl the children the candy
d.
e.
f.
*Comeu os meninos o doce.
Ate-sg the children the candy
Comeram o doce os meninos
Ate-pl the candy the children
*Comeu o doce os meninos.
Ate-sg the candy the children
19
João Costa - Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva
(9) a. Muitas florestas arderam.
Many forests burnt-pl
b. *Muitas florestas ardeu.
Many forests burnt-sg
c.
d.
Arderam muitas florestas.
Burnt-pl many forests
Ardeu muitas florestas. (colloquial)
Burnt-sg many forests
Small clause predicates and passive participles also display obligatory number
agreement:
(10) a. As casas parecem bonitas.
The houses seem-pl pretty-p
b. *As casas parecem bonita.
The houses seem-pl pretty-sg
c.
d.
As casas foram destruídas.
The houses were destroyed-pl
*As casas foram destruída.
The houses were destroyed-sg
It is important to recall that the verbal paradigms are different (cf. Galves 1993
and Figueiredo Silva 1996). In standard EP, there are five different combinations of
the person and number features:
(11) Verb cantar „to sing‟ – present tense
singular
plural
I
canto
cantamos
II
cantas
cantam
III
canta
cantam
In BP1, the verbal paradigm consists of four different combinations of the same
features:
(12) Verb cantar „to sing‟ – present tense
singular plural
I canto canta / cantamos
II canta cantam
III canta cantam
Analyzing these differences, Galves (1993) proposes that this dialect of BP has
lost a semantic distinction for person, but not its syntactic features, the pattern in
(12) being derived from a combination of binary features for person and number:
(13) [+person, -number] -o
[+person, +number] -mos
[-person, -number] -a
[-person, +number] -m
The crucial aspect to be kept in mind for us is that number is a distinctive feature
in the verbal morphology of BP1. In BP2, the verbal paradigm is much more simplified - there is just a distinction between first person and the rest:
20
Notes on nominal and verbal agreement in Portuguese
(14) Verb cantar „to sing‟ – present tense
singular
plural
I canto
canta
II canta
canta
III canta
canta
The relevant aspect is that the difference between BP1 and BP2 may be linked to
the role played by number, since this is the feature responsible for distinguishing
verbal forms in BP1, but not in BP2. In the latter, only person plays a role.
In BP1, there is number agreement between the subject and the verb:
(15) a. Os menino comeram o doce.
c. Os menino tossiram.
The-pl child-sg ate-pl the candy
The-pl child-sg coughed-pl
b. *Os menino comeu o doce.
d. *Os menino tossiu.
The-pl child-sg ate-sg the candy
The-pl child-sg coughed-sg
Since inversion is impossible with transitive and inergative verbs, it is not possible to test whether the position of the subject is relevant for the pattern of agreement
in BP1; however, with unaccusative verbs, there is an interesting difference with
respect to EP: inverted subjects do not agree:
(16) a. ??Queimaram muitas floresta.
b. Queimou muitas floresta.
Burnt-pl many-pl forest-sg
Burnt-sg many-pl forest-sg
Another interesting difference with respect to EP comes from predicative and
passive constructions: in BP1, there is subject-verb agreement, but the adjectival or
participial form does not display number agreement with the subject:
(17) a. ??As casa parecem bonitas.
c. ??As casa foram destruída
The-pl house-sg seem-pl pretty-pl
The-pl house-sg were-pl destroyed-pl
b. As casa parecem bonita.
d. As casa foram destruída.
The-pl house-sg seem-pl pretty-sg
The-pl house-sg were-pl destroyed-sg
BP2 differs from BP1: there is no subject-verb number agreement in any context,
neither with transitive and inergative verbs in SV order, nor with unaccusative verbs
in any order:
(18) a. *Os menino comeram o doce.
The-pl child-sg ate-pl the candy
b. Os menino comeu o doce.
The-pl child-sg ate-sg the candy
c. *Os menino tossiram.
The-pl child-sg coughed-pl
d. Os menino tossiu.
