Abstract Agreement

Syntax 5:2, August 2002, 116147
ABSTRACT AGREEMENT AND CLAUSAL

ARGUMENTS
M. Carme Picallo
Abstract. CP arguments have been argued to be Caseless and u-featureless. Empirical
evidence mainly drawn from Spanish suggests that this claim should be reconsidered.
In this paper, I claim that clausal arguments and nominalized clauses have a u content
and Case specification. These types of arguments are therefore able to relate by
agreement with a functional category. The facts examined support minimalist
guidelines by claiming that the concrete realization of the u and Case content of a
syntactic object is irrelevant for computational mechanisms to take place.
1. Introduction
Arguments with the function of subject or object of predication relate to a
functional projection through the operation Agree, which applies at the
computational component (Chomsky 1998, 1999). Agree consists of feature
matching between two syntactic objects within a given structural space. For
abstract agreement to take place, each of these objects must be endowed with
a set of u-features of the types person, number, and gender (henceforth PNG
features). In the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), functional categories
such as TP and vP are assumed to be headed by a noninterpretable u set of
features. These are checked against the corresponding formal features of the
argument subject and object, respectively.
In Spanish, nominal categories are endowed with Case and grammatical
number, person, and gender. Structural Case on a nominal is realized as
nominative or accusative. Number is expressed as [plural] and gender as
[feminine]. For the purposes of this discussion, I assume that person is
expressed with a subset of the possible combinations of the values [I, II].1
The structural Case assigned to a nominal makes this argument active and
renders possible the operation Agree. The noninterpretable features of a
functional projection and its related argument are deleted under Agree: the
complete u set in TP/vP and structural Case in DP. In Spanish, the
morphophonological effect of the operation is overt subject-verb agreement.
The object is assumed to undergo covert agreement. Thus, given a sentence
like (1), the configuration (2) abstractly represents the mechanisms that are
taking place at the computational component (irrelevant details are omitted).
* This paper has gone through several stages of elaboration. A previous version appeared in
Picallo 2001. For comments and suggestions, I would like to thank I. Bosque, V. Demonte, J.
Elordi, A. Fontich, J. Quer, G. Rigau, the participants of the 2000 LEHIA Workshop (EHUVitoria), and the anonymous reviewers for Syntax. Research was supported by the grants
BFF2000-0403-C02-02 (Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologa) and 2001SGR00150,
2000XT00032 (Generalitat de Catalunya).
1
First person can be identified as [+I, II], second person as [I, +II], and third person as
[I, II].
Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
Abstract Agreement and Clausal Arguments

(1)
(2)
117
Las parejas
bailaban el tango.
the couples.FEM.PL danced.3PL the tango.MASC.SG
The couples were dancing the tango.
TP
DP[+P,+N
+G, NOM]
[T[P,
N, (G)]] vP
[P, N, (G)]]
V DP[+P,+N,
+G, ACC]
Clausal arguments (henceforth argument CPs) have been argued to lack

structural Case and specification for PNG features (see, more recently,
Iatridou and Embick 1997). This claim appears to be supported by the fact
that a predicate does not appear to agree with this type of subject. The verb is
in the default third-person singular, irrespective of the position of the CP
subject (pre- or postverbal) and irrespective of whether it is a simple or a
coordinated structure:
(3)
a.
b.
c.
Es necesario [que hablemos un rato]

is necessary.SG that talk.1PL a while
It is necessary for us to talk for a while.
Es/*son necesarios/*-s [que hablemos un rato] y [que
is/*are necessary.SG/*PL that talk.1PL a while and that
nos pongamos de acuerdo]
agree.1PL
It is necessary for us to talk for a while and for us to agree.
[Que vengas a almorzar] y [que le cuentes un cuento] le
and that her tell.2SG a tale
her
that come.2SG for lunch
gusta/*-n
mucho a Emma.
pleases/*please lot
to Emma
That you come for lunch and that you tell her a tale pleases
Emma a lot.
Spanish nominalized clauses (henceforth DP-CPs) behave like argument CPs

as far as the morphological effects of agreement mechanisms are concerned.
Simple or coordinated DP-CP subjects also require the verb in the default
singular:
(4)
El PRO estar en Pars y el PRO haber hablado con Ethel me

the
to-be in Paris and the
to-have talked with Ethel me
alegra/*-n
mucho.
pleases/*please lot
To be in Paris and to have talked with Ethel pleases me a lot.
Anaphoric pronouns taking simple or coordinated CPs or DP-CPs as

antecedents are in the default third-person singular as well. These pronouns
are considered neuter forms in traditional grammars of Spanish, and they
appear as masculine by default:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002
118
M. Carme Picallo
(5)
a.
b.
[[El que estuvieras en Pars] y [el que hablaras

con
the that were.2SG in Paris and the that spoke.2SG with
no me loi/*losi puedo
Ethel]]i es tan sorprendente que casi
Ethel
is so surprising that almost not me it /*them can.1SG
creer.
believe
That you were in Paris and that you talked to Ethel is so surprising
that I almost cannot believe it.
Dices [[que ya
escribiste a Mario] y [que ya
say.2SG that already wrote.2SG to Mario and that already
solucionaste el problema]]i pero yo no me loi/*losi creo.
solved.2SG the problem
but I not me it/*them believe
You say that you already wrote to Mario and that you already
solved the problem but I dont believe it.
The hypothesis that CP or DP-CP arguments (subjects or objects) have

neither u-feature specification nor Case leads to the subsequent conclusion
that these arguments should be unable to relate by agreement with a
functional category. This paper argues against such a conclusion and shows
that abstract operations that relate the formal features of syntactic objects
apply uniformly and independently of the categorial types of the arguments.
My proposal is consistent with the minimalist assumption that the concrete
realization of the features of a given argument should not be relevant for
computation mechanisms to take place. The data in support of this claim are
mainly given in Spanish and focus on argument CPs and nominalized clauses.
The paper is organized as follows: in section 2, the syntactic structure I
adopt for nominalized clauses (DP-CPs) is briefly discussed and assessed. In
section 3, theoretical considerations are provided against the hypothesis that
argument CP and DP-CPs are unable to undergo the operation Agree with a
functional category. In section 4, some agreement phenomena involving DPCPs and argument CPs are considered. It is shown that the data are
compatible with the hypothesis that these types of arguments have a PNG
feature specification, hence, they can relate with a functional head through uchecking. In section 5, it is concluded that nominal as well as clausal
arguments undergo the operation Agree, and I examine the question of
whether or not nonnominal arguments have a Case specification. I suggest
that they are syntactic objects with a Case content. Throughout the
discussion, I show that a distinction should be made between the formal
feature content of a syntactic objectnamely, the features that are active in
narrow syntaxand the morphological expression of that content. This
proposal allows us to assume that pronouns anaphorically related to CP
arguments or to DP-CPs also agree with the formal features of their
antecedents. In this paper, I abstract away from discussing any movement
operations. Extended Projection Principle effects, such as raising, are induced
by a noninterpretable feature in a functional projection. I assume, following
119
Chomsky 1999, that Case-u checking (i.e., the operation Agree) is a syntactic
process that applies independently of movement.
2. The Constituent Structure of Nominalized Clauses
Nominalized clauses (DP-CPs) are structures selected by factive predicates.
In Spanish, they conform to sequences of the types El que IP (lit.: The that
IP), as in (6a), or to sequences consisting of the determiner followed by an
infinitive clause, as in (6b).
(6)
a.
b.
[El [que creas

que hay
fantasmas en la azotea]]
in the attic
the that believe.2SG that there-is ghosts
carece de logica.
lacks of logic
That you believe that there are ghosts in the attic is illogical.
Lamento mucho [el [PRO haberme visto obligado a explicar
the
to-have-me seen forced to explain
regret.1SG lot
todo esto]]
all this
I regret a lot to have been forced to explain all this.
These constructions have been argued to conform to a [DP-NP-CP]

structure with a null N head standing for the lexical entry hecho fact.2 I
would like to argue against this claim and suggest, on the contrary, that
nominalized clauses are [DP-CP] constituents, as in (7), where the
Determiner takes a CP as its immediate complement (see also Abney 1987
and Leonetti 1999:824).
(7)
[DP Det [CP C [IP T . . . ]]]
The structure (7) accounts for the obligatory absence of the preposition de
of introducing the clause, which is required with all CP complements of
nouns in Spanish.3 Note that the preposition should appear even if the noun is
phonologically null:
2
See Demonte 1977 (p. 123), Plann 1981, and Iatridou and Embick 1997, who, among many
others, have claimed that nominalized clauses are complexes with a phonologically null nominal
head.
3
The contrast between (i-a), a complex nominal, and (i-b), a nominalized clause, shows that
the preposition introducing CP is obligatory in the first case and ungrammatical in the second
case:
(i)
a. Lamento el hecho *(de) que no me saludara.

