- Email: [email protected]
The design of agreement: evidence from Chamorro.
ELSEVIER
Lingua
112 (2002) 23 l-233 www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua
Book review Sandra Chung, The design of agreement: evidence from Chamorro. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1998. xii + 423 pp. Reviewed by Julia Barron, Surrey Morphology Group, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH. UK. Sandra Chung’s intention is to explore the architecture of agreement through the medium of the Austronesian language of Chamorro. As such this book provides a wealth of data invaluable to any linguist interested in language typology and in the cross-linguistic validity of theoretical insights. The general theoretical approach adopted in this book is of the P&P and Minimalism frameworks. The book comprises ten chapters. The first introduces Chung’s novel conception of agreement. She argues that there are in fact two agreement relations. The first, and more familiar perhaps, being termed Feature Compatibility, for example subjectpredicate agreement in person and number, where elements are said to agree when their feature specifications match or covary systematically. The second agreement relation identified by Chung, called the Associate Relation, is a syntactic-semantic relation of agreement encompassing modifier-head type agreement, but which is grounded in phrase structure and which is an extension of the notion of the specifierhead relation. The validity and ramifications of the Associate Relation is the main focus of this book. Chapter Two gives a useful description of the structure of Chamorro, a language with dominant VSO order. Chung exemplifies the major categories and agreement types and explains some systematic prohibitions of subject and object combinations in transitive clauses, a phenomenon she goes on to explore in Chapter Five. She concludes that Chamorro does not have the classic Western Austronesian voice system. Chapter Three, entitled ‘Configurationality’, explores the phrase structure of Chamorro and argues that clauses whose predicates are [+V] have a configurational phrase structure in which the maximal projection of [+H] forms a constituent separate from the subject, the subject occupying the specifier of IO. Chung is concerned here to motivate the phrase structure of Chamorro independently of the morphological form of the language, believing in a separation of morphology and syntax. The first half of the chapter explores the issue of configurationality. Two approaches to nonconfigurational language phrase structure (Hale, 1983; Jelinek, 1984) are discussed, compared and dismissed as possible analyses of Chamorro. The second half 037%2166/02/$ - see front matter PII: SOO24-3841(01)00037-7
0 2002 Elsevier
Science
B.V. All rights reserved.
232
Book review I Lingua 112 (2002) 231-233
of the chapter explores various proposals for the locus of Subject in clause structure and the issue of Ergativity. Chapter Four ‘On deriving VSO’ is where Chung seeks to account for the word order properties of Chamorro. Her novel, and undoubtedly controversial, contribution is the advocacy of a subject-lowering approach to the VSO order of Chamorro, following insights from Choe’s (1986) analysis of Berber VSO order. After a brief introduction to the theory of the verb-raising approach adopted by others, notably Emonds (1980), to account for surface VSO order, Chung introduces her subject lowering analysis, in which the subject lowers from the specifier of IO, where it leaves a co-indexed null pronominal proj and adjoins to any projection of the [+V] predicate, not just the head. One consequence of this is that Chamorro VSO order is derived from a basic VOS structure, not from an SVO structure, challenging the universality of the SVO basic structure as a source for VSO order. Chung argues that her approach is preferable in part because it accounts for the VOS alternative pattern found in the language. The subject-lowering analysis proposed in Chapter Four forms an essential ingredient to the main dish of the book, which is Chapter Five in which Chung outlines her syntactic agreement relation, the Associate Relation. The Associate relation is motivated by the need to reconcile five distinct but overlapping properties found in agreement: summetry, reflexivity, transitivity, locality and action-at-a-distance. The Associate Relation is defined as follows: The Associate Relation A category X and a category Y are Associates if and only if a. X and Y are Direct Associates; or else b. There is a category Z such that X and Z are Associates and Z and Y are Associates. The Direct Associate referred to in the above definition is in turn defined in: The Direct Associate Relation A category X and a category Y are Direct Associates if and only if c. X is a functional head and Y is the specifier of X; or d. X is a head and Y is a projection of X; or e. X and Y are adjacent links in a chain. Chung believes that the Associate relation captures the five essential agreement properties. She further outlines some language-specific properties of Chamorro, and in particular argues that there is no need to assume an AgrO category in the language. The two agreement relations, Feature Compatibility and the Associate Relation are held to be independent relations, which may overlap, but neither of which may be reduced to the other. A short section on the morphology of agreement draws on an Andersonian approach (Anderson, 1977, 1984, 1992) to inflection. Chapter Six ‘The morphology of extraction’ explores the distinction between canonical types of agreement, in which Feature Compatibility holds between