The-pl child-sg coughed-sg
(19) a. *Queimaram muitas floresta.
Burnt-pl many-pl forest-sg
b. Queimou muitas floresta.
Burnt-sg many-pl forest-sg
c. *Muitas floresta queimaram
Many-pl forest-sg burnt-pl
d. Muitas floresta queimou.
Many-pl forest-sg burnt-sg
21
João Costa - Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva
Predicative and passive constructions do not display any plural morphology either. The plurality of the sentence is just marked on the subject's determiner.
(20) a. *As casas parecem bonitas.
d.
The-pl house-pl seem-pl pretty-pl
b. *As casas parecem bonita.
e.
The-pl house-pl seem-pl pretty-sg
c. As casa parece bonita.
f.
The-pl house-sg seems-sg pretty-sg
*As casas foram destruídas.
The-pl house-pl were-pl destroyed-pl
*As casa foram destruída.
The-pl house-sg were-pl destroyed-sg
As casa foi destruída.
The-pl house-sg was-sg destroyed-sg
1.3 Summary
Let us sum up the descriptive conclusions and the issues to be addressed:
i)
In EP, there is full DP-internal agreement;
ii) In the two registers of BP, number within the DP is marked either on the D head
or in all prenominal elements;
iii) Prenominal adjectives and possessives differ in BP, in the sense that only the
latter may carry number marking in the absence of plurality on the definite article;
iv) In EP, there is full subject-verb agreement, independently of the position of the
subject, except in the case of unaccusative verbs in which agreement is optional
with inverted subjects in colloquial speech;
v) In EP, there is full number agreement with passive participles and SC predicates;
vi) In BP1, there is full subject-verb agreement, except for the case of inverted
subjects;
vii) In BP1, there is no number agreement with passive participles and SC predicates;
viii) In BP2, there is no number subject-verb agreement;
ix) In BP2, there is no number agreement with passive participles and SC predicates.
These descriptive statements raise at least the following questions:
a) What is the difference between the plural marker in European and Brazilian
Portuguese, allowing it to spread over all elements able to bear it only in the
former?
22
Notes on nominal and verbal agreement in Portuguese
b) Why is it possible to find multiple agreeing elements in BP in the prenominal
domain only?
c) What is conditioning the difference of behavior between prenominal possessives
and adjectives in BP?
d) What is the difference between subject-verb agreement and DP-internal agreement, differentiating the two registers of BP?
e) What is the difference between subject-verb agreement and agreement with passive participles and small clause predicates, differentiating BP1 from EP?
f) Why does inversion have an effect on subject-verb agreement in BP1, but not in
EP?
2. Proposal
Our main hypothesis is that the type of agreement morphology variation found is
not a consequence of different landing sites for verb movement. As shown in Costa
and Galves (2001), in all dialects of Portuguese analised here, the verb appears to
move from V-to-T:
(21) Ninguém provavelmente leu bem o poema.
Nobody probably read well the poem
(EP/BP)
(22) a. Os menino(s) todos beijaram a Maria.
(EP/BP)
The-pl child(ren) all kissed-pl Maria
b. Os menino(s) beijaram todos a Maria.
The-pl child(ren) kissed-pl all Maria
It is also assumed, following Halle & Marantz (1993), Bobaljik (1995) and Embick & Noyer (2001), that a specific inflectional morpheme may surface on the verb
as a consequence of syntactic head-movement, or as the result of a morphological
process. Moreover, morphemes may be realized as a singleton or as a dissociated
morpheme. According to Embick (1997) and Embick & Noyer (2001), a dissociated
morpheme does not figure in syntax proper.
Adopting for EP the assumption that the proliferation of a given morpheme may
be interpreted as a consequence of it being dissociated, we make the following hypothesis:
(23) Type of [plural] morphology in Portuguese:
a. [plural] is a singleton in Brazilian Portuguese.
b. [plural] is a dissociate morpheme in European Portuguese.