regret.1SG the fact
of that not me greet.3SG
b. Lamento el (*de) que no me saludara.
regret.1SG the of that not me greet.3SG
120
M. Carme Picallo
(8)
a.
b.
Considero
varios hechos independientemente. El [e] de que
the of that
considered.3SG several facts independently
hubieran apoyado tal
propuesta era el mas conspicuo.
had.3PL supported such-a proposal was the most conspicuous
S/he considered several facts independently. The (fact) that they
had supported such a proposal was the most conspicuous one.
Su sugerencia de que deba dimitir no fue aceptada pero
POSS suggestion of that had.3SG to-resign not was accepted but
la [e] de que poda continuar en el cargo fue aprobada
the of that had.3SG to-continue in the post was approved
inmediatamente.
immediately
His/her/their suggestion that s/he had to resign was not accepted,
but the (suggestion) that s/he may continue in the post was
immediately approved.
Nominalized clauses also contrast in this respect with Spanish

constructions of the types Lo de que The.NEUT of that, as in (9), which
have a different interpretation and should be analyzed as complex nominals
where the N head is always null. As in all complex nominals of the DP-NPCP types, the preposition de of introducing CP complement is also
obligatory in Spanish. The following examples are from Brucart (1998):
(9)
a.
b.
Lo de ir
a Mallorca este verano no nos convence.
the of to-go to Mallorca this summer not us convince
The (idea/proposal) of going to Mallorca this summer does not
convince us.
Lo de que se
tenga que pagar un impuesto adicional
the of that people have that to-pay a tax
additional
provocara un unanime rechazo.
will-cause an unanimous revolt
The (idea/proposal) that people have to pay an additional tax will
cause a unanimous revolt.
In the Lo de CP constructions in (9), the deleted N can be given an

interpretation in the context of discourse. For example, (9a) could be part of a
conversation where somebody is suggesting several possible destinations to
spend our summer vacation. I can either answer (9a), with a null N head, as
well as with complex nominals like Esto de ir a Mallorca este verano . . .
This of going to Mallorca this summer . . . or La cosa de ir a Mallorca este
verano . . . The thing of going to Mallorca this summer . . ., where the
demonstrative esto de CP this of CP or the more colloquial la cosa de CP
the thing of CP are intended to have a similar interpretation as lo de CP the
of CP; namely, the idea/thought/proposal/suggestion/order that IP. The
interpretation attributed to the nominal head depends on the circumstance in
121
which the exchange is taking place. Note that in (9) the determiner is realized
as the neuter lo and not as the masculine form el, unlike the nominalized
clause I am discussing, which corresponds to the structure (7). I would like to
suggest that the so-called neuter Determiner lo in (9) can be analyzed as the
complex [l+o] formed by l, standing for D and o, corresponding to the default
morphological realization of the functional projection Agr (or the projections
[Number, Gender]) immediately dominating the NP with a null head.4
As shown in the following discussion, the fact that nominalized clauses
conform to the agreement patterns of argument CPs, and not that of complex
nominal constructions, with a phonologically realized or a phonologically
null N head, supports the analysis represented in (7).
3. Clausal Arguments and the u-Featureless Hypothesis
Based on the preliminary data provided in (3)(5), let us initially assume that
DP-CPs and argument CPs do not have any specification for u-features and
are not endowed with Case. With respect to this particular aspect of their
formal content, this amounts to considering that argument CPs or DP-CPs are
similar to categories like adverbs, for example, which have no specification
for Case or PNG features. According to this idea, let us examine examples
like (10) where the subject is a DP-CP and the object a CP.
(10) [El que hayas
suspendido este examen] demuestra [que
this exam
shows
that
the that have.2SG failed
estudiaste muy poco]
studied.2SG very little
That you have failed this exam shows that you studied very little.
In these cases, the derivation should crash if T and v enter the numeration
as u-complete functional categories. The abstract hypothetical representation
provided in (11) shows that the noninterpretable u set of the functional
elements cannot relate by agreement with the arguments, which are inert for
this operation because they are Caseless and u-featureless under the present
hypothesis.
4
I am following the lines of the analysis proposed by Bernstein (1993) for Spanish nominals
with a null head and an indefinite determiner, as in this example:
(i)
Busco
uno rojo.
look.1SG.-for a.AGR red.MASC
I am looking for a red one.
The indefinite determiner overtly appears with the morpheme realizing the Agr ([Gender,
Number]) functional projection (i.e., un+o) and contrasts in this respect with the indefinite form
un introducing a phonologically realized N head as in (ii):
(ii)
Busco
un
paquete
rojo.
look.1SG.-for a.AGR parcel.MASC red.MASC
I am looking for a red parcel.
122
M. Carme Picallo
(11) *[TP DP-CP [ T[P,
N, (G) ]
] [vP v
[P, N, (G)]
V CP ]]
Full interpretation would require that the feature composition of T and v in

structures of the types (10) differ from that of structures where T and v are
related to nominal arguments (see (1) and (2)). In (10), the functional
categories would have to be selected, and enter the numeration, as ufeatureless syntactic objects for LF representations to be devoid of
noninterpretable elements. The verb can be selected from the lexicon as an
item without inflectional morphemes for person and number. Halle and
Marantzs (1993) Distributed Morphology hypothesis can be adopted by
assuming that default third-person-singular inflection is assigned to the verbal
root at Spell-Out in structures like (10).
This set of assumptions account for the facts observed in (3) and (4). Note,
however, that the proposal implies the possibility of having to impose a lookahead requirement to the grammar. The functional categories T/v can be
selected without u-features when the subject or the object (or both
arguments) is a CP or DP-CP without causing the derivation to crash. On
the contrary, T/v can be selected u-complete if the arguments related to them
at the computational component are nominal. The proposal can also lead us to
assume that the morphological integrity of a syntactic object like V may
depend on the formal features of another syntactic object as V is chosen to
enter the numeration.
A less costly alternative hypothesis can be entertained by considering that
DP-CPs and argument CPs may have, in fact, a u-feature and Case
specification. If this is so, no condition on Select has to be adopted.5 In the
next section, I examine agreement phenomena for each of the u-features in
isolation, suggesting that this alternative hypothesis is compatible with the
data. The consequences of adopting such a view are discussed in section 5.
5
A reviewer suggests the alternative view that Select could be considered a two-step process,
as suggested by Giorgi and Pianesi (1997:9). The first step would consist of selection of items
from the lexicon with only their inherent features. Noninherent features would be added in a
second step as the lexical item is used in the actual derivation. The two-step process would
account for the fact that a same lexical item can have different instantiations in the same
numeration, which are produced by different choices of noninherent features (as in, e.g., el perro
mira los perros the dog is seeing the dogs). I believe that the cases under consideration are
slightly different than having several instantiations of a Noun or a Determiner in a given
numeration. Note that T or v are assumed to enter the numeration with an unvalued set of ufeatures in all cases, unlike N or (arguably) D. The noninterpretable PNG content of T/v is valued
under agreement with an argument. As applied to these functional categories, the two-step
process of Select would have to consist of adding u-features to T or to v as required by the
categorial choice of their related goal, otherwise the derivation would crash. As I see it, the twostep process alternative also implies a look-ahead cost incorporated into the derivation. It also
appears to violate the inclusiveness condition (see Chomsky 1998, 1999) because features have to
be added in the course of the computation.
123
4. The u-Features of Nominalized Clauses and Argument CPs

4.1 Person
The specification for person of a given argument can be tested by the
distribution of possessive elements anaphorically interpreted. The Spanish
prenominal possessive su/sus his/her/its/their shows morphemes for person
and number. However, and unlike its English counterpart, the number
morpheme suffixed to the Spanish possessive is in concord with the
corresponding feature of its selecting noun.6 The only u-feature that su/sus
shares with its linguistic antecedent is person, morphologically realized as sin the Romance languages.7 This characteristic allows us to assess the activity
of this feature in isolation when the possessive is anaphorically interpreted.
Consider first the examples in (12), where a possessive in (12c) has a
complex nominal [DP-NP-CP] antecedent. The nominal in (12a) is headed by
hecho fact, whereas (12b) is a lo de CP construction with a null N head (see
(9a,b)). Comparing (12) with (13), I see that a DP-CP (a nominalized clause)
is unable to antecede a possessive in the same context.
(12) a.
b.
c.
(13) a.
b.
[El hecho de que hubieran desaparecido]i no pareca

the fact of that had.3PL disappeared not seemed
importante. . .
important. . .
The fact that they had disappeared didnt seem important. . .
[Lo
de que hubieran desaparecido]i no pareca
the.NEUT of that had.3PL disappeared not seemed
importante. . .
important. . .
The (suggestion/idea/probability) that they had disappeared
didnt seem important. . .
. . .pero sui relevancia no escapo a la atencion del
but its relevance not escaped to the attention of-the
inspector.
inspector
. . .but its relevance didnt escape the inspectors attention.
[El que hubieran desaparecido]i no pareca importante. . .
not seemed important. . .
the that had.3PL disappeared
*. . .pero sui relevancia no escapo a la atencion del
. . .but its relevance not escaped to the attention of-the
inspector.
inspector
The Spanish expression sus orejas, for example, corresponds to his/her/its/their ears.
I adopt Kaynes (1998) proposal that the morphemes m-/n-, t-/v-, and s- of the Romance
possessives are the morphological realization of specific features for first, second, and third
person, respectively. The m-/n-, t-/v-, and s- forms correspond to the Spanish mi-/nuestr- my/
our[fem, pl], tu-/vuestr- your[fem, pl], and su- his/her/its/their[fem].
7
124
M. Carme Picallo
The same phenomenon can be observed in examples involving argument

