The syntax of manner quotative constructions in English and Dutch

This paper proposes an account of some properties of the manner quotative constructions be like [Quote] in English and hebben (zo)iets van [Quote] in Dutch. We make two main claims about these constructions. First, in the spirit of Rothstein’s (1999) proposal for adjectival predicates of copula be, we propose that eventive direct speech interpretations of these quotatives are derived via a coercion mechanism akin to those that make count readings out of mass nouns in the nominal domain. Second, adapting a proposal for be like originally made by Kayne (2007), we propose that some exceptional syntactic properties of be like as a quote introducer in English are explained by the presence of a silent something quantifier, which takes a like-headed PP as its complement. We compare English be like quotatives with innovative (zo)iets van quotative constructions in Dutch, which contain an overt something quantifier and behave similarly

A note on Basque participles

This paper develops and extends a unified account of two different guises of participial affixes in Basque suggested in Haddican (2007). The affixes -tu/-i/-n/-Ø are traditionally described as 'participial' affixes or perfective markers in view of the fact that on main verb complements of finite auxiliaries, they obligatorily cooccur with a perfective interpretation. Nevertheless, in non-finite embeddings, these affixes do not force perfective interpretation, and instead behave as infinitival markers. It is proposed that the affixes -tu/-i/-n/-Ø are merged as infinitival heads, and that the perfective guise of these elements involves raising of the verb root+-tu/-i/-n/-Ø to a null perfective head. Indirect evidence in favour of this proposal comes from the behaviour of these affixes in central dialects

Movement from the double object construction is not fully symmetrical

A movement asymmetry arises in some languages that are otherwise symmetrical for both A- and A-bar movement in the double object construction (DOC), including Norwegian, North-West British English, and a range of Bantu languages including Zulu and Lubukusu: a Theme object can be A-bar-moved out of a Recipient (Goal) passive, but not vice versa. Our explanation of this asymmetry is based on phase theory, more specifically a stricter version of the Phase Interpretability Condition proposed by Chomsky (2001). The effect is that, in a Theme passive, a Recipient object destined for the C-domain gets trapped within the lower V-related phase by movement of the Theme. The same effect is observed in Italian, a language in which only Theme passives are possible. Moreover, a similar effect is also found in some Bantu languages in connection with object marking/agreement: object agreement with the Theme in a Recipient passive is possible, but not vice versa. We show that this, too, can be understood within the theory that we articulate