Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages (Oxford ... - Cryptm.org

100 ANNAROUSSOU7. Sportiche (1997) argues for a similar approach, according to which the D headis generated higher up in the clause, and only the NP part of the DP is generatedwithin the VP shell, the domain where thematic properties are assigned. The NP partfurther moves and attaches to the DP, giving rise to the DP constituent. (These D positionscorrespond to the "clitic phrases" of Sportiche 1994.) This approach predictsthat A movement might give rise to reconstruction effects in some cases. A discussionof this issue, however, is beyond the scope of the present paper.8. Recall that in control the agent or initiator in the matrix clause controls theeventuality denoted by the embedded predicate as well as one of the participants inthe embedded situation. This imposes certain restrictions on the type of predicatethat we find in the embedded clause, namely, both the matrix and the embedded thematicsubjects must be interpreted agentively. If control is the result of Attraction oftwo 6 roles by a single DP, we find the same requirement as we find in parasitic gapconstructions as far as the identity of the gaps is concerned:(i) a. John iried to run = John t)l 02b. Which book did you file t without reading e?In control, the requirement is that the two thematic roles are nondistinct (agentivereadings), while in parasitic gaps both gaps must be nondistinct in terms of D and tj>features. For example in (ib) both t and e resume two gaps of the same phrase,namely, which book. In raising constructions we do not have this requirement, for thesimple reason that the matrix predicate has no thematic property to assign to the DPsubject: the only 6 role is that provided by the embedded predicate.9. Kayne (1997) argues that control involves a "doubling" configuration withsubsequent movement of the DP associate to the matrix position, stranding PRO:(i) tried [[John PRO] logo](ii) John tried [[Joint PRO] to go\PRO in (i)-(ii) has a status equivalent to that of a clitic in clitic doubling constructions.10. Another instance of an impoverished clause is found with participials thatalso show agreement, as illustrated by the following Italian example:(i) Maria e partita.Mary is left-3SG.FEM'Mary has left.'In (i) there is agreement between the DP Maria and the past participle partita. If participlesare also CPs (cf. Kayne 1993, Savoia and Manzini (in press)), then they arealso characterized by the lack of a D (subject) position, resembling control complementsto some extent.11. Construction (33) may show no agreement between the matrix and the embeddedclause:(i) (Ta pedja) fenete na doulevoun (ta pedja)the children seem-3SG PRT work-3PL (the children)'It seems that the children are working.'In English the lack of agreement is attested with a that clause instead of an infinitive,implying that raising has not taken place. Something similar could be argued for (i)as well, the only difference being that the complement clause is a subjunctive in both(33) and (i): the embedded b feature is not Attracted by AgrS in the matrix clause; thus,there is no long distance agreement in this case. One of the implications is that theembedded clause must have a D position in (i). Note that there is a difference in