CPs. In (14), it is shown that it is possible to pronominalize a complex
nominal with the function of object of an event/process NP (a passive
nominal in Romance).8 In (15), however, the object of N is a CP and
pronominalization of this object is impossible.9 A parallel ungrammaticality
is shown in (16b), where the possessive is intended to take as antecedent the
CP complement of the N observacion observation:
(14) a.
b.
(15) a.
b.
(16) a.
b.
La demostracion de [el procedimiento de asignacion de Caso

the proof
of the procedure
of assigning of Case
a las oraciones] tuvo lugar en el aula 8.
to the sentences took place in the room 8
The proof of the procedure to assign Case to sentences took place
in room 8.
Su demostracion tuvo lugar en el aula 8.
its proof
took place in the room 8
Its proof took place in room 8.
(Su its = del procedimiento of-the procedure)
La demostracion de [que las oraciones tienen Caso] tuvo lugar
the proof
of that the sentences have Case took place
en el aula 8.
in the room 8
The proof that sentences have Case took place in room 8.
*Su demostracion tuvo lugar en el aula 8
its proof
took place in the room 8
(*Su its = que las oraciones tienen Caso that the sentences have
Case)
La observacion de [que la Tierra gira
alrededor del
Sol]
the observation of that the Earth rotates around of-the Sun
era inaceptable para la iglesia catolica.
was unacceptable to the Church Catholic
The observation that the Earth rotates around the Sun was
unacceptable to the Catholic Church.
*Su observacion tuvo lugar en el s.
XVI y la atribumos
its observation took place in the cent. XVI and it we-attribute
a Copernico.
to Copernicus
I suggest that the ungrammaticality of (13b), (15b), and (16b) must be due
to a mismatch in person feature specification between the anaphoric
8
See Cinque 1980, Picallo 1991, and references cited there.

The example (15b) is grammatical in the irrelevant reading where su denotes a human
being and corresponds to the English his/her/their (proof).
9
125
possessives and their respective linguistic CP and DP-CP antecedents. The

possessive is inherently endowed for a [+Person] featurethird person,
according to Kayne (1998)whereas the intended antecedents are interpreted
as [Person] arguments. No mismatch with the subsequent ungrammaticality
occurs when these types of antecedents lack specification for this feature.10
Argument CPs and DP-CPs behave in this respect like some arbitrary
elements like PRO in (17a), null objects like (17b), and impersonal SE in
(17c), which arguably also have a [Person] specification:
(17) a.
b.
c.
*Es necesario PROi sacar a sui perro de paseo

is necessary
to-take POSS dog for a-walk
*La buena musica reconcilia ei con sui espritu.
the good music reconciles with POSS spirit
*Sei ama siempre a susi hijos.
SE loves always to POSS children
CPs and DP-CPs can, however, be the antecedents of pronouns other than
possessives, such as lo, ello, or the null subject pro:
(18) a.
(19) a.
Goldbach conjeturo [que todo numero perfecto ha

Goldbach conjectured that all numbers perfect have
de ser par]i. . .
to be even
Goldbach conjectured that all perfect numbers have to be even. . .
. . .pero ningun matematico
ha podido demostrarloi.
but no
mathematician has been-able to-prove-it
. . .but no mathematician has been able to prove it.
[El que la preparacion hubiera cambiado de color]i pareca
the that the preparation had
changed of color seemed
irrelevante. . .
irrelevant
That the preparation had changed its color seemed irrelevant. . .
. . .pero elloi llamo profundamente la atencion de los cientficos.
but it called deeply
the attention of the scientists
. . .but it deeply called the scientists attention.
10
Recall that the Spanish possessive su/sus is inherently numberless. The corresponding
morpheme is assigned in concord with the number of its selecting N. Therefore, the possessive
can anaphorically be linked to a singular or a plural antecedent indistinctively. No number
mismatch can take place, as shown in the following examples:
(i)
a. Pedro y Juan nos mostraron su

casa.
Pedro and Juan us showed POSS.SG house.SG
Pedro and Juan showed us their house.
b. Mara nos mostro sus
casas.
Mara us showed POSS.PL houses
Maria showed us her houses.
126
M. Carme Picallo
(20) [[Que leas

en voz alta] y [que te pasees continuamente]]i
that read.2SG in voice high and that walk.2SG continuously
divierte a Mara pero proi distrae mucho a Juana.
amuses to Maria but
distracts lot
to Juana
Your reading aloud and your walking continuously amuses Mara but
it distracts Juana a lot.
Kaynes (1998) claim that the so-called third-person l-pronouns do not
lexically express the feature [Person] can account for the grammaticality of
the anaphoric interpretation of lo and ello in (18b) and (19b). These elements
can anaphorically be related to nominal or to clausal antecedents because lpronouns are best thought of as determiner pronouns (see also Bello
1847:sect. 273 and Postal 1966).11 As opposed to possessives, there is no
person mismatch with l-pronouns and their CP or DP-CP antecedents.12 The
possibility of obtaining an anaphoric reading for pro in (20) suggests that the
null subject has the lexical characteristics of an l-pronoun.13
In conclusion, I suggest that argument CPs and nominalized clauses are
specified as [Person] syntactic objects and cannot link or be related to
another syntactic object with a [+Person] specification.
11
Note that examples in (17) become grammatical if the s- possessive is substituted by the socalled possessive determiner:
(i)
a. Es necesario PRO cuidar

la salud.
is necessary
to-take-care-of the health
It is necessary to take care of ones health.
b. La buena musica reconcilia [e] con el espritu.
the good music reconciles
with the spirit
Good music reconciles one with ones spirit.
c. Se ama siempre a los hijos.
SE loves always to the children
One/people always loves ones/their children.
12
There is no mismatch either when l-pronouns antecede a possessive because l-pronouns
inherently lack specification for person:
puedo ver, pero voy siguiendo sui rastro.
a. No lasi
not them.FEM.PL can.1SG see but am following POSS trail
I cannot see them, but I am following their trail.
b. Elloi no me importa, pero susi consecuencias s.
it
not me concerns but POSS consequences yes
It does not concern me, but its consequences do.
13
Iatridou and Embick (1997) claim that the null subject pro cannot have a clause as
antecedent. They suggest that referential pro must be licensed by specific PNG features on the
verb and cannot be licensed in contexts where verbal agreement is default, as in verbs with
clausal subjects. They argue that CPs are u-featureless and that pro can never have them as
antecedents in any environment given that a u-feature mismatch between the clause and its
anaphoric pro would obtain. Their claim cannot be correct given examples like (20) and (i),
where pro is intended to be anaphoric to a CP and can alternate with the strong neuter form ello
it (irrelevant details omitted in the glosses):
(i)
127
4.2 Gender
Grammatical gender is assumed to be a noninterpretable feature that allows
us to assess possible relations, anaphoric or otherwise, in a given
construction. As is known, Spanish nouns lexically belong to the masculine
or to the feminine class ([fem]). Determiners, adjectives, pronouns, and
participial forms are also suffixed for gender morphemes in concord with the
noun they are syntactically related to.
There are several items of the DP-types, such as the demonstrative forms
esto/eso/aquello this/that and some l-pronouns (like the strong form ello it
and the accusative clitic lo it) that have traditionally been classified as
neuter. Although neuter is used as a descriptive label for these elements, I
would like to claim that there is no third neuter gender, complementary to
masculine and feminine, in Spanish. On the contrary, I suggest that that the
Spanish neuter corresponds to the [Gender] specification of a class of
syntactic objects, which include argument CPs and DP-CPs, as well as the socalled neuter demonstratives and pronouns. In this section, this suggestion is
supported by the distribution of some interrogative elements as well as by the
characteristics of constructions involving VP-ellipsis.
Consider first the distribution of the interrogative cual which. I. Bosque
(p.c.) has pointed out that this form is only compatible with [fem] nominals,
demonstratives or pronouns as shown in (21).
(i)
a. [Que Bill y Nancy hubieran cometido perjurio]i favoreca a los

that Bill and Nancy had
committed perjury favored to the
republicanos porque pro/elloi perjudicaba a los democratas.
Republicans because pro/it damaged
to the Democrats
That Bill and Nancy had committed perjury favored the Republicans because it
damaged the Democrats.
b. Que sea posible [PRO enganar a la gente]i no significa que pro/elloi
that is possible
to-fool to the people not means that pro/it
sea aceptable.
is acceptable
That it is possible to fool people does not mean that it is acceptable.
c. Decidieron [PRO producir aquellos documentales]i aunque pro/elloi no
to-produce those
documentaries] although pro/it
not
decided.3PL
les proporcionara nunca ningun beneficio.
them provide
never no
benefit
They decided to produce those documentaries although it wouldnt ever provide
them with any benefit.
As the discussion proceeds, I intend to show that CPs are not u-featureless. Thus, a referential pro
anaphoric with a CP argument agrees in PNG content with its antecedent and can be in contexts
where verbal agreement appears with default morphology.
128
M. Carme Picallo
(21) a.
b.
c.
d.
Cual escoges,
la pluma o la cartera de piel?
which choose.2SG the pen.FEM or the bag.FEM of leather?
Which one do you choose, the fountain pen or the leather bag?
Cual lamentas mas, el hecho
de PRO haberte
to-have
which regret.2SG more the fact.MASC of
callado
o el hecho
de que pro se haya enfadado?
has been annoyed
remained-silent or the fact.MASC of that
Which (fact) do you regret more, the fact of having remained
silent or the fact that s/he has been annoyed?
En cual confias mas, en el o en ella?
in which trust.2SG more in him or in her
Who do you trust more, him or her?
Cual prefieres, este
o aquel?
which prefer.2SG this.MASC or that.MASC
Which one do you prefer, this one or that one?
Cual which is incompatible with neuter demonstratives or pronouns. It is