23
João Costa - Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva
A corollary of the hypothesis that [plural] may be a dissociated morpheme able
to attach to roots independently of their position is that a Spec-head configuration
may be required for agreement, but that is not obligatory - cf. Chomsky‟s (2001)
proposal that agreement may be triggered under different types of operation. Empirically, it is founded on the observation that identical spec-head relations do not trigger overt agreement in all languages:
(24) a. Je les avait faites. (French)
I them-acus-fem-pl had done-fem-pl
b. Eu tinha-as feito. (European Portuguese)
I had them-acus-fem-pl done-masc-sg
Hence, the difference between EP and BP derives from the type of morpheme
associated with plurality: [plural] is a dissociated morpheme only in EP, hence all
elements able to bear (subject-agreeing) plural morphology actually carry such
markers, independently of the existence of movement and spec-head configurations.
In BP, [plural] is a singleton, hence it attaches to the element anchoring the information concerning number. Following Enç (1991), D is the head linking the DP to its
LF-interpretation; the plural morpheme is then realized on this head, which is able to
carry this marker. Since [plural] is not a dissociated morpheme in BP, it will not
surface in other categories, as seen in BP2.
Overt reflexes of Spec-head configurations are possible, but not obligatory. Only
in BP1, not in BP2, Spec-head relations between subjects and inflectional heads
yield visible agreement.
In short, our account of plurality may be summarized in the following schema:
(25) pl → dissociate morpheme?
→ No (BP)
Does Spec-head in I trigger overt agreement?
→ Yes (EP)
→ Yes (BP1,EP, French)
→ No (BP2)
Does Spec-head in AgrO trigger overt agreement? → Yes (French)
→ No (Portuguese)
It is now possible to readdress the questions listed at the end of the previous section:
a) What is the difference between the plural marker in European and Brazilian
Portuguese, allowing it to spread over all elements able to bear it only in the
former?
We contend that since [plural] is a singleton morpheme in BP, it only surfaces in
a single head; Because it is a dissociated morpheme in EP, it will associate postsyntactically with all items able to bear plural marks.
24
Notes on nominal and verbal agreement in Portuguese
b) Why is it possible to find multiple agreeing elements in BP in the prenominal
domain only?
A complete answer to this question requires additional research on DP internal
structure. In any case, there is a correlation between agreement in BP and a wellknown asymmetry between prenominal elements and postnominal ones (cf. DiSciullo and Williams 1987): the former displays properties typical of heads, resisting
modification and not taking complements; the latter displays properties of phrases. If
morphology sees prenominal items as a complex array of heads, the only elements
marked with plurality are the prenominal ones. The plural morpheme could be
spreading from D onto the other units of the complex.
c) What is conditioning the difference between possessives and adjectives in BP?
If only one of the prenominal elements is marked with plurality, it must be the
determiner in D-Adjective-N sequences, since [plural] attaches to the D head, the
anchor to LF. But if the sequence is D-Possessive-N, the element bearing the plural
morpheme is the determiner:
(26) A minhas casa
the-sg my-pl house
This difference is related to the locus of attachment of the plural morpheme: it
must be attached to the head responsible for establishing the link with semantic
interpretation. Castro (2001) argues that two facts have to be noted about possessives in Portuguese: i) if they occur prenominally, the DP is definite, if they occur
postnominally, the DP is indefinite (cf. 27); ii) the definite article in (26) is expletive: in PB, its omission before proper names correlates with its omission before
prenominal possessives:
(27) a. O meu livro
the my book
b. *O livro meu
the book my
c. Um livro meu
a book my
d. *Um meu livro
a my book
(28) European Portuguese:
a. *(O) João
(the) João
b. *(o) meu livro é azul.
(the) my book is blue
(29) Dialectal Brazilian Portuguese:
a. (O) João
b. (O) meu livro é azul.
(the) João
(the) my book is blue
Since the definite article here is not the marker of definiteness (it is just an expletive), and since the [plural] morpheme anchors on the category relevant for the in-
25
João Costa - Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva
terpretational component, the number morphology surfaces on the possessive rather
than on the expletive.
d) What is the difference between subject-verb agreement and DP-internal agreement, differentiating the two patterns found in BP?
