An Agree-Based Analysis of the Relationship between Conjunctions, Focus, and NPIs
SONG Wei
Graduate School of Nagoya University
1. Introduction
This paper provides an analysis of the feature specification of the conjunctions if and whenand discusses how it explains the differences in behavior between if and when with regard tonegative polarity item (NPI) licensing and the relation with a focus particle (FP) like only.
2. Facts
First, it is observed from the contrast in (1) that NPIs are licensed in an if-clause, but not ina when-clause.
(1)
a. If John hits anyone, he is a dangerous guy.
b. *When John hits anyone, he is a dangerous guy.
Second, FP only can focalize an if-clause irrespective of whether it is adjacent to the if-clause,
whereas only can focalize a when-clause only when it is adjacent to the when-clause, as shownin (2) and (3) (where the focalized portions are underlined; note that other interpretations, inwhich the VP, the object DP or the adjunct PP in the matrix clause is focalized, are alsoavailable for (2b)).
(2)
a. The committee can make its decision by Friday of next week only if it receives
a copy of the latest report.
b. The committee can only make its decision by Friday of next week if it receives
a copy of the latest report.
(American Heritage Dictionary of English Language, 1992)(3)
a. She picked up the receiver only when he entered, not before.
b. She only picked up the receiver when he entered; she didn’t dial the number.
(ibid.)
3. A Feature-Based Analysis of if and when
As for the licensing of English NPIs, I follow Song (2010) and assume that an affective
element like not bears a [u-Foc] feature and an [i-Aff] feature, whilst an NPI bears an [i-Foc]feature and a [u-Aff] feature. In the system of Chomsky (2000), the two items enter into an
Agree relation and the [u-Foc] and [u-Aff] features are deleted, with the result that the NPI islicensed. Extending this analysis to NPI licensing in conditionals, it is reasonable to hold that if
has a [u-Foc] feature and an [i-Aff] feature, while when has no formal features, as shown in (4)and (5), giving rise to the contrast in (1).
(4)[CP If[u-Foc][i-Aff] [TP Mary saw anyone[i-Foc][u-Aff]]], she will let us know.
Agree(5)*[CP When [TP Mary saw anyone[i-Foc][u-Aff]]], she will let us know.
Do Not Agree

Based on the arguments above, the derivation of (2b) could be analyzed as in (6) (where theelements which have formal features and enter into an Agree relation are dark-tinted, the1elements which are spelt out are indicated by fence line, and the elements which receive a nullspell-out are indicated by strikethrough). In (6a), if, which is generated in Co, Agrees with TP;
the latter then raises to Spec-C. According to the Phase Impenetrability Condition in Chomsky(2000), when the CP phase is completed, the domain of CP is transferred to LF and PF, andbecomes inaccessible to an external probe. Alone the lines of recent work on focalization basedon Agree (Watanabe (2004)), I suggest that FP only with a [u-Foc] feature and an [i-Aff] featureprobes its domain and Agrees with TP at the edge of CP as in (6b), resulting in the focalizationof TP. Finally, applying Hornstein’s (2009) proposal that lower copies may be pronounced undersome circumstances, the higher copy of TP in Spec-C is deleted.
(6)a. [CP [TP it receives a copy of the latest report][i-Foc][u-Aff] [C′ if[u-Foc][i-Aff][TP it receives a copy of the latest report][i-Foc][u-Aff] ]]b. The committee can only[u-Foc][i-Aff] make its decision by Friday of next week
[CP [TP it receives a copy of the latest report][i-Foc][u-Aff] [C′ if[u-Foc][i-Aff][TP it receives a copy of the latest report][i-Foc][u-Aff] ]]In the case of (2a), I suggest that only, if and TP enter into a multiple Agree relation within theCP phase headed by if, as illustrated in (7) (assuming that only occupies some position within CP,
say Spec-C).
(7)
The committee can make its decision by Friday of next week
[CP only[u-Foc][i-Aff] if[u-Foc][i-Aff] [TP it receives a copy of the latest report] [i-Foc][u-Aff]].
Multiple AgreeAs for the derivation of (3), since when has no formal features, its TP complement cannot
be raised to Spec-C. Therefore, if it is to be focalized by only, it must be inside the same phaseas only, thus accounting for the fact that only cannot focalize the when-clause in (3b). On theother hand, only can focalize the element immediately after it, because the two are within thesame phase and hence can enter into an Agree relation, as shown in (8).
(8)
a. She picked up the receiver [CP only[u-Foc][i-Aff] when [TP he entered] [i-Foc][u-Aff]].
Agreeb.

She [vP only[u-Foc][i-Aff][VP picked up the receiver] [i-Foc][u-Aff]] when he entered.
AgreeReferences
Chomsky, Noam (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Roger Martin, DavidMichaels & Juan Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honorof Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hornstein, Norbert (2009). A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Song, Wei (2010). A Feature-Based Analysis of Negative Polarity Items and Their Developmentin the History of English. Paper presented at the ELSJ 3rd International Spring Forum,Aoyama Gakuin University.
Watanabe, Akira (2004). Parametrization of Quantificational Determiners and Head-InternalRelatives. Language and Linguistics, 5, 59-97.

2