also incompatible with neuter nominals with a null head (i.e., lo de CP, as in
(9)) or with CPs and DP-CPs, as shown in (22).
(22) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
*Cual quieres, esto

o aquello?
which want.2SG this.NEUT or that.NEUT
*En cual confas, en ello o en lo
otro?
in which trust.2SG in it or in the.NEUT other
*Cual te sorprende, lo de que Pedro se va a la China
which you surprise.3SG the of that Pedro goes to the China
o lo de que Pablo quiere ser banquero?
or the of that Pablo wants to-be banker
*Cual prefieres, PRO salir a dar una vuelta o PRO
to-go-out-for a walk or
which prefer.2SG
quedarte
en casa?
to-remain-you at home
*Cual elegiras,
que pro lloviera
o que pro
would-rain or that
which would-elect.2SG that
nevara?
would-snow
*Cual lamentas mas, el PRO haberte callado
o el
to-have remained-silent or the
which regret.2SG more the
que pro se haya
enfadado? (cf. (21b))
that
has.3SG-been annoyed?
The contrasts show that the interrogative cual is a [+Gender] interrogative

element and can only be related to [+Gender] categories. Its realization as
[fem] is not morphologically expressed in the standard form, although it
shows masculine or feminine suffixes in nonstandard varieties of Spanish
129
(i.e., cualo/cuala which.MASC/FEM).14 The hypothesis that neuter pronouns

and demonstratives as well as argument CPs and DP-CPs are inherently
[Gender] accounts for the ungrammaticality of (22af), which is due to a
gender specification mismatch between the interrogative and the linguistic
expression related to it. Mismatch cannot occur with the interrogative que
what, because it does not lexically express any specification for this feature.
Hence, que can coexist with any combination of argument types:
(23) a.
b.
c.
d.
Que te inquieta mas, su salida

intempestiva o el que
what you worry.2SG more his leave.FEM impetuous or the that
haya
permanecido silencioso durante toda la reunion?
silent
during all the meeting
has.3SG remained
What worries you more, his impetuous leaving or that he has
remained silent during the whole meeting?
Que prefieres, entrar
tu o que salga el?
what prefer.2SG to-come-in you or that leaves he
What do you prefer, for you to come in or for him to leave?
Que quieres para tu cumpleanos, un coche
o ir
de
a car.MASC or to-go for
what want.2SG for your birthday
vacaciones a Noruega?
vacation to Norway
What do you want for your birthday, a car or to go to Norway for
vacation?
Que te preocupa, lo de que llega Pedro o lo de que
what you worry.3SG the of that arrives Pedro or the of that
Pablo se marcha?
Pablo leaves
What worries you, that Pedro arrives or that Pablo leaves?
Additional evidence in favor of the hypothesis that CPs and DP-CPs are
specified as [Gender] is provided by VP-ellipsis data. VP-deletion is only
possible in Spanish in the context of a modal verb. In these constructions, an
anaphor with a sloppy reading is possible in examples of the types (24),
involving a clausal antecedent in (24a) and a neuter demonstrative in (24b).
The deleted string is crossed out within parentheses:
14
The following examples are taken from Seco et al. (1999, I:1340):
(i)
a. Quien era este?

Cualo?
El fiambre.
who was this.MASC
which.MASC
the cold-meat.MASC
Who was this one? Which one? The corpse.
b. Y a ti, cualas
tetas te gustan, Faraon?
and you, which.FEM tits.FEM you please, Pharaoh
130
M. Carme Picallo
(24) a.
b.
[Que Pedro no estuviera de acuerdo] podra

that Pedro would-disagree
could.1SG
llegar a entenderlo. . .
even to understand-it
That Pedro would disagree I could even understand. . .
. . .pero [esto] no podra
(llegar a entenderlo)
but this not could.1SG (even to understand-it)
. . .but I could not even understand this.
Ellipsis cannot apply in pairs of examples of the types (25a,b) and (25a,c).
In these cases, the first member of the pair is a complex nominal headed by
hecho fact, as shown in (25a), whereas the second member of the pair has
been constructed with a DP-CP, as in (25b), or with an argument CP as in
(25c).
(25) a.
b.
c.
[El hecho
de que Juan no me salude] debo
the fact.MASC of that Juan not me greet must.1SG
lamentarlo. . .
regret-it.MASC
*. . .pero [el que Mara no me haya hablado] no puedo.
but the that Maria not me has spoken not can.1SG
*. . .pero [que Mara no me haya hablado] no puedo.
but that Maria not me has spoken not can.1SG
The structure is grammatical, with the intended interpretation, if ellipsis

does not apply, as shown in (26).
(26) a.
b.
c.
[El hecho
de que Juan no me salude] debo
the fact.MASC of that Juan not me greet must.1SG
lamentarlo. . .
regret-it.MASC
. . .pero [el que Mara no me haya hablado] no puedo
but the that Maria not me has spoken not can.1SG
lamentarlo.
regret-it.NEUT
. . .pero [que Mara no me haya hablado] no puedo
but that Maria not me has spoken not can.1SG
lamentarlo.
regret-it.NEUT
Note that the anaphoric pronoun corresponds to the clitic form lo in every
case. The pronoun is phonologically null in (24b) and (25b,c) and
phonologically overt in (26). In (24a,b), both the antecedents (a CP and a
demonstrative) and the respective anaphoric pronouns (overt and covert lo)
are neuter elementsthat is, they are [Gender] according to my
131
hypothesis. In (25a), the complex nominal antecedent headed by hecho fact

and its anaphoric pronoun lo are masculine (i.e., [+Gender]), whereas lo in
(25b,c) is a neuter (i.e., [Gender]) clitic taking the masculine morphology
by default. This pronoun agrees with the DP-CP and the argument CP in
(26b,c), respectively.
The contrasts show that VP-ellipsis and the sloppy interpretation is
sensitive to the [Gender] specification of the categories involved and not to
the categorial types of the antecedents. Witness the grammaticality of the pair
(24a,b), where the antecedents are, respectively, a CP and a demonstrative
pronoun. VP-ellipsis and the sloppy interpretation is also sensitive, but to a
lesser degree, when [+Gender] elements with different realization as [fem]
are combined. Kitagawa (1991) and Fiengo and May (1994:218, n. 21) point
out that sloppy readings tend to be marginal or ungrammatical in VP-ellipsis
contexts if a [fem] variation between members of the first pair showing an
anaphoric relation and those of the second pair occurs. The construction is
grammatical in pairs like (27a,b) but only marginally acceptable in pairs like
(27a,c).15 In the first case there is no variation for [+Gender] values between
the pair of anaphorically related elements, which are both feminine. VPellipsis has a marginal status in the pair constituted by (27a,c), where the
related elements are feminine and masculine, respectively.16
(27) a.
b.
c.
Si el obispo anunciara
[su dimision],
el
if the bishop would-announce POSS resignation.FEM the
presidente debera
aceptarla. . .
president would-have-to accept-it.FEM
If the bishop would announce his resignation, the president would
have to accept it. . .
. . .pero si el Papa anunciara
[su abdicacion],
el
but if the Pope would.3SG-announce POSS abdication.FEM the
presidente no podra (aceptarla).
president not could (accept-it.fem)
. . .but if the Pope would announce his abdication, the president
would not be able to.
?(??). . .pero si el Papa anunciara
[su
but if the Pope would.3SG-announce POSS
procesamiento],
el presidente no podra (aceptarlo).
impeachment.MASC the president not could (accept-it.masc)
In conclusion, I have shown that argument CPs and DP-CPs behave like
the so-called neuter categories. I have suggested that, formally speaking,
15
Speakers differ with respect to the degree of (un)acceptability that can be attributed to the
pair (27a) and (27c). They agree, however, in considering ungrammatical the pairs (25a) and
(25b), and (25a) and (25c).
16
The deleted elements are also represented as crossed out within parentheses in these
examples.
132
M. Carme Picallo
there is no third gender (the neuter) in Spanish, but the label neuter is best
thought of as corresponding to the expression of [Gender] specification of
some syntactic objects. These include a types of DP-like elements, such as
some demonstratives and a subclass of l-pronouns, as well as clausal
arguments and nominalized clauses.
4.3 Number
Consider the coordinated complex nominals in (28)(30). The head noun in
the second member of the conjunct is usually deleted under identity and is
represented as crossed out. Note that the preposition de of introducing the
CP complement of N remains (see section 2).17 Example (28) shows that
coordination of nominal structures triggers plurality on the verb. In (29), the
coordinated nominals are the antecedents or a pronoun, which must also be in
the plural. Finally, (30) shows that coordinated nominals are able to link a
floating quantifier.
(28) [El hecho de que hubiera desaparecido] junto
con [el hecho
the fact of that had.3SG disappeared together with the fact
de que no tuviera una coartada] lo hicieron sospechoso ante
him made.3PL suspect
to
of that not had.3SG an alibi
la polica.
the police
The fact that he had disappeared together with the (fact) that he didnt
have an alibi made him a police suspect.
(29) Pedro sugirio [la hipotesis de que las oraciones tienen Caso]i
Pedro suggested the hypothesis of that the sentences have Case
y [la hipotesis de que no tienen rasgos u]j, pero nosotros no
not
and the hypothesis of that not have features u but we
lasi+j
asumiremos.
them.FEM assume
Pedro suggested the hypothesis that sentences have Case and the
(hypothesis) that they do not have u-features, but we will not assume
them.
17
All types of nominals with subordinated clauses, arguments as in (i), or adjuncts as in the
examples in the text, behave alike in this respect.
(i)
[El deseo de que vinieras] y [el deseo de que te encontraras bien] me

the desire of that came.2SG and the desire of that you feel.2SG
well me
parecieron ambos sinceros.
seemed.PL both sincere.PL
The desire that you would come and the desire that you would feel well seemed
both sincere to me.