DP-internal agreement and the visibility of subject-verb agreement stem from
two different conditions: no register of BP is expected to exhibit D-N agreement,
since the number morpheme is a singleton, and there is no Spec,head relation between D and N. On the other hand, the parametric specification schematized in (25)
stipulates that the Spec,head relation between the subject and I triggers visible effects in BP1 only. This is the reason why the two dialects of BP behave alike in the
DP-internal domain, but differ in the subject-verb agreement patterns.
e)
What is the difference between subject-verb agreement and agreement with
passive participles and small clause predicates, differentiating BP1 from EP?
While in EP number agreement surfaces everywhere, including passive participles and SC predicates, in BP1 there is only subject-verb agreement, as a consequence of Spec,head relation (it will surfaces only when the subject stands in such a
relation with the agreeing head). Within SCs or in passives, the configuration for
agreement does not exist. In EP, number agreement arises independently of the configuration (it is a dissociated morpheme).
f)
Why does inversion have an effect on subject-verb agreement in BP1, but not in
EP?
Inverted arguments of unaccusative verbs stay in their base position (Belletti,
1988). If so, there is no Spec,head relation between the inflectional head and the
subject, hence no visible agreement is found. In EP, number agreement is a dissociated morpheme, so verbs and subjects may agree. In colloquial EP, the inverted
subject of an unaccusative may not agree with the verb:
(30) Ardeu muitas florestas.
Burnt-sg many-pl forests
Costa et al. (2002) argue that this is an instance of locative inversion. Accordingly, (30) exhibits Spec,head agreement with an expletive subject. An argument is that
lack of agreement shows up in cases of identificational focus, but not in cases of
information focus:
(31) A: Quem é que chegou?
(EP)
who is that arrived?
B: a. ??Chegou os alunos.
b.
Arrived-sg the students
26
Chegaram os alunos
Arrived-pl the students
Notes on nominal and verbal agreement in Portuguese
Looking at non-null-subject languages, like English, it is possible to know that
expletive constructions and locative inversions are not used in information focus
contexts:
(32) A: Who is coming?
B: a. John is coming.
b. #There comes John.
In information focus contexts, there is no expletive, hence agreement is established with the argument. In locative inversion contexts, there are two candidates for
agreement, the expletive and the argument, and variation is found.
3. Further predictions
Let us finally consider some further predictions made by this analysis:
In EP, there is always full number agreement. A consequence for analyses of
inversion is that the presence of agreement is not a sign that at some point of the
derivation there would be a Spec,head relation between the subject and an inflectional head.
b) Prenominal possessives show number agreement in BP1, postnominal ones do
not:
a)
(33) a. o meus livro
b. uns livro meu.
the-sg my-pl book-sg
some-pl book-sg my-sg
If only the prenominal possessive is a head related to D, while the postnominal
possessive is an XP, it is expected that the singleton [plural] morpheme only attaches to the former.
c) Scherre (1994) shows that the variation of the agreement patterns in BP dialects
is dependent on variables such as phonological salience of the number marker
and linear position, that do not fit well within a purely syntactic approach, but
can fit better in analysis of agreement patterns located at the interface between
syntax and morphology.
d) Finally, let us consider a prediction concerning what the target of V-to-I movement is and its correlation with differences in agreement inflection: all varieties
of Portuguese encode person differences, in different degrees. The best generalization concerning the morphological evidence for there being V-to-I movement is Vikner‟s (1997):
(34) Vikner‟s generalization:
A language has V-to-I movement if there is Inflection for Person in all tenses.
It is then predicted that there is no difference between the Portuguese dialects as
far as the target of verb movement is concerned. Moreover, a given language
may move the verb higher than the other and yet exhibit a weaker number mor27
João Costa - Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva
phology. If it is true that the targets of V-to-I movement are AgrS in French and
T in EP, this prediction is borne out.
4. Conclusion
Our analysis explains the number variation found in three varieties of Portuguese; it also provides evidence for an autonomous morphological component, partly independent from syntax.