Book review I Lingua 112 (2002) 231-233
233
Associates, and non-canonical agreement, where Feature Compatibility alone is at work. Chung examines with detailed exemplification two types of agreement: Operator-C agreement and Wh-agreement and Wh-agreement in Chamorro, which she claims illustrate that Feature Compatibility may be independent of the Associate Relation, in particular that Wh-agreement is of the non-canonical type. Chapter Seven ‘Topic and focus’ examines two contrasting constructions involving movement to non-argument positions, topicalisation and focus or cleft constructions. The focus construction is argued to be derived by Wh-movement, but the topic construction is not. Chapter Eight ‘Syntactic agreement and locality’ returns to an exploration of the Associate Relation and its role in syntactic licensing. The first claim is that the Chamorro extraction data support the universality of the head government requirement and that the canonical licensing heads are nondistinct from [+V]. The second is that the Associate Relation is pivotal in Chamorro in that functional heads may only license traces that are their Associates. Chapter Nine ‘Adjunct extraction’ involves a detailed exemplification of the properties of VP adverbials and sentence adverbials in extraction. Both types are accessible to Wh-movement. Chung concludes from Wh-agreement patterns and locality that there is an asymmetry at work that is more elaborate than the adjunct-argument asymmetry. It involves not just selected vs. non-selected adverbials, but ‘referential’ vs. ‘non-referential’ elements. Chapter Ten is a short conclusion to the book. The book would be a valuable addition to any collection, providing as it does detailed analysis of some particularly interesting phenomena in this Austronesian language.
References Anderson, S.R., 1977. On the forma1 description of inflection. In: W.A. Beach, SE. Fox and S. Philosoph (ed.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1544. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Anderson, S.R., 1984. On representations in morphology: Case, agreement and inversion in Georgian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2, 157-218. Anderson, S.R., 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge University Press. Choe, H.-S., 1986. An SVO analysis of VSO languages and parameterization: A study of Berber. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA. Emonds, J.E., 1980. Word order in generative grammar. Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 33-54. Hale, K., 1983. Walpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 5-47. Jelinek, E., 1984. Empty categories, Case and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2,39-76.
Lingua
112 (2002) 23 l-233 www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua
Book review Sandra Chung, The design of agreement: evidence from Chamorro. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1998. xii + 423 pp. Reviewed by Julia Barron, Surrey Morphology Group, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH. UK. Sandra Chung’s intention is to explore the architecture of agreement through the medium of the Austronesian language of Chamorro. As such this book provides a wealth of data invaluable to any linguist interested in language typology and in the cross-linguistic validity of theoretical insights. The general theoretical approach adopted in this book is of the P&P and Minimalism frameworks. The book comprises ten chapters. The first introduces Chung’s novel conception of agreement. She argues that there are in fact two agreement relations. The first, and more familiar perhaps, being termed Feature Compatibility, for example subjectpredicate agreement in person and number, where elements are said to agree when their feature specifications match or covary systematically. The second agreement relation identified by Chung, called the Associate Relation, is a syntactic-semantic relation of agreement encompassing modifier-head type agreement, but which is grounded in phrase structure and which is an extension of the notion of the specifierhead relation. The validity and ramifications of the Associate Relation is the main focus of this book. Chapter Two gives a useful description of the structure of Chamorro, a language with dominant VSO order. Chung exemplifies the major categories and agreement types and explains some systematic prohibitions of subject and object combinations in transitive clauses, a phenomenon she goes on to explore in Chapter Five. She concludes that Chamorro does not have the classic Western Austronesian voice system. Chapter Three, entitled ‘Configurationality’, explores the phrase structure of Chamorro and argues that clauses whose predicates are [+V] have a configurational phrase structure in which the maximal projection of [+H] forms a constituent separate from the subject, the subject occupying the specifier of IO. Chung is concerned here to motivate the phrase structure of Chamorro independently of the morphological form of the language, believing in a separation of morphology and syntax. The first half of the chapter explores the issue of configurationality. Two approaches to nonconfigurational language phrase structure (Hale, 1983; Jelinek, 1984) are discussed, compared and dismissed as possible analyses of Chamorro. The second half 037%2166/02/$ - see front matter PII: SOO24-3841(01)00037-7
0 2002 Elsevier
Science
B.V. All rights reserved.