(30) a.
b.
133
[La hipotesis de que las oraciones tienen Caso] y [la

the hypothesis of that the sentences have Case and the
consideradas,
hipotesis de que no tienen rasgos u] eran
hypothesis of that not have features u were.3PL considered
las dos,
incompatibles.
the two.FEM incompatible.PL
The hypothesis that sentences have Case and the (hypothesis)
that they do not have u-features were, the two of them,
considered incompatible.
[El hecho de que sea ministra] junto
con [el hecho de
the fact of that is minister together with the fact of
que presida una ONG] nos parecen, ambos,
that chairs an NGO us seem.3PL both.MASC
asombrosos.
amazing.MASC.PL
The fact that she is a minister together with the (fact) that she
chairs an NGO seem both amazing to us.
The verbal inflection, the ability to link a floating quantifier, and the plural
features of the anaphoric pronoun indicate that complex nominals are assigned
a [+Number] feature specification. Coordination of these categories allows
them to be assigned grammatical plural. If we now compare the preceding
examples with the following ones with coordinated DP-CPs or coordinated
argument CPs, we can see that they always require the verb in the singular, as
in (31).18 They are also unable to link a floating quantifier, as shown in (32),
or to antecede an anaphoric pronoun in the plural, as shown in (33).
(31) a.
b.
[El que hubiera desaparecido] junto

con [el que no
the that had.3SG disappeared together with the that not
tuviera una coartada] lo hizo/*hicieron sospechoso ante
him made.3SG/*PL suspect
to
had.3SG an alibi
la polica.
(cf. (28))
the police
(The fact) that he had disappeared together with (the fact) that he
did not have an alibi made him a police suspect.
[Que el presidente sea reelegido] y [que sea
procesado]
that the president is reelected and that is.3SG impeached
es/*son igualmente probable/*probables en este momento.
at this moment
is/*are equally
probable.SG/*PL
That the president will be reelected and that he will be
impeached are equally probable at this moment.
18
Example (31b) is the Spanish counterpart of the coordinated clausal subject constructions
discussed by McCloskey (1991). He shows that preverbal coordinated CPs that express mutually
excluding propositions appear to trigger plurality on the verb in English. The examples in (31)
(33) show that singular inflection on the verb is required in Spanish, independently of whether the
coordinated construction is propositional or factive and also independently of whether it
expresses mutually excluding states of affairs.
134
M. Carme Picallo
(32) a.
b.
[El que el presidente enfermara] y [el que el primer

the that the president got-sick and the that the prime
ministro dimitiera] provoc-o/*-aron (*ambos) la cada de
minister resigned triggered.SG/*PL both the fall of
la bolsa.
the stock-market
(The fact) that the president got sick and (the fact) that the prime
minister had resigned triggered (both) the fall of the stock market.
[Que el ejercito intervenga
immediatamente] y [que
that the army should-intervene immediately
and that
se resuelva
la crisis por va
diplomatica]
should-be-resolved the crisis by means diplomatic
ha/*n
sido propuesto/*s, (*cada uno), como una solucion
a solution
has/*have been proposed.SG/*PL, each one as
possible al
conflicto (por las mismas personas en
possible to-the conflict by the same people at
momentos diferentes).
times
different
(The fact) that the army should intervene immediately and (the
fact) that the crisis should be resolved by diplomatic means has
been proposed (each one) as a possible solution to the conflict (by
the same people at different times).
(33) Juan lamenta [el que estuvieras en America]i y [el que nunca
Juan regrets the that were.2SG in America and the that never
conocieras a Luisa]j pero yo no loi+j/*losi+j lamento en absoluto.
Luisa but I not it/*them
regret at all
met.2SG
Juan regrets (the fact) that you were in America and (the fact) that you
never met Luisa, but I do not regret it at all.
Coordinated DP-CPs and coordinated CPs can be interpreted as a plurality
of facts or of states of affairs. This interpretation, however, does not surface
in the verbal inflection or result in the ability of these types of coordinated
arguments to link floating quantifiers or antecede anaphoric pronouns in the
plural. In the previous section, I discussed how DP-CPs and argument CPs
behave like so-called neuter items, such as the pronouns ello and lo it and
the demonstratives esto/eso/aquello this/that, and attributed their behavior
to the fact that all are [Gender] items. Neuters also happen to behave like
CPs and DP-CPs with respect to the formal specification for number. They
lack plural morphology,19 require the verb in the singular under coordination,
and are unable to link floating quantifiers as well. The following examples
show the contrasts between neuter demonstratives and pronouns and their
corresponding masculine or feminine counterparts:
19
The demonstrative plurals estos these and esos/aquellos those are masculine, as well as
the pronouns ellos they and los them.

(34) a.
b.
(35) a.
b.
c.
135
Me gustan este
y aquel,
pero no los
to-me like.3PL this.MASC and that.MASC but not them
probare.
will-taste.1SG
I like this one and that one, but I will not taste them.
Me gusta /*-n esto
y aquello, pero no lo/*los
to-me likes/*like this.NEUT and that.NEUT but not it/*them
probare
will-taste.1SG
I like this and that, but I will not taste it/*them.
Esta
y aquella me
parecen ambas/las dos/cada
both/the two/each
this.FEM and that.FEM to-me seem
una exquisita(s).
one exquisite
This and that seem to me both/the two/each one exquisite.
*Esto
y aquello me
parece(n) ambos/los dos/cada
both/the two/each
this.NEUT and that.NEUT to-me seem
uno exquisito(s).
one exquisite
*Ello y lo
otro son ambos/los dos/cada uno
it and the.NEUT other are both/the two/each one
asombrosos.
amazing
It has been observed that there is a correlation between gender and number
feature specification in Spanish, a language that has no plural neuters (see
Ambadiang 1999:4901 and references cited there). Categories that are
grammatically feminine or masculine, namely [+Gender] items, are also
grammatically [+Number], either singular or plural. It appears, however, that
the specification [Gender] prevents the specification [+Number] from being
possible. Suppose there is a correlation (or a hierarchy) between gender and
number, such that all [Gender] syntactic objects are also [Number]. I
cannot offer a hypothesis that can accounts for why an implicational relation
between gender and number specification should exist in Spanish. I can
merely say that the data points out in that direction.20 As far as such
20
A counterexample against the implicational relation that appears to exist between gender
and number is provided by dative clitic pronouns in standard Spanish, which are not inflected for
gender, as shown in (i-a,b), but are inflected for number, as in (i-c):
(i)
a. (A Fernando) le
dije
que esto no me interesaba.
to Fernando l.DAT.SG told.1SG that this not me interested
(Fernando) I told him that this didnt interest me.
b. (A Margarita) le
dije
to Margarita l.DAT.SG told.1SG that this not me interested
(Margarita) I told her that this didnt interest me.
136
M. Carme Picallo
correlation seems to exist, it explains why argument CPs and DP-CPs behave
like neuter items and cannot trigger any phenomena related to plurality.21
c. (A Fernando y a Margarita) les
dije
to Fernando and to Margarita l.DAT.PL told.1SG that this not me interested
(Fernando and Margarita) I told them that this didnt interest me.
I believe, however, that the counterexample is only apparent. The dative clitic le/les shows
some characteristics similar to those of the interrogative cual which (see section 4.2). I suggest
that le/les has also [+Gender] content but its realization as [fem] is not morphologically
expressed in standard Spanish. Some indication that this may be so is provided by the
phenomenon of lasmo, present in some nonstandard varieties. In the lasta dialects, dative clitics
are overtly inflected for [fem], like accusative clitics, according to the gender of their intended
referent:
(ii)
a. (A Margarita) la
dije
to Margarita l.DAT.FEM.SG told.1SG that this not me interested
(Margarita) I told her that this didnt interest me.
b. (A Emma y a Isabel) las
dije
to Emma and to Isabel) l.DAT.FEM.PL told.1SG that this not me interested
(Emma and Isabel) I told them that this didnt interest me.
It must also be pointed out that the plural morpheme of a dative clitic doubling an indirect
object is frequently dropped in Peninsular Spanish. The example (iii-a), where the plural mark /-s/
does not appear, corresponds to the normative (iii-b):
(iii) a. Le
voy
a contar esto a mis hijos.
l.DAT.SG am-going to tell
this to my children
b. Les
voy
a contar esto a mis hijos.
this to my children
l.DAT.PL am-going to tell
I am going to tell this to my children.
The dative paradigm shows that this clitic can be morphologically underspecified for gender as
well as number. For discussion on number underspecification, see Fernandez Soriano
(1999:1259) and references cited there.
21
There is one exception in this paradigm. Bello (1847:sect. 829) points out that coordinated
infinitives with the grammatical function of subject of a symmetric predicate can trigger plurality
on the verb, as shown in (i), taken from Bello. I. Bosque (p.c.) points out that the same exception
applies to the so-called neuter demonstratives, as shown in (ii).
(i)
(ii)
Holgazanear y aprender son incompatibles.

to-laze-around and to-learn are incompatible
Lazing around and learning are incompatible.
a. Esto
y aquello se
complementan.
this.NEUT and that.NEUT each-other complement.3PL
b. Esto
y aquello vienen
a ser la misma cosa.
this.NEUT and that.NEUT come.3PL to be the same thing
Symmetric predicates take collective arguments that necessarily denote sets of entities. The
phenomenon observed in (i) and (ii) appears to be similar to the one found in constructions with
committee-type NPs, which can trigger plural agreement with the verb (see, more recently, Den
Dikken 2001). It must be pointed out, however, that coordinated tensed clauses are unacceptable
with the verb in the plural in the same contexts:
(iii) a. Que
that
b. Que
that
holgazanees
y que aprendas es/??son incompatible/??-s.
you-laze-around and that you-learn is/??are incompatible.SG/??PL
digas esto y que actues de esta forma es/*son contradictorio/*-s.
you-say this and that you-act of that way is/*are contradictory.SG/*PL
I have no insightful explanation to offer for the contrasts between (i), (ii), and (iii). I suggest
that the acceptable cases might be attributed to the DP-like status of demonstratives and to the
quasinominal characteristics of Spanish infinitives, which are in this respect somewhat similar to
English gerund forms (see Hernanz 1999).
137
To conclude, in this section I applied some tests to show the activity of

each of the u (PGN) features in isolation. Several constructions were
examined where CP arguments and DP-CPs are related to items such as
pronouns, wh-expressions, and floating quantifiers, among others. The
constructions I considered require agreement between the elements involved.
I distinguished the cases where specification for a given u-feature F is part of
the lexical endowment of a given category C (either positive or negative)
from the cases where F is not lexically expressed in C. The distinction
enables us to discriminate among cases of feature mismatch from cases of
feature unmatch between the related elements. The former occurs when a
feature (P, G, or N) has a different specification in each of the items involved.
The latter occurs when the feature under consideration is lexically absent in
one of the items. Mismatch always results in ungrammaticality, whereas
unmatch does not. Thus, clausal argument CPs and DP-CPs are [Person]
and cannot link possessives, which have inherent [+Person] content. This is a
case of feature mismatch, and ungrammaticality obtains in anaphora. On the
other hand, CPs and DP-CPs can anaphorically relate with l-pronouns and
pro, which have no specification for [Person], which is a case of feature
unmatch. I also showed that DP-CPs and argument CPs are, descriptively
speaking, neuter syntactic objects. Neuters are elements specified for
[Gender] in Spanish. Neuter arguments can freely relate with interrogatives
that have no specification for this feature, but these arguments can not relate
with [+Gender] interrogatives. I also examined cases of gender feature
mismatch, considering constructions showing anaphora under VP-ellipsis.
Finally, I illustrated how CPs and DP-CPs cannot participate in any
phenomenon related to positive specification for number such as floating
quantification and plural verbal or adjectival morphology. Based on these
data, I suggest that there appears to be a correlation between gender and
number formal content, although I am unable at this time to explain why such
a dependency between noninterpretable gender and interpretable number
should obtain in Spanish.
In summary, argument CPs and DP-CPs do not appear to be u-featureless
syntactic objects but arguments with the u-feature specification of [P, N,
G]. This conclusion leads me to reconsider the implementation of the
operation Agree in structures where one of the arguments, or both, are CPs or
DP-CPs.
5. Feature Checking and the Operation Agree with Clausal Arguments
5.1 u-Feature Matching
Let us adopt the null hypothesis that the operation Agree applies at the
computational component between arguments and functional categories,
without exception. I follow the assumption that Agree consists of feature
matching between two syntactic objects endowed with a set of u-features.
138
M. Carme Picallo
The property of u-completeness for a given argument is satisfied in any

category entering the numeration with specification for PNG features, or a
subset of them, whichever values the specification may take.
In cases like (36), the arguments have a specification for PNG features.
The interpretable u-content of subject and object match the (uninterpretable)
u-feature set of T and v, respectively. The operation Agree can hypothetically
apply between the two pairs of syntactic objects as abstractly represented in
(36b).
(36) a.
b.
[El que hayas

llegado tarde] demuestra [que eres
that are.2SG
the that have.2SG arrived late proves
un irresponsable]
a irresponsible
(The fact) that you have arrived late proves that you are
irresponsible.
[TP DP-CP[P, N, G] [T[P, N, (G)]] [vP [v [P, N, (G)]] V CP[P, N, G]]]
Chomsky (1998, 1999) suggests that the operation Agree is mediated by

the structural Case of the argument. This is a noninterpretable feature that
renders the argument active, or visible. to the probes T or v. It is unclear,
however, whether or not clausal arguments are endowed with a
noninterpretable Case feature. For the sake of discussion, let us momentarily
postpone our inquiry on which feature or features activates the agreement
mechanism in the cases I am examining. Assume now that the functional
elements T or v relate to their corresponding target argument, a CP or a DPCP, through their noninterpretable feature content, whichever it might be.
In structures like (36), the verb enters the numeration as a unitary
collection of lexical and formal features. The elsewhere inflection of thirdperson singular (i.e., the so-called default inflection) is chosen as this lexical
entry is being selected. It is the less marked inflection of the verbal paradigm
(that is, [PI, II] and [NumPlural]) as corresponds to the negative value of
the u-features of its arguments.
The hypothesis that argument CPs and DP-CPs are complex syntactic
objects that undergo the operation Agree appears to be conceptually more
adequate that the u-featureless hypothesis considered in section 3. Besides
the memory load or look-ahead requirement that u-featureless arguments
would impose in the grammar, some other questions concerning expletives
arise under such a view. Take a structure with a postverbal clausal subject, as
in (37), with an expletive it (or its equivalent) in [Spec,TP].
(37) It T seems/is assumed [CP that IP]
If the CP argument related to it would have no u-feature specification, the
expletive and the functional category T must then be u-complete (or u Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002
139
incomplete) for the same types of noninterpretable features in (37). We would

have to adopt this assumption because the formal content of both T and
expletive it must be deleted prior to LF. We would have to assume, in fact,
that it agrees with T (by feature matching).
The claim that argument CPs and DP-CPs have u-features and undergo the
operation Agree with a functional category does not lead us to adopt any
special assumptions for their associated expletives. A checking and erasing
procedure parallel to the one suggested in Chomsky 1999 for structures with
expletive there related to nominals could be envisaged for this case.
Expletive it (or its equivalent in other languages) can be conceived, like
expletive there, as a u-incomplete item (perhaps with the [Gender] or the
[Number] feature). Partial agreement of it and T can delete the
noninterpretable feature of the expletive, and the PNG-u-complete set in T
remains. The probe T abstractly agrees with the interpretable [P, N, G]
u set of the clausal argument, the noninterpretable features of the probe and
those of the goal being subsequently deleted:
(38) It[N/G] . . . T[P,N
(G)]
. . . CP[P,N,G]
Summarizing, I propose that functional categories, as well as their related

arguments, are endowed with a set of u-features. All elements assigned a hrole are subject to the operation Agree with a functional projection. Nominal
or clausal arguments are undifferentiated as far as abstract computational
operations are concerned, whichever u-feature specification they may have.
The computational component is blind to the concrete value of the features
that distinguish nominal arguments from nominalized clauses or CP
arguments: positive specification for PNG features in the first case and
negative specification in the latter cases.
5.2 Case Features
The issue of whether or not clausal arguments have Case has been subject to
inquiry through the years, the general assumption being that CP categories
are incompatible with Case. Accounts for this incompatibility range from
suggesting that argument CPs can be in a Case-marked chain but cannot
remain in a Case-marked position (Stowell 1981)22 to claiming that clauses
cannot receive Case (see Safir 1986 and subsequent literature). Both
empirical evidence and the theoretical framework I am adopting require for
these proposals to be refined. Piera (1979) shows that CPs (tensed or
untensed) can occupy the subject position of a finite clause, a typical Case22
To account for the distribution of clauses in English, Stowell (1981) proposed the Case
Resistance Principle, which states that Case may not be assigned to a category that bears a Caseassigning feature. CPs contain the feature [+Tense], a Case-assigning feature in the framework
adopted by Stowell.
140
M. Carme Picallo
marked position. Furthermore, Plann (1986) offers many examples in Spanish

where CPs with a diversity of functions appear as complements of
prepositions, which are presumably Case-assigning categories. I already
discussed how CP complements of nouns are introduced by the preposition de
of (see, e.g., (8)). CPs can also be complements of verbs selecting
prepositions like confiar en to trust in (to trust), depender de to depend of
(to depend on) or consistir en to consist in (to consist of), as in these
examples:
(39) a.
b.
c.
Confo en que vengas.

trust.1SG in that come.2SG
I trust that you would come.
Todo depende de que lo digas.
all
depends of that it say.2SG
All depends that you say it.
El problema consiste en que nunca habla
claro.
the problem consists in that never speak.3SG clear
The problem consists of him/her never speaking clearly.
CPs can appear as well as objects of prepositions introducing adjuncts of

various types that have a variety of interpretations.23 For cases like (8) and
(39), one can adduce that complements of nouns and complements of [VerbPreposition] complexes have inherent or thematically related Case. For their
part, adjuncts introduced by prepositions have been suggested to have (or be
assigned) what is known as adverbial or semantic Case.24 The latter is not
determined, or checked, by a functional element in the root sentence. Leaving
thematic and adverbial Case aside, the issue to be elucidated here is whether
23
Some examples of CP adjuncts introduced by prepositions are:

(i)
24
a. Esto se arruga con que lo mires.

this wrinkles with that it look.2SG
This gets wrinkled just by looking at it.
b. Dio
dinero para que se
construyera el puente.
gave.3SG money for that SE.IMPERS constructed the bridge
S/he gave money for the bridge to be constructed (by somebody or other).
c. Te
siguio
mirando hasta que te callaste.
to-you continued.3SG looking-at until that you got-silent
S/he continued looking at you until you got silent.
d. Me ro
por no llorar.
me laugh.1SG by not to-cry
I am laughing instead of crying (or: Ive chosen laughing rather than crying).
e. No estoy de humor como para que me digan lindezas.
not am of humor as for that me say.3PL witticisms
I am not in the mood to hear witticisms.
f. Lo hizo
sin
que yo se lo
pidiera.
it did.3SG without that I it him/her asked
S/he did it without me asking for it.
See Andrews 1982, Zaenen, Mailing, and Thrainsson 1985, and, more recently, Schutze
2001.
141
or not subject and object CP arguments are endowed with structural,

noninterpretable, Case features.
Suppose that all arguments enter the derivation with a set of formal
features [[Case], [P,N,G]], the respective sets showing a combination of
different values. Nominal arguments have the property of being endowed
with a noninterpretable feature specified with the value [+Case], which is
mainly expressed with the nominative/accusative alternation in Spanish. For
their part, the nonnominal arguments considered here (CPs and DP-CPs) can
be conceived of being endowed with the specification [Case]. Any of the
two possible specifications for this feature enables an argument to activate
the probes T or v. The u set of the argument goal, whichever combination of
[P,N,G] features it may have, values and deletes the noninterpretable u set of
T/v. The noninterpretable [Case] feature of the goal is subsequently deleted.
Checking and the operation Agree take place as abstractly represented in
(40), independently of whether the subject or the object are of the nominal or
of the clausal types.
(40) [TP Subj[[C][P, N, G]] [T[P, N, G]] [vP v [P, N, G]] V Obj[[C][P, N, G]] ]]
Under my hypothesis, CP arguments and DP-CPs relate with a functional

element through the same abstract mechanisms that nominal arguments do.
On purely conceptual grounds, the conjecture that clausal arguments have a
[Case] content is a possible hypothesis in the theoretical framework I adopt.
That is, no substantial difference exists in terms of basic formal feature
content among the types of arguments that can satisfy a subject or an object
function. The system is simple if we assume that syntactic operations apply
blindly and independently of feature specification. The proposal that clauses
are [Case] arguments is also the trivial solution to the problem of the
longtime-noted incompatibility between [+Case] features (realized as
structural nominative or accusative in Spanish) and argument CPs and how
the incompatibility is solved in the computational component.
The near opacity of Spanish morphology with respect to Case features
does not allow us to test on Spanish data the hypothesis that argument CPs
are explicitly specified as [Case] syntactic objects. We can resort, however,
to examine some data in Euskara (Basque), an ergative language that has
three grammatical casesergative, absolutive, and dative. Overt Case
morphemes in the auxiliary verb system of Euskara reflect the Case content
of the predicate arguments. Consider first the following sentence with a
nominal subject and a complement clause:25
25
The Basque (Euskara) example (41) is from Levin 1993.
142
M. Carme Picallo
(41) Mirenek esan

du
[Jon
Miren.ERG say.PERF AUX.3SG.ERG, 3SG.ABS Jon.ABS
etorri
dela]
come.PERF AUX.3SG.ABS.C
Miren has said that Jon has come.
Levin and Massam (1985) and Laka (1993) claim that ergative cannot be
assigned to a subject unless the object is in the absolutive. In (41), the
auxiliary du shows third-person singular and ergative morphemes
corresponding to the subject Miren.ERG, as well as default third-person
singular and absolutive corresponding to the CP object. Absolutive, which is
morphologically null, is structurally assigned to the nominal object of a
transitive predicate. It also is the default Case in Euskara.26 Tensed argument
CPs appear in a given construction with the agreeing auxiliary inflected for
absolutive, whether CP has the function of object, as in (41), or that of the
subject as in (42).
(42) a.
b.
[Etxean
daudela] iruditu
zait.
house.INES.SG AUX.3PL.C seem.PERF AUX.3SG.ABS, 1SG.DAT
It has seemed to me that they are at home.
[Gaixorik zaudela] ahaztu
zait.
AUX.2SG.C forget.PERF AUX.3SG.ABS, 1SG.DAT
sick
I have forgotten that you are sick. (That you are sick forgotten
is to me.)
Recall once more that argument CPs have been claimed to have the
specification [P, N, G]. This characteristic is expressed on the verbal
inflection by resorting to the default third-person singular morphology. I
suggest that a similar strategy is used in Euskara for the Case feature.
Suppose that argument CPs are endowed with the specification [Case], as I
suggest. The related auxiliary must therefore exhibit absolutive, which is the
unmarked, default, or elsewhere Case in this language.27 Any other
morphological expression of Case is impossible because it manifests a form
of the [+Case] specification, a property of nominals or nominal-like syntactic
objects. Under this idea, consider the following transitive constructions
showing the incompatibility between ergative assignment and subject tensed
clauses. The ungrammatical ergative morphology on the main auxiliary is
shown in boldface in (43).
26
With the exception of (41), the Euskara examples in this section were provided by J. Elordi,
whom I thank for his patient and careful discussion of many data. For a detailed discussion of the
structure of verbal inflection in Euskara, see Laka 1996.
27
Following Schutze (2001), I assume that Universal Grammar may include a notion of
default Case. He suggests that default Case surfaces in nominal elements that do not receive a
Case specification by syntactic means. I propose to extend the notion to include arguments that
cannot be associated with a [+Case] feature.

(43) a.
b.
143
*[Etor zaizeten]
[arduragabekeria handia] erakusten
come AUX.2SG.ABS(Subj) irresponsibility big.ABS prove.IMPERF
du
AUX.3SG.ABS/3SG.ERG
That you have come has proved/shown a big irresponsibility.
*[Jon
etorri
dela]
[arazo
asko]
Jon.ABS come.PERF AUX.3SG.ABS.C problem many.ABS
eragingo ditu.
cause.FUT AUX.3PL.ABS/3SG.ERG
That Jon has come will cause many problems.
In each of these examples, structural absolutive has been assigned to the