References
Belletti, A. (1988), 'The case of unaccusatives', Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1-34.
Belletti, A. (1990), Generalized Verb Movement, Rosenberg & Sellier, Turin.
Bobaljik, J.D. (1995), Morphosyntax: On the syntax of verbal inflection, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Castro, A. (2001) 'Os possessivos em português europeu e português brasileiro: unidade e diversidade', Actas do XVI Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Lingüística, Associação Portuguesa de Lingüística, Colibri, Portugal: 599-613.
Costa, J. (1996) 'Adverb Positioning and V-movement in English: Some More Evidence', Studia
Linguistica 50.
Costa, J. (1998) Word Order Variation. A constraint-based Approach, Ph.D. dissertation,
HIL/Leiden University, Holland.
Costa, J. (2000) 'Postverbal Subjects and Agreement in Unaccusatives Contexts in European
Portuguese', The Linguistic Review 18.
Costa, J. and C. Galves (2002), 'External Subjects in Two Varieties of Portuguese - evidence for a
non-unified analysis', in: C.Beyssade, R. Bok-Bennema, F. Drijkoningen and P.
Monachesi (eds.) Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000 - Selected Papers
from Going Romance' 2000, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Costa, J., I.Coelho, M.C.Figueiredo Silva and F.de Oliveira (2002) 'Considerações sobre a Ordem
VS e Sujeito Nulo em Português Europeu e Português Brasileiro', paper presented at the
PEPB Third Colloquium, University of Lisbon, Lisbon.
Costa, J. and S. Pereira (2003) 'Phases and Autonomous Features: a Case of Mixed Agreement in
European Portuguese'. Paper presented at the MIT Workshop on EPP and Phases, MIT,
Boston.
Chomsky, N. (2001) 'Derivation by Phase', in M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A life in language,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA: 1-52.
DiSciullo, A. and E. Williams (1987) On the definition of word, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Embick, D. (1997) Voice and the interfaces of syntax, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Embick, D. and R. Noyer (2001) 'Movement Operations after Syntax', Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555595.
Enç, M. (1991) 'The Semantics of Specificity', Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1-25.
28
Notes on nominal and verbal agreement in Portuguese
Figueiredo Silva, M.C. (1996) A posição do sujeito em português brasileiro - frases finitas e
infinitivas, Editora da Unicamp, Campinas, Brazil.
Galves, C. (1993) O enfraquecimento da concordância no português brasileiro, in: I. Roberts and
M. Kato (eds.) Português Brasileiro: uma viagem diacrônica, Editora da Unicamp,
Campinas, Brazil.
Halle, M. and A. Marantz (1993) 'Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection', in: K.
Hale and S. J. Keiser (eds.) The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of
Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA: 111-176.
Kayne, R. (1989) 'Facets of Past Participle Agreement in Romance', in: P. Benincà (ed.) Dialectal
Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht: 85-103.
Kroch, A. (1994) 'Morphosyntactic Variation', in: K. Beals (ed.) Proceedings of the Thirtieth
Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 2, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago: 180-201.
Menuzzi, S. (1994) 'Adjectival positions inside DPs', in: C. Cremers and R. Bok-Benema (eds.)
Linguistics in the Netherlands, John Benjamins, Amsterdam: 127-138.
Rorhbacher, B. (1994) The Germanic Languages and the Full Paradigm: A Theory of V to I
Raising, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amsherst, MA.
Scherre, M. (1994) 'Aspectos da concordância de número no português do Brasil', Revista Internacional de Língua Portuguesa - Norma e Variação do Português 12: 37-49.
Schoorlemmer, M. (1998) 'Possessors, articles, and definiteness', in: A. Alexiadou and C. Wilder
(eds.) Possessors, predicates and movement in the Determiner Phrase, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam: 55-86.
Vikner, S. (1997) 'Vº-to-Iº movement and inflection for person in all tenses', in: L. Haegeman
(ed.) The New Comparative Syntax, Longman Linguistics Library, Edinbourgh, UK: 189213.
29