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

204 MARIA LUISA RIVEROterms and is due to the different structural requirements of li and the auxiliary. Inaddition, sentences with fronted coordinated verbs such as those in (5) illustratethat the auxiliary need not follow the first prosodic word in the clause. Thisargues against prosodic inversion as first proposed by Halpern (1995). Likewise,the two verbs and the conjunction in (5) cannot, under the usual assumptions,form a morphological word with the auxiliary; this argues against the morphologicalmerger treatment suggested but not truly developed in Embick andIzvorski (1994, 1995), among others.(5) Vidjallseen/'andkupilbought'I have seen and boughtsumPF-1SGthe book.knigata.book. theIn the LHM analysis, the verbs in (5) front to C as coordinated heads, and theauxiliary in I or T is syntactically independent of them, which solves theproblem. Because in this type of derivation LHM does not place the verb(s) inthe checking domain of the attractor sum, a successful checking relation cannot apriori result in this case, regardless of the feature content of verbs and auxiliary.However, in other circumstances LHM and other stylistic rules may establish achecking domain: in (3), for instance, the verb raises into the checking domainof li in C. I examine the consequences of this in detail later.(III) LHM as PF rule applies to satisfy configurational PF conditions, notto check the formal features of the attractor. In cases such as (5), my claim isthat the auxiliary as attractor must appear in PF in the complement of a headthat is visible at that level. Fronting the verb to C fullfils this structural requirement,for it makes visible a position that takes as its internal or minimalcomplement domain in Chomsky's terms (1995) the projection headed by theauxiliary. These ideas are developed in more detail in Rivero (to appear).However, the verb may also move into the checking domain of the attractor, asin (3); thus, the stylistic rule need not differ in output from the ordinary syntacticrule whose aim is to check formal features. However, I argue later that whenthe derivation involves a PF process attractee, and attractor do not establish asuccessful checking relation, since they do not display matching formal featureseven when they form a checking configuration.(IV) The stylistic rule does not feed LF. In the case of the LHM construction,the fronted nonfinite verb is neither the topic nor the focus of the sentence,however these terms are used. In all the languages with LHM, such constructionsare by general consensus out-of-the blue and neutral sentences ifdeclarative and ordinary yes-no questions if interrogative. Another way to expressthis is that the sentence as a whole is in focus. This property follows if LHMapplies in the PF branch and so cannot have an input in LF, unlike topicalizalion/focalization,which does.(V) PF rules are characteristically blocked by Merge and feature checkingMove in the computational system, if those operations have an output thatsatisfies the PF condition the stylistic rule is intended to satisfy. In particular, awell-known property of LHM is that it can never cooccur with wh-movement,as in (4a). This is because wh-movement applies in the syntax to check the forBlg