nominal objects ardurabekeria handia big irresponsibility and arazo asko
many problems, respectively. Given that CPs are [Case], ergative
assignment cannot obtain. Propositional or factive arguments with the
subject function in a transitive structure require a nominalization or a
nominalization-like process in Euskara in order to be compatible with
[+Case] ERG assignment. For the purposes of this discussion, the
nominalization procedure basically consists of either adding the suffix
-t(z)e to the verbal root or using a nominal-like form on the verbal auxiliary.
In the former case, the predicate projection does not have an auxiliary verb,
as shown in (44). In the latter, the auxiliary is in the infinitive, as in (45). In
each set of examples, the propositional or factive nominalized subject shows
ergative inflection, which agrees with the main auxiliary, also in the ergative.
The relevant morphemes appear glossed in boldface:
(44) a.
b.
[Zuk
Jon
gonbidatzeak]
[arduragabekeria handia]
you.ERG Jon.ABS invite.NOM.ERG.SG irresponsibility big.ABS
erakusten
du.
show.IMPERF AUX.3SG.ABS/3SG.ERG
You inviting Jon has shown/proved a big irresponsibility.
[Mozioa
onartzeak]
[arazo
asko]
motion.DET.ABS approve.NOM.ERG.SG problem many.ABS
eragingo ditu.
cause.FUT AUX.3PL.ABS/3SG.ERG
Approving the motion will cause many problems.
144
M. Carme Picallo
(45) a.
b.
[Zuk
Jon
gonbidatu izanak]
[arduragabekeria
you.ERG Jon.ABS invite.PERF AUX.INF.ERG.SG irresponsibility
handia] erakusten
du.
big.ABS show.IMPERF AUX.3SG.ABS/3SG.ERG
You to have invited Jon has shown/proved a big irresponsibility.
[Mozioa
onartu
izanak]
[arazo
motion.DET.ABS approve.PERF AUX.INF.ERG.SG problem
asko]
eragingo ditu.
many.ABS cause.FUT AUX.3PL.ABS/3SG.ERG
You to have approved the motion will cause many problems.
Finally, consider (46), which has an infinitive subject in the ergative and a
complement tensed clause. The main auxiliary du appears with default
absolutive, for the CP object, and with ergative agreement with the infinitive
(nominal-like) subject. Both appear in boldface in the glosses:
(46) [Zuk
gainditu izanak]
[ikasi
you.ERG pass.PERF AUX.INF.ERG.SG learn.PERF
duzula]
erakusten
du.
AUX.3SG.ABS/2SG.ERG.C show.IMPERF AUX.3SG.ABS, 3SG.ERG
You to have passed has shown/proved that you have studied.
I believe these Euskara examples offer support to the hypothesis that
argument CPs are not Caseless but have, in fact, specification for Case. In
structures like (41), the presence of a Case feature, with the value [Case],
allows ergative assignment to the NP subject. The concrete specification of
this noninterpretable feature has its morphological reflex on the verbal
auxiliary. The [Case] value assigned to argument CPs is expressed by
resorting to the less marked inflection of the Case paradigm (absolutive), the
same way that the interpretable [P, N, G] content of the CP argument is
expressed with the less marked inflection of the u paradigm [III, Sg].
Independently of this interpretation of the Euskara data, another
consideration can be brought up in favor of the proposal that argument
CPs have Case and u content. Assume that [Case] and the u-features [P,
G, N] are properties of Comp. Such a formal content is phonologically
realized in Spanish either as que (tensed CPs), el que (DP-CPs), or a
phonologically null head (infinitive CPs). As suggested by an anonymous
reviewer, the proposal that clausal arguments have a complete formal feature
content in Comp can account for the possibility or the impossibility of
embedded subjects to be the goal of a functional projection in the
superordinate structure. A T or a v in the main clause is able to enter into
an agreement relation with an embedded subject only if a CP is not
selectedthat is, in raising and ECM constructions as in the abstract
representations (47a,b), respectively. If a CP is present, as in (47c), the
agreement relation between the main T/v and the embedded subject is
145
blocked because Comp c-commands the subject and Comp has Case and u
content.28
(47) a.
b.
[TP [T[P,
N, (G)]
[TP DP [vP [v
SEEM [TP
[P, N, (G)]
DP[+P,
+N, +G][+Case]
BELIEVE [TP
to VP]]]]
DP[+P,
+N, +G][+Case]
to VP]]]]
c. [TP XP [vP [v [P, N, (G)] V [CP C[P, N, G][Case] [TP DP[+P, +N, +G][+Case] to VP]]]]]
Summarizing, the proposal that argument CPs are endowed with Case and
PNG features as part of their lexical makeup leads us toward a simpler
system. The need for ad hoc stipulations based on category types is
eliminated because all arguments are alike at the relevant level of abstraction.
In this paper, I have included nonnominal categories within the general
process of abstract agreement. The agreement mechanism proposed in the
minimalist framework can easily be imagined as a species of grammatical
synapse between elements having an interpretable u set of features with a
combination of different values (for nominal and for nonnominal arguments)
and elements endowed with u-receptors (functional categories). The synaptic
contact between syntactic objects in the lexical and in the functional phases
of the clause is possible by the noninterpretable Case feature of the arguments
that activates the process.
References
ABNEY, S. 1987. The English NP in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, Mass.
AMBADIANG, T. 1999. La flexion nominal: Genero y Numero. In Gramatica
descriptiva de la lengua espanola, ed. I. Bosque & V. Demonte, 48434913.
Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
ANDREWS, A. D. 1982. The representation of Case in Modern Icelandic. In The
mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. J. Bresnan, 427503.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
BELLO, A. 1847. Gramatica de la lengua castellana. Madrid: EDAF Ediciones
(1980).
BERNSTEIN, J. 1993. Topics in the syntax of nominal structure across Romance.
Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY, New York.
BRUCART, J. M. 1998. El artculo neutro lo in El foro del espanol en el Centro
Virtual Cervantes. Available at: cvc.cervantes.es/foros.
28
The Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) proposed in Chomsky 1999 also rules out the
impossible agreement relation represented in (47c). The PIC states that the domain of a head X
(X, v, or Comp) is not accessible to operations outside its projection XP. Any operation can only
apply to X and to its specifiers or adjuncts.
146
M. Carme Picallo
CHOMSKY, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

CHOMSKY, N. 1998. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. MIT Occasional Papers
in Linguistics 15. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
CHOMSKY, N. 1999. Derivation by phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
CINQUE, G. 1980. On extraction from NP in Italian. Journal of Italian Linguistics
5:4799.
DEMONTE, V. 1977. La subordinacion sustantiva. Madrid: Catedra.
DEN DIKKEN, M . 2001. Pluringulars, pronouns, and quirky agreement. The
Linguistic Review 18:1941.
FERNANDEZ SORIANO, O. 1999. El pronombre personal: formas y distribuciones:
Pronombres atonos y tonicos. In Gramatica descriptiva de la lengua espanola, ed. I.
Bosque & V. Demonte, 12091273. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
FIENGO, R. & R. MAY. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
GIORGI, A. & F. PIANESI. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to
morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HALLE, M. & A. MARANTZ. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of
inflection. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain
Bromberger, ed. K. Hale & S. J. Keyser, 111176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
HERNANZ, M.L. 1999. El infinitivo. In Gramatica descriptiva de la lengua espanola,
ed. I. Bosque & V. Demonte, 21972356. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
IATRIDOU, S. & D. EMBICK. 1997. Apropos pro. Language 73:5878.
KAYNE, R. 1998. Person morphemes and reflexives. Ms., New York University.
KITAGAWA, A. 1991. Copying identity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
9:497536.
LAKA, I. 1993. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative.
In Papers on Case and agreement I, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18, ed. J.
D. Bobaljik & C. Phillips, 149172. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics.
LAKA, I. 1996. A brief grammar of Euskara, the Basque language. Available at:
www.ehu.es/grammar.
LEVIN, B. 1993. On the nature of ergativity. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,
Mass.
LEVIN, B. & D. MASSAM. 1985. Surface ergativity: Case/theta relations
reexamined. In Proceedings of NELS 15, ed. J. Bergman et al., 286301,
Amherst, Mass.: GLSA Publications.
LEONETTI. M. 1999. El artculo. In Gramatica descriptiva de la lengua espanola, ed.
I. Bosque & V. Demonte, 787890. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
MCCLOSKEY, J. 1991. There, it, and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 22:563567.
PICALLO, M. C. 1991. Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus 3:279316.
PICALLO, M. C. 2001. Nominalized clauses, clausal arguments, and agreement.
CatWPL 9:6984.
PIERA, C. 1979. Some subject sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 10:732735.
PLANN S. 1981. The two el+infinitive constructions in Spanish. Linguistic Analysis
7:203240.
PLANN, S. 1986. On Case marking clauses in Spanish: Evidence against the Case
Resistance Principle. Linguistic Inquiry 17:336346.
POSTAL, P. 1966. On so-called pronouns in English. In Report of the 17th annual
Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, 177206. Washington,
D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
SAFIR, K. 1986. Syntactic chains. New York: Cambridge University Press.
TZE, C. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4:205238.
SCHU
SECO, M. et al. 1999. Diccionario del espanol actual. Madrid: Aguilar.
147
STOWELL, T. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,

Mass.
INSSON. 1985. Case and grammatical
ZAENEN, A., J. MALING & H. THRA
functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3:441
483.
M. Carme Picallo
Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona
Filologia Catalana, Edifici B
08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona)
Spain
carme.picallo@uab.es

Abstract Agreement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abstract Agreement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Syntax 5:2, August 2002, 116147

ABSTRACT AGREEMENT AND CLAUSAL

Abstract Agreement and Clausal Arguments

Clausal arguments (henceforth argument CPs) have been argued to lack

Es necesario [que hablemos un rato]

Spanish nominalized clauses (henceforth DP-CPs) behave like argument CPs

El PRO estar en Pars y el PRO haber hablado con Ethel me

Anaphoric pronouns taking simple or coordinated CPs or DP-CPs as

Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002

[[El que estuvieras en Pars] y [el que hablaras

The hypothesis that CP or DP-CP arguments (subjects or objects) have

Abstract Agreement and Clausal Arguments

[El [que creas

These constructions have been argued to conform to a [DP-NP-CP]

[DP Det [CP C [IP T . . . ]]]

a. Lamento el hecho *(de) que no me saludara.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002

Nominalized clauses also contrast in this respect with Spanish

In the Lo de CP constructions in (9), the deleted N can be given an

Abstract Agreement and Clausal Arguments

Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002

(11) *[TP DP-CP [ T[P,

Full interpretation would require that the feature composition of T and v in

Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002

Abstract Agreement and Clausal Arguments

4. The u-Features of Nominalized Clauses and Argument CPs

[El hecho de que hubieran desaparecido]i no pareca

Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002

The same phenomenon can be observed in examples involving argument

La demostracion de [el procedimiento de asignacion de Caso

See Cinque 1980, Picallo 1991, and references cited there.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002

Abstract Agreement and Clausal Arguments

possessives and their respective linguistic CP and DP-CP antecedents. The

*Es necesario PROi sacar a sui perro de paseo

Goldbach conjeturo [que todo numero perfecto ha

a. Pedro y Juan nos mostraron su

Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002

(20) [[Que leas

a. Es necesario PRO cuidar

Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002

Abstract Agreement and Clausal Arguments

a. [Que Bill y Nancy hubieran cometido perjurio]i favoreca a los

Cual which is incompatible with neuter demonstratives or pronouns. It is

*Cual quieres, esto

The contrasts show that the interrogative cual is a [+Gender] interrogative

Abstract Agreement and Clausal Arguments

(i.e., cualo/cuala which.MASC/FEM).14 The hypothesis that neuter pronouns

Que te inquieta mas, su salida

a. Quien era este?

Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002

[Que Pedro no estuviera de acuerdo] podra

The structure is grammatical, with the intended interpretation, if ellipsis

Abstract Agreement and Clausal Arguments

hypothesis. In (25a), the complex nominal antecedent headed by hecho fact

Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002

[El deseo de que vinieras] y [el deseo de que te encontraras bien] me

Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002

Abstract Agreement and Clausal Arguments

[La hipotesis de que las oraciones tienen Caso] y [la

[El que hubiera desaparecido] junto

Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002

[El que el presidente enfermara] y [el que el primer

Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002