232
Book review I Lingua 112 (2002) 231-233
of the chapter explores various proposals for the locus of Subject in clause structure and the issue of Ergativity. Chapter Four ‘On deriving VSO’ is where Chung seeks to account for the word order properties of Chamorro. Her novel, and undoubtedly controversial, contribution is the advocacy of a subject-lowering approach to the VSO order of Chamorro, following insights from Choe’s (1986) analysis of Berber VSO order. After a brief introduction to the theory of the verb-raising approach adopted by others, notably Emonds (1980), to account for surface VSO order, Chung introduces her subject lowering analysis, in which the subject lowers from the specifier of IO, where it leaves a co-indexed null pronominal proj and adjoins to any projection of the [+V] predicate, not just the head. One consequence of this is that Chamorro VSO order is derived from a basic VOS structure, not from an SVO structure, challenging the universality of the SVO basic structure as a source for VSO order. Chung argues that her approach is preferable in part because it accounts for the VOS alternative pattern found in the language. The subject-lowering analysis proposed in Chapter Four forms an essential ingredient to the main dish of the book, which is Chapter Five in which Chung outlines her syntactic agreement relation, the Associate Relation. The Associate relation is motivated by the need to reconcile five distinct but overlapping properties found in agreement: summetry, reflexivity, transitivity, locality and action-at-a-distance. The Associate Relation is defined as follows: The Associate Relation A category X and a category Y are Associates if and only if a. X and Y are Direct Associates; or else b. There is a category Z such that X and Z are Associates and Z and Y are Associates. The Direct Associate referred to in the above definition is in turn defined in: The Direct Associate Relation A category X and a category Y are Direct Associates if and only if c. X is a functional head and Y is the specifier of X; or d. X is a head and Y is a projection of X; or e. X and Y are adjacent links in a chain. Chung believes that the Associate relation captures the five essential agreement properties. She further outlines some language-specific properties of Chamorro, and in particular argues that there is no need to assume an AgrO category in the language. The two agreement relations, Feature Compatibility and the Associate Relation are held to be independent relations, which may overlap, but neither of which may be reduced to the other. A short section on the morphology of agreement draws on an Andersonian approach (Anderson, 1977, 1984, 1992) to inflection. Chapter Six ‘The morphology of extraction’ explores the distinction between canonical types of agreement, in which Feature Compatibility holds between
Book review I Lingua 112 (2002) 231-233
233
Associates, and non-canonical agreement, where Feature Compatibility alone is at work. Chung examines with detailed exemplification two types of agreement: Operator-C agreement and Wh-agreement and Wh-agreement in Chamorro, which she claims illustrate that Feature Compatibility may be independent of the Associate Relation, in particular that Wh-agreement is of the non-canonical type. Chapter Seven ‘Topic and focus’ examines two contrasting constructions involving movement to non-argument positions, topicalisation and focus or cleft constructions. The focus construction is argued to be derived by Wh-movement, but the topic construction is not. Chapter Eight ‘Syntactic agreement and locality’ returns to an exploration of the Associate Relation and its role in syntactic licensing. The first claim is that the Chamorro extraction data support the universality of the head government requirement and that the canonical licensing heads are nondistinct from [+V]. The second is that the Associate Relation is pivotal in Chamorro in that functional heads may only license traces that are their Associates. Chapter Nine ‘Adjunct extraction’ involves a detailed exemplification of the properties of VP adverbials and sentence adverbials in extraction. Both types are accessible to Wh-movement. Chung concludes from Wh-agreement patterns and locality that there is an asymmetry at work that is more elaborate than the adjunct-argument asymmetry. It involves not just selected vs. non-selected adverbials, but ‘referential’ vs. ‘non-referential’ elements. Chapter Ten is a short conclusion to the book. The book would be a valuable addition to any collection, providing as it does detailed analysis of some particularly interesting phenomena in this Austronesian language.
References Anderson, S.R., 1977. On the forma1 description of inflection. In: W.A. Beach, SE. Fox and S. Philosoph (ed.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1544. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Anderson, S.R., 1984. On representations in morphology: Case, agreement and inversion in Georgian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2, 157-218. Anderson, S.R., 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge University Press. Choe, H.-S., 1986. An SVO analysis of VSO languages and parameterization: A study of Berber. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA. Emonds, J.E., 1980. Word order in generative grammar. Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 33-54. Hale, K., 1983. Walpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 5-47. Jelinek, E., 1984. Empty categories, Case and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2,